Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Felipito1.966

Felipito1.966 (talk · contribs)

This user has been performing largely unconstructive edits throughout his edit history, mainly changing US spellings to British in defiance of WP:ENGVAR and adding Spanish diacritics to non-Spanish names (such as geographical and biological names in the Philippines). He would stop at nothing, even turning a working link into a red link (see this and this). His blatant defiance WP:MOS has been pointed out numerous times (see his talk page's history, especially his removal of comments) and he replies extremely rudely (including a very uncivil e-mail to me). With this long history I concluded that he was beyond final warning and nevertheless posted a Level 4 warning. Then today he did a similar edit again. He had been warned by so many editors, yet he called every recent poster of his talk page "dictators". His British English supremacism needs to be stopped. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked his responses to Alphathon just now and they smack of arrogance. So what if you're an English teacher?--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's also a report been filed at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1. One of the discussions should be closed (and a trout for that), 2. can you provide he diffs of all thats alleged? The one diff doesnt indicate wrongdoing.Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The AIV report has now been closed by another admin. -- Dianna (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of his edits are about changing ENGVAR spellings. Just look at his talk page's long history and compare indicated articles. He even changed others' spellings in talk pages! HkCaGu (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree that the user was unnecessarily incivil in his conversation with Alphathon, this isn't as simple as that. Just looking down his contributions, a lot of his changing spelling from US to GB spelling is on UK or English related articles (i.e. Beeching cuts, English language in Europe, Robert Grabarz, G4S) which of course is correct per ENGVAR. There are a few that are debatable (Ruby Wax), a few that are clearly wrong (but mainly because they broke links rather than being wrong per MOS or ENGVAR) and a few that were just incorrect and should've been simply reverted. In this particular case, considering that HkCaGu issued a vandalism warning for this edit a WEEK after it was made - which is frankly ridiculous - I'm not entirely surprised he reacted poorly. You should've just reverted it and explained the problem that it broke a link. And I'm certainly very unimpressed with your bolded "If you do any further unnecessary WP:ENGVAR edits again, I will get you blocked" on his talkpage. Don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see any issue here beyond a bit of mild POV pushing. It's quite common for British people, particularly those who work in academia or schools, as this guy seems to be, to feel quite strongly about use of US versus British English, particularly if they're on a US hosted site. Frankly, it's exactly what I'd expect a new user with his background to do, but as long as he follows the manual of style, there's no issue. And I agree that threatening to block a user when you've got no real rationale to do so isn't particularly civil - watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • His attitude may have been ENGVAR, but the edits are more disruptive than POV pushing. The -ize/-ise issue is an internal UK issue which means it isn't that wrong even in UK English. I don't think he can be called a "new" user. He's been around for three years, and had accumulated numerous warnings, many of which he had removed. Me slapping a Level 4 isn't very rude. I have been much less active on Wikipedia in the past two months, and he doesn't edit a lot, and we don't cross paths too often, so I don't see why issuing warning after a week is anything wrong. The e-mail he wrote me was even more rude and racially charged, but I won't post it here. HkCaGu (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the boomerang is a fish, this time. And I think that someone needs to bring this up in a much more polite way with the Felipito1.966. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, what needs to happen is that Felipito1.966 needs to respond in a more polite and open way to the numerous warnings he's been given. WP:AGF doesn't mean that we assume that the editors who bring up problems are jerks for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Being a pedant is fine, but one needs to be correct often when pedanting around the project. One can't be a grammar nazi (note: hyperbole, figurative speech, etc!) and then make statements like "The (old French) gallon introduced into Britain, no longer has legal status and it is no longer possible to buy liquid quantities in that unit. Some people may use them in conversation but may no longer be used in commercial transactions." Then again, it's not vandalism to be wrong or irritating or I would have been indeffed ages ago. I propose that we move on, that we correct their corrections where necessary, that we take their pedantic grandstanding with a grain of salt--and that we not seek admin action against everything and everyone: one gets the feeling, doesn't one, that this appeared out of nowhere as if an editor had been waiting for the right moment to slap that template on that talk page. Let's celebrate our differences, y'all. What's the proper British equivalent of Kumbaya? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Just between us, I think it's time for us to recognize the differences we sometimes fear to show; just between us, I think it's time for us to realize the spaces in between leave room for you and I to grow. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You weren't even born when that record came out! (Yes, I have it on vinyl.) So, Canada is the mediator between these two so different linguistic worlds? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Narm ate. Weardya think theboom arangcaim from inther furstplace? Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• So why is it wrong with me to wait to slap a Level 4? This is a registered user that I had warned twice already, not counting numerous others. I then came into monitoring after he had shouted at an editor assuming good faith. And he opened fire on just not one editor. Why should I still talk nice expecting any different outcome? (And what he emailed me after the Level 4 was essentially [paraphrasing]: "We English are in charge of the English language. I'm not going to take orders from non-Anglophone foreigners like you.") And I came here to report him after that e-mail and after another violation. Does every "bad editor" get four chances with EACH "warner"? If so Wikipedia would be like a tagger's paradise. Any of you who feel like you can "convert" him, go ahead. But obligating me to this diplomatic effort is unreasonable. HkCaGu (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That you think that you "slap" boilerplate text with "levels" is in part what's wrong. You are not a robot. But you are currently indistinguishable from one. Don't fail the Turing test on people's user talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • When an editor with 3 years experience continues to change US to Brit spellings in a manner contrary to ENGVAR, and is uncivil in responding to comments on his talk page, then the course of applying progressive boilerplate warnings, followed by progressively longer blocks, seems quite appropriate. Some responses to the complaint here ignore the disruption that can be caused by a campaigner for one style of English, and have the tone of "boys will be boys, what's the harm. it's understandable for a Brit to be riled up when he sees non-Brit spellings,move along, trout the complainer." I just cannot agree with letting such an uncivil spelling warrior continue unimpeded. Edison (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, the "course of applying progressive boilerplate warnings" is not appropriate. You aren't a robot, either. You shouldn't be tacitly encouraging other people to act like robots when handing out warnings. And you're conveniently overlooking what Black Kite pointed out above. Most of this was not contrary to "ENGVAR". Some of the talk page edits were poor. But do you know what? I managed to fix them without using a single administrator tool. It's amazing what one can do once one shrugs off the constricting and misleading mindset that all that one ever does is "slap" people with "levels" of pre-written boilerplate and entirely fail the Turing test. Uncle G (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Verbally abusive, rule-violating new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New user Lecale42 (talk · contribs) has used this edit summary: "why in flaming fuck do you need a citation for Dan Ackroyd's appearance. It is verifiable by watching the film cunt slobs)" here. He then restored a reverted edit without discussion by using an uncited OR here

He responded to those requesting citations by writing, "those who can be arsed doing more than just adding pointless citation requests to the article here, and he reverted an editor who signed that unsigned response by claiming he doesn't have to sign his talk-page comments, here (though WP:CITE says, in boldface, "Sign your posts."). All this is as recent as 22:50, 9 August 2012. He's belligerent, foul-mouthed, verbally abusing, refuses to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and clearly doesn't belong here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already being dicussed here. He's new, he doesn't seem to understand policies too much yet, hopefully a friendly talking to at WP:EA will get the message through. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The substance of Lecale's edits is being discussed at EA, not the incivility. I might add that despite several very experienced editors trying to help Lecale, xe doesn't seem to get it, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although his language isn't exactly polite, he does seem to be arguing (albeit badly) against policies rather than actually attacking anybody per se. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "flaming fuck" is okay. Calling other editors "cunt slobs" is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• See, I think that should be "why the flaming fuck". I'd never heard "cunt slob" before--it's an odd compound noun and I wonder if this was thought through properly. Since I'm grammatically involved I'll leave further commentary to others. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting a grammar block? I are in trouble then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Best I can tell from that edit-summary, "Cunt Slobs" is a documentary movie that has information about the works of Dan Ackroyd. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were as polite as my grandmother, bringing up the Aykroyd appearance is undue weight. As IMDB shows, there were lots of cameo appearanes by various actors in that film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And if he's basing it on his own viewing, that's OR. In this case it might be clear it's Aykroyd, but many times people have claimed that so-and-so did an uncredited cameo because someone looked like that actor/actress but it actually wasn't. That's why we require cites for claims of uncredited roles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he's drunk as a skunk. "Cunt slob" is the kind of thing you hear out of the mouth of someone who has had a few too many. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Viriditas. Arkon (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Bacon also seems to have an issue with signing their posts. Although signatures are not strictly required, I remember an editor was blocked for this. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The precedent there was that you can be blocked for saying "I won't sign my posts and you can't make me, nyah nyah!" If Canadian Bacon is just serially forgetting to sign their posts, then we can just point them towards turning on autosign. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He did say that, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings in edit summaries don't count, and a typographical claim is not a valid defense per WP:SUREITSATYPO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Wikipedia group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Wikipedia has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take this accuation of trolling by User:Br'er Rabbit to be a completely unprovoked personal attack. —MistyMORN 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick. —MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? [1]. I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have now found Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• A simple topic ban from TFA for Pigsonthewing would appear to be the simple and easy solution here. It still leaves him 4,000,000+ articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The snark has been going since last November with no end in sight. Would you mind at least linking to bit you snipped? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. This has value. The rest has none, but it is important to remember that editors write these pages and only so much snark can go so far. Unwatching here now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).

However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.

It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.

I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of [BOLD] and [OWN] and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.

Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.

Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?

Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.

Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The guy has already received two year-long blocks from ArbCom for this kind of behaviour. He's also apparently on indefinite probation. Maybe take this to Arbitration enforcement if necessary? --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per the comments above. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Wehwalt. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above...Modernist (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• No, a site ban. I'm sick of these uncouth bullies. Get rid of him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Peter cohen and Wehwalt's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the way to handle this. Secretlondon (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• So we juist continue to hand more rope? Life is too damn short for that. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ceoil's comment follows this edit (edit summary: "go pleasure your lazy self, seriouslyu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He has a point - if you shotgun {{cn}}s all over an article, instead of say using {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} on a section, it could be interpreted as laziness to find the sources yourself. I found a few sources myself and added them to the article in question. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Wikipedia, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,

I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".

reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA

the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.

claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.

again making accusations of WP:OWN

No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see [{WP:OWN]]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.

attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day

No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.

things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day

I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.

There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware

Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.

he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article

Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?

the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too

If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Wikipedia. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Wikipedia is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - [in that: he choose to raise the issue of infoboxes in a classical-music article (which he knows is in a tense stalemate based on his many past participations and readings) on the day of TFA. Whether he did it through lack-of-foresight, or wp:pointy intent, is almost irrelevant. But does he recognize and understand why we all think it is a problem? why we're discussing it at length.
  If he refuses to acknowledge that, then it points towards a fundamental inability to work with others-of-opposing-viewpoints, and I'd support some sort of strong repercussions. If he does acknowledge that he made a poorly-timed decision, then I think it would demonstrate the empathy that is currently missing.
  I.e. the mistakes that are being made, are entirely based on (1) timing that he should have known was bad, and (2) the-specific-words-chosen-by-him-in-explanations (which often inflame a situation, eg regularly dismissing people's comments as, "straw man", which can often come across as arrogant and hostile). [tl;dr: His goals are good, but his tactics are sometimes very flawed, which he needs to acknowledge] -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question According to Wikipedia:Probation#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee, it states "Pigsonthewing may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." It has an indefinite expiry date. Does that mean we don't actually require a full consensus for a topic ban, and hence can quickly resolve this before this discussion goes on and on and on even more? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Close request

This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on a failed RTV

Please see [2]

Short summary:

• • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
  • I ask Magog about the deletion
  • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
  • I also notice that the contributions are missing
  • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
  • I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason. In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah [3], I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in the original report, right above you.

I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."

I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe ε 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation:

• User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
• The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
• User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
• Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Wikipedia by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock). JN466 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Wikipedia unless it is maintained by the user. I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account? As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name. Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • User:ChrisO is indef-blocked already, per his block log. JN466 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"? Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. --JN466 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of. It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process. I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first. I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in. My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats. If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now? JN466 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take to AN and Vote?

Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also second this motion. --JN466 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Debresser taking unilateral action against consensus due to his unique interpretation of wikification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

8 days ago, I started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#No more wikify template about taking two actions. Expanding WikiProject Wikify to cover all templates that address an issue covered by WikiProject Wikify and later deprecating {{Wikify}} because all of its uses are covered by other templates. The first involved internal category creation in order for the first issue to be addressed on our end. (We need a way to know what the project backlog is and dated categories so we can address them month by month in our drives). The second issue is external and was brought to TfD. Upon seeing the TfD, Debresser, an editor who has shown no experience with Wikification or WikiProject Wikify, decided that he didn't like this idea. He recently unilaterally removed the category from pages for which no opposition was given within the project. He has decided on his own that the consensus in the project wasn't enough, but he never showed consensus for his reverts. I'm at a loss as to what to do if someone feels that they can modify internal project categorization with absolutely no support when that categorization does not accept the reader or a single other editor outside of the project. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am actively participating in the discussion, so I see no reason to be "at a loss" or to take this here. Adding a new maintenance category to some 10 templates and a bunch of category pages on his own initiative, definitely falls outside the Wikify WikiProject. Even in the discussion there this specific action was not discussed. Ryan Vesey did this on his own initiative and merely informed other editors there. Now his bold edits are reverted in order to establish consensus. I repeat that in all of this, I see no reason to come here. Nor do I understand what "interpretation" of mine he is referring to, or why an experienced editor of over 5 years who has done a lot of work on maintenance categories (see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia) needs to show his active involvement in this specific WikiProject for his opinion to be of worth to an editor of 1.5 years. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand and say that his edits did not fall in the range of use allowed by Wikipedia:Rollback. The edits were clearly made in good faith and the only loophole would be "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". I was clearly not misguided, and there is no indication that that anyone thought the edits were "unhelpful to the encyclopedia". Instead, Debresser used standard rollback solely because he disagreed with this. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I used Rollback just to save time since this involved many pages. If I offended you with this, please accept my apology. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be clear that I don't think your opinion is not of worth. However, your five years here do not mean that you can't have a misunderstanding of Wikification. In this case, you do have that misunderstanding and have acted on that. I welcome discussion, but you have yet to provide an example of where it was used incorrectly, despite multiple requests on my part. Ryan Vesey 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll also mention that the bold, revert, discuss is designed to be used outside of the article space. In this case, the proper action would have been to continue discussion and engage with my questions prior to reverting. I'll also add that User:Magioladitis added the category to the fully protected Template:Wikify showing that Debresser's opinion that consensus was not for the addition is not shared by everyone. Ryan Vesey 21:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have still to point to my "misunderstanding". What I do clearly understand is that you are adding a category related to WikiProject Wikify to a large number of templates and category pages that so far had nothing to do with this WikiProject, without any discussion, apart from merely informing a few people on the WikiProject Wikify talkpage. In view of this, your job now should be to open some centralized discussion, not complaining about being reverted. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is your statement that those templates have nothing to do with this WikiProject and you have failed to produce any reason why they do not other than one earlier comment you made ("Wikifying has always meant adding internal links") that you admitted was incorrect. Ryan Vesey 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a content issue, and I am actively posting on the discussion. So why did you come here? Debresser (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content issue. This is all behind the scenes work. Your comment that you are actively posting on the discussion is not entirely accurate. While I understand that this is a volunteer project and people may be busy, it is generally desirable for someone to stick around if they are going to make allegations against another editor. Yesterday, you stayed around just long enough to make 2 comments [4] [5] that I have misplaced ideas and leave a note on my talk page asking for clarification. I replied, but you did not respond. Today, you commented on the TFD, left a single note on the project talk page, left a single note on my talk page, and then preceded with the reverts. I think it is fair for me to consider you an inactive, if assertive, participant in that discussion. Throughout the entire thing, you refused to detail what was wrong with the additions stating only that you did not like them and they shouldn't have been made. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You say yourself "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has expanded its scope to all of the templates that cover aspects of Wikification." Well, you can not just decided on your own to change the scope of a whole WikiProject and expect that to pass without protests. Please somebody explain to this editor the basics of consensus building on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my opinion in brief:

• A WikiProject can decide which templates/issues to cover by forming a local consensus.
• Everyone can participate in a WikiProject and this includes both Ryan Vesey and Debresser
• {{Wikify}} tag should not be the only interested of the WikiProject Wikify
• Even if I disagreed in the beginning it seems there is a consensus that wikifying is not only adding wikilinks to a page
• Independently of all these, I think that the borders of discussion in the WikiProject wikify haven't reached yet and I think the subject should not come to ANI. I think both Ryan Vesey and Debresser could discuss the matter further in the WikiProject and there was a lot of participation in the discussion there already anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users:186.105.97.116, 186.10.138.138 and 186.10.7.250 (Chilean unregistered IP users)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The subject IP editors all have one only edit on WP which are identical, [6], [7], [8] they are changing the photograph of Draža Mihailović in the infobox to a much younger one. I and one other editor have been reverting these edits on the basis that the older (wartime) photograph is the most appropriate based on the period Mihailović is most notable for [9]. We have started discussion on the talk page [10] and have attempted to engage with this editor (which we are currently assuming is one and the same) and have attempted to get them to follow WP:BRD to no avail. It appears this is editor is using a dynamic IP address, is there anything that can be done to block them from the disruptive editing? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't do anything about the IPs, but I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. It has a long history of disruption anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:One beat wonder repeatedly creating "Earthquake weather" pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user's created Earth quake weather multiple times, resulting in it being deleted five times, and then salted. He's also created IvanTheGreatlaw, and added the contents of both (identical) pages to Earthquake weather. This has been discussed on his/her talk page, though s/he seems to be quite set on becoming famous for predicting earthquakes. They seem to not get the point. I'm not quite sure if this is vandalism, but it sure seems disruptive to me... Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 04:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

His contributions seem to show he is not here to contribute constructively.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock, User:Monsterbeats, User:Ivanthegreat, User:IvanthegreatLaw. Someone else is filing an SPI right now, I believe. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 05:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir you have it all wrong I am not lokking for fame not one bit, I have the abilty to help ssave lives sir. I am Monster beat records I have music that I use to get famous. earth quake weather is a way to save lives. http://www.reverbnation.com. and yes i can predict earthquakes by the weather im not the first person and I will not be the last to believe in earthquake weather. predicting earthquakes is a way to save a life and if i can save a life i deseve my fame to be in a position to save a life.--One beat wonder (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IvanthegreatLaw. Shearonink (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slow EW

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I took this here because it neither really fits the 3RR board (slow EW), SPI board (probably unintentional/legitimate), RFPP board (other IPs active at the article). I have not checked whether there were problematic edits by either IP/account elswhere.

• Article: Goths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Issue: inclusion of an 'new' illustration to the lead against talk page and edit history consensus [11]
  • 21 Jul by 71.190.79.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 2 Aug by 96.224.40.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 4 Aug by 71.190.65.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 5 Aug by 96.224.32.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 5 Aug by Bldon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 10 Aug by 96.224.47.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 11 Aug by 96.224.38.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 11 Aug by 68.173.88.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 12 Aug by 68.173.88.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Notified Bldon2 and last IP. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPs adding Amazon external links

In the past 30 minutes or so I've come across at least 3 IPs adding external links to mostly music albums that link to the Amazon listing for that item. I'm fairly certain this violates WP:ELNO. I've undone the edits from those 3, which all geolocate to the same area around Seoul, South Korea. What's odd is that all 3 are on totally different IP ranges (2 separate ISPs from what I can tell). What's more is that I think I had seen earlier examples of this that I didn't act on (until I saw the obvious pattern). I don't know how many other IPs are involved in this (or if it's just one person or part of something larger).

I haven't notified the IPs because they seem to be inactive. I just wanted to bring attention to it in case anybody else has noticed this, or can shed some light on it. All of the links are to the UK version of the Amazon store too, which I find particularly odd.

Link to diffs are here: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick perusal of an amazon forum makes me suspects these are all affiliate links. I think the "tag" parameter of the link identifies the vendor. Added request to User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList Nobody Ent 10:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

repeated copyright violations by User talk:Sadiq Khan.M

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the user's ability to understand / willingness to follow wikipedia's copyright standards is below the level needed to participate in a net positive way.

see for example the history File:Renigunta Movie poster.jpg where they have repeatedly claimed that they are the copyright holder to release the film poster [17] , even following a final warning [18]. the user has also again uploaded File:Panneerselvam Director.jpeg which was recently deleted from File:Director panneerselvam.jpg which if i recall had the same questionable claim of self creation. (as a positive, the user seems to not be doing cut and paste text copyright violations anymore.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need help for solving the dispute.

Hello!

The dispute is continually taking place between me (Lassoboy) and the user Aspects on my talk page. Now I am trying to solve this problem with the selected (by me) arbitrator, who might be the user Koavf and who could solve the problem (if he agrees with this task).

Can some administrator or experienced user be the observer for this dispute? Or if Koavf cannot be the arbitrator, then suggest us another arbitrator (if Koavf also cannot do this)?

All the dispute material is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lassoboy

The letter for the user Aspects is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aspects#Arbitration

The letters for the user Koavf is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#I_need_an_arbitrator_for_the_discussion.

Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation I'm not really equipped to mediate or arbitrate here, but you might want to talk to users from WikiProject Conert Tours. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will try this page, but after having seen the history of that page, I am not sure, if this helps me at all. Thank you anyway. Lassoboy (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that is currently being discussed on Lassoboy's talk page and therefore there was no reason for a section to be started here on ANI, especially since he asked for an arbitrator and could not even wait for that arbitrator to respond before starting a discussion here. Now that Lassoboy has started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Concert Tours, I propose that this section be closed. Aspects (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RPP backup

Would an admin please help out over at WP:RPP as there are about 16 items awaiting attention, thanks. Jusdafax 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Involved admin Bbb23 having possibly made a decision inappropriately

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bbb23 (talk · contribs)} I'm sorry to have to bring this incident here, and frankly am skeptical of it receiving an unbiased hearing amongst co-administrators who rely, in some cases and to some extent, on mutual "back-scratching" for their continued survival. However, I feel strongly that the dispensing of Wikipedia discipline should not only actually be fair and untainted by personal prejudices, but should be seen to be so.

This incident concerns this sudden decision by User:Bbb23 to close a 3RR case as "declined" whilst still partaking, and clearly exasperated, in a dispute with me, the filer of that 3RR report, over closely related issues at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto.

This decision was I feel, unwise in the circumstances, and may be seen as having been influenced by the course of the other dispute in the SPI discussion. This is especially the case in the light of the clear definition of the 3RR and the fact that 4 reversions clearly occurred with 24h in the case.

Please investigate this decision thoroughly and with an open mind, paying attention to the facts and not to the personalities involved, and particularly not to the hats or the stripes worn. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I will go into the history of this in detail if necessary, but for the moment, I'll just say two (okay, maybe three) things:

1. Per WP:INVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area".
2. My decision to decline the 3RR report was not "sudden".

That said, any admin who believes my 3RR decision was wrong is free to change it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You were involved other than in a "purely in an administrative role". You contributed to the discussion here.

It's not whether your decision was right or wrong (although the evidence was clear-cut) it is that you should not have gotten involved. 82.132.249.200 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I endorsed Bbb's close on the EW noticeboard. Although I'm not an admin, you seem to have problems with admins, so perhaps it's for the best. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the essential point here. See my longer explanation below. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 clearly acted correctly there. I don't know what you're talking about. Besides WP: INVOLVED, there is also WP: IAR. Electric Catfish 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the essential point here. See my longer explanation below. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant by "involved"; I did NOT mean "involved" in the article over which the 3RR dispute took place, in the sense of WP:INVOLVED. What I meant wast "involved" in an ongoing and closely related dispute concerning the same personalities.

It seemed like a bad judgment call to close a 3RR that was raised by "user a" against "user b", to the benefit of "user b", whilst concurrently arguing against "user a", thus effectively in favor of "user b", in the other closely related dispute. Forget WP:INVOLVED, or any other "rule", they are not relevant - this is a question about the judgment of acting as an administrator in one dispute, whilst simultaneously participating in the discussion in another dispute involving the same users and involing the same article and involving the same points. 82.132.249.197 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndyTheGrump

This user was blocked for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. He has admited on his talk page to block evasion[19] and also continues with personal attacks against another editor.[20][21] I believe talk page access should be revoked and the block extended. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Magog the Ogre blocked him for an additional two weeks for block evasion but unless firefox is showing me missies then the details have been expunged from the records so attempting to go back down that road will be unlikely and may boomerang on you -You are also trolling on his talkpage looking to be attacked - just leave him alone and go improve some of the projects crap content - Youreallycan 18:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he hasn't been reblocked, YRC. Nothing has been expunged from his block log as far as I can tell. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No there is nothing to see now - but I saw it earlier - Two week extension User:Magog the Ogre - block evasion - did I imagine it then? Youreallycan 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion on his talk page is quite sufficient for now, and I am sure many here watchlist that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I consider that Darkness Shines has not posted this in good faith - I ask that he explains why he has become involved. As for the substantive issues regarding 'block evasion' (How does telling everyone exactly what you are doing while you do it qualify as evasion? One for the philosophers, I suspect), and 'personal attacks', I recommend a little further investigation of the background, and suggest that the SPA User:IjonTichyIjonTichy's relentless POV-pushing should be taken into account. This is clearly the root of the problem, as multiple contributors have made clear: see Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement and its long and tedious archives for the details.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing while blocked qualifies as block evasion, whether it's disclosed or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Just because you own up to it doesn't make it OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Off topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Bugs, weren't you banned from AN/I? Why are you back here? VolunteerMarek 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC) No, I was told to cut back at ANI, and I did. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment' - No matter what the transgression, talk page access should not be revoked. If it offendeth thee, read it not. Free speech should be regarded as a basic human right and AtG is an established Wikipedian, not a vandal. Carrite (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with anything here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked users should only be using the talk page for appealing the block or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not true. Unless that is added as an extra sanction, blocked users can use the talk page for anything Wikipedia related. The block is to prevent them from editing the mainspace and Wikispace, not to prevent normal communications. I've debated this plenty of times at WP:BLOCK and nothing anywhere on Wikipedia supports that notion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits to article space and wikispace (see andy's comment above) have occurred as a result of comments etc on the talk page. What falls under what is allowable? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And an admin may revoke Talk page access if they feel it is merited. Dennis was just correctly disagreeing with your broad statement about what the Talk page may be used for during a block. Of course, Carrite's statement above is not correct, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a conversation that I wish we didn't have to be having. The edits he reverted were bad edits, and deserved a rollback. Unfortunately, he did it while a) blocked, and b) engaging in wildly over the top personal attacks. At this point, I'm not sure that an extended block will help the case at all. Not that it is in any way OK, but I don't see the block another block as either able to provide corrective action or stopping more harm from occurring to Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 01:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's always indef... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross wiki POV push

User Hannover95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went cross wiki in a nationalistic struggle, and pushed pro-Kosovo map in almost 20 wikipedias. That kind of behavior is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia:ARBMAC final decision. User was not warned about ARBMAC, but this is like WP:NOTHERE to me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please post links to his other accounts that are also POV-pushing on other WMF sites? Electric Catfish 19:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the same account name, Hannover95. Or you are talking about something else? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Global contributions. However, I don't think en.wiki can do anything about other projects. Sadly, not the first time I've seen this sort of sweeping global map change. CMD (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: WhiteWriter failed to notify Hannover95 of this complaint. I'm off to bed now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now done that. And I'm off to bed too. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, i did! But where! Can someone please delete this... I informed non-existing user... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor drawing his own comparison

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, an editor named Talknic decided to draw his own (incorrect, but not relevant) connection between a United Nations resolution and a statement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Diff: 1

The book he/she links to is clearly not a reliable source ("The Case for Palestine"), but furthermore, it's only to get the text of the UN resolution, and then Talknic himeslf draws the comparison and puts it on Wikipedia.

I reverted, and explained here.

Instead of asking for clarification, he/she reverted me here, and opened up a section on the talk page, where all he/she did was try to prove there is a connection. Whether he/she wants to believe that is up to Talknic - but it doesn't mean that Talknic can make his/her own comparison and put that into a Wikipedia article. I explained it in more detail what is wrong with taking a UN resolution and an editor making his/her own comparison to something else with it and putting it in an article. Talknic did not listen, and instead tried to prove a similarity again, which I explained is irrelevant, as it's his/her own comparirson. I've tried explaining again, but haven't gotten a response yet. I also asked him to self-revert. He hasn't done that, although I would've expected he'd know his edit was wrong, since he has joined in December 2010, but I could be wrong.

All that I really want is for the page to be reverted as soon as possible. I don't know whether Talknic should get any sanctions, that's for an admin to decide, although he has been banned for 3 months from the Arab-Israeli conflict in the past, was also banned for 6 months in the past on the topic area, and was recently banned indefinitely from all I/P areas, although I'm not sure whether that also includes all Israel-Arab conflict areas.

Thanks. --Activism1234 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks.

Recommend moving this report to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK moved. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Glee Project and User:Tyler george6

The aformentioned user User:Tyler george6 is constantly making the same disruptive edit to The Glee Project. Please get him to stop. Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Modern Warfare Dude

I was just recently attacked by Modern Warfare Dude, who was on the same IP Address as me. First he vandalized Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, calling it 'the best damn World War II video game', and then he goes off on me for undoing it. Then, he creates a really profane article called 'The Crappiest Wikipedian Ever Is...' which calls me the crappiest wikipedian ever! He got blocked, and because I had the same IP Address as him, I was autoblocked. Sorry about the lack of diffs but I must admit that I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian.