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

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[1])

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[2]

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[3], and I reverted back [4]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[5][6]

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[7]

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[8] The user agreed to this[9], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[10] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[18] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[19]

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[20] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[21][22] and Haiga[23][24], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[25]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[26] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[27] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[28], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[29]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[30] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above. My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin.[31] If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination. My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example). My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Wikipedia policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him. My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Wikipedia community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character. I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[32] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC) (The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)) Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Wikipedia rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Wikipedia). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me. Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging. Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now. My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits. My informing User:BDD[33] that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack[34] distracting me). My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD[35] in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.) My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article). I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari[36]. I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Wikipedia policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation?[37][38][39] TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages. User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The above comments are not canvassing. The users in question have equally taken note of TN's bad behaviour, and I have asked heir advice on how to proceed, because this ANI post, like all my other attempts to deal with TN through community involvement, has apparently been derailed by TN's refusal to be concise or accurate and instead relying on ad hominem attacks like the above. The above removal of the contents of the uta monogatari talk page is called "archiving", TN. It is a perfectly normal process for when a talk page becomes very long, and especially in a case like this when the previous talk is almost entirely irrelevant to the article content. Additionally, I removed one account of the recommendation regarding "tanka in English", because after two months neither TN nor anyone else has made any attempt to implement it, because, as was already established by broad consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, the merge would likely bring in WP:WEIGHT issues. Additionally, instead of making any attempt to improve that article or participate in the currently active discussion there, TN limited his edits to making personal attacks against me and arguing entirely irrelevant points about my "ignorance of the publishing industry". (My comments were that fringe-materials that are "published" through Lulu, and therefore do not exist in any libraries or bookshops, are probably not reliable sources and should not be advertised on Wikipedia.) In fact, the majority of TN's edits to article talk pages over the last two months have been limited to following my edits, and whenever another user (primarily User:Bagworm) disagrees with me, TN will jump in and attack me, claiming that this is "consensus". One other noteworthy example is [40], where I had had a dispute with Bagworm over his/her posting of an inappropriate item on a list. When I removed it I explained my reasoning, and Bagworm seemed to accept it in his/her silence, but then almost two weeks later TN appeared and posted a ridiculous argument in response. His argument was that since one author had said that in Japan visual arts are often linked with literature, then a Japanese painting style should be included in a list of literary terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here. TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is [41], where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him. Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message[42] to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier[43]. I also asked the advice[44] of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications"[45][46][47]. Further, my messaging[48] Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested[49] posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here[50] himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Wikipedia articles. TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Wikipedia? elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I have given my opinion (on a number of occasions) and am undeniably "involved" but would like to propose a solution nonetheless (I hope admins will allow that, given how long this has dragged on without a solution). As this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND based on differing opinions / personal views / supposed conflicts-of-interest relating almost entirely to one topic, a topic ban seems (at least to me) to be the obvious solution. An additional interaction ban would probably be a good idea.

Topic ban - if either party is genuinely here to build Wikipedia, they will accept a topic ban and move on to editing other unrelated topics. I suggest a topic ban for "poetry" (broadly construed).

Interaction ban - to prevent the battleground cancer from spreading, an interaction ban for elvenscout742 and Tristan noir is proposed.

For the record, I came to the original AFD completely at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. Stalwart111 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Wikipedia first then they should accept it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

*I like this solution in theory, but I'm not sure about "unrelated topics" -- does it mean I am limited to editing articles on topics unrelated to the TN's topics? Or does it mean I am banned from editing articles on Japanese poetry? While I am here to build an encyclopedia, my area of expertise, and my only real interest, is Japanese literature; this is also a topic I have generally limited myself to up until now. If I am still allowed edit articles related to Japanese literature, then I agree to the above solution. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban would prevent you and Tristan noir from editing any content related to poetry. I've read most of the background here and, although you, elvenscout742, can be wordy, I haven't found your editing to be anything but on-policy and generally constructive and civil. So I can't support topic-banning you. Also, I'd prefer to offer Tristan noir the opportunity to return to the topic if he demonstrates constructive on-policy editing in other areas over the next 12 months. I'm not sure an interaction ban is necessary, but if both parties agree to it, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::I don't think I can accept a blanket-topic-ban on poetry when I'm in the middle of an incomplete translation of an article on poetry... elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.

:I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a topic ban, however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover “’poetry’(broadly construed).” Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as Waka (poetry) or The Tale of Genji or to ban me from articles such as Jones Very or Zaum; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of “poetry (broadly construed),” would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can agree with Stalwart’s solution.

It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include Haibun, Tanka in English, Uta monogatari, Renku, Haiga and Prosimetrum. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it.

Anthonyhcole’s suggestion above that this editor alone be placed under a topic ban “over the next 12 months” is slanted and hardly justified when taking fully into account both sides of the lengthy WP:BATTLEGROUND conflict that Stalwart addresses in his proposal.Tristan noir (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was already archived. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was archived with this edit on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts here, here and here to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:*Addendum: Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad topic ban with an article and page ban that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an interaction ban, do the trick?Tristan noir (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing an article I created. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of Talk: Uta monogatari.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::How about this: Tristan stays awayis banned from Japanese poetry, I stay awayam banned from English and American poetry, and we both agree to generally avoid non-culture-specific poetry articles (like Prosimetrum), as well as Tanka in English and Haiku in English. My main concern is that both myself and Tristan seem to be primarily concerned with poetry, and banning us both from all poetry articles doesn't seem constructive. Tristan's most constructive edits have been to articles about western poetry, and mine have been to articles about Japanese poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the right time now, Elvenscout, for you and I to pause and let others weigh-in on Stalwart's original proposal and / or your suggested modification above or my earlier modification above.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of heart It occurs to me now that since the purpose of the proposed topic was to demonstrate that we are both here to build an encyclopedia, either one of us placing weaker restrictions on the ban defeats the purpose. I will therefore accept a full ban on poetry articles in order to prove that my primary reason for being here is to help improve Wikipedia. While my main interest is Japanese literature, and poetry is a huge part of that, there is still plenty of work to be done on Wikipedia's coverage of classical Japanese prose as well. (I think I might go back to improving The Tale of Genji.)

On examining WP:BAN, though, I notice that it mentions several times that such bans are imposed for being "disruptive", and so I must emphasize here for the record that the reason I am self-imposing this ban is not because I believe I have been disruptive (I think community consensus would agree that I have not), but merely to demonstrate that my recent actions have been in the interests of building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't want to be stigmatized as having been "banned" for being "disruptive".

This "ban" is self-imposed and only meant to prove that I am not here to post spam or POV on Wikipedia poetry articles. User:Stalwart111 and User:Anthonyhcole understand this; User:Bagworm and User:Tristan noir, if they have understood WP:AGF, will also agree to this. (I don't want to see any user take this as an opportunity to go around reverting every edit I have made that he/she disagrees with.) If at some point during my ban I accidentally slip up (once or twice) and, say, add a notice to a poetry-related article that I was reading for my own enjoyment, I expect a polite reminder on my talk page.

I do not want, for example, a posting on the article talk page (where I can't reply) "In this edit user Elvenscut742 violated a topic ban that was imposed on him by community consensus for being disruptive. I have therefore reverted the edit and have reported him to an administrator." This kind of action (from anyone other than Stalwart111, Tristan noir, Anthonyhcole, Bagworm, and whatever admin chooses to close this discussion) will result in me responding on that user's talk page by drawing their attention to this discussion. This kind of action from any user who should know better will be treated as a personal attack.

Of course, all of the above is dependent on Tristan noir accepting a similar topic ban. Or such a ban being imposed.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with diffs would be ideal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that TN, as he has done before, is still guaranteed to respond with a 1,000+ word spiel about how I am equally responsible for this "dispute", and Bagworm, as he has done above, would likely support any move to get me banned from poetry articles in order to go back to owning numerous articles about classical Japanese poetry, despite apparently not understanding Japanese. The latter should know better than to claim that "my dispute with Tristan noir" has been disruptive, since his siding with TN in near every case and regularly flouting Wikipedia policy have undoubtedly been more disruptive. I specified above that even though I am taking this self-imposed (and temporary) ban on editing poetry articles, I will still treat attempts to undo my previous edits to these articles as a personal attack. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m willing to follow Elvenscout’s good faith example and to agree to Stalwart’s original proposal above, viz., that Elvenscout and I mutually accept an administrator's implementation of a topic ban for “poetry” broadly construed as well as the implementation of an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Does a "topic ban" include edits to articles only peripherally related to the topic? Just now I edited the page Glossary of literary terms in order to remove inappropriate mention of a style of painting that someone had added (again). Since the entry was related to poetry, I can see how that might be inappropriate if I am under a topic ban, but I can see other users having a problem with me editing, say, The Tale of Genji or A Chaos of Flowers because those articles' subject-matter deals with a topic that is peripherally related to poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a bit troubled by all this. I have (had) limited interaction with Elvenscout and none with Tristan, and it has been related to Tanka in English, which I simply happened upon--I cannot remember right now how I got to it. I had some trouble with Elvenscout's work there; it seemed a bit pointy to me, and I suppose that can be explained (though not justified completely) by their negative interactions with Tristan. I do have the feeling--and I'm speaking here, again, as someone with limited experience who has not delved into the histories--that Tristan might well have an agenda that's not set by Wikipedia: there are things in the history of Tanka in English that suggest that, and there's another editor involved as well. To put it bluntly, if I went further I'd be OUTing, and I don't think that's warranted or to the point.

  My point, if I have one, is rather that I don't think that the project is best served by both of these editors topic-banning themselves from editing poetry. I think they have something to contribute: in the case of Elvenscout I'm pretty sure of that, in the case of Tristan I'll take it on faith in the hope that they are or will be able to edit with the project's best interest at heart. If they wish to limit themselves and refrain from editing poetry articles, I guess they can, but I don't really see why they should. I wish they could learn to co-exist, which they will if they see a common goal here--that may mean that both have to leave something (an 'agenda') behind. Perhaps this ANI thread may lead to some kind of understanding between the two: after all, was it not Basho who said, "Once we stop fucking around and messing with each other we'll see that we both love passion fruit and sheep frolicking in the spring"? Drmies (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, I honestly agree with just about everything you just said (even where you say my more recent edits to Tanka in English were POINTy). Additionally, I thank you for your good faith that I have something to add to Wikipedia. However, I regret to say that in my three months of interacting with both Tristan noir and Bagworm (who may have an alternate agenda in trying to ban me from poetry articles in general), I have found that if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. This is a principle I am not willing to compromise, and if it means taking one for the team, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I said "may", leaving it in the middle whether one, or the other, or both have an agenda... I'm trying to be an equal-opportunity offender here. Though it is probably true, as Shiki said, that "One tries for fairness / But ends by cutting up all. / Thus spake the blunt knife." My own translation, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, for your observations, pro and con. On the subject of a broad topic ban on poetry, Elvenscout and I both freely volunteered in hopes of bringing this conflict to an end. Stalwart’s proposal, which opened this discussion, proposed an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me as well. I do see an interaction ban as in the best interests of Wikipedia and of the editors in conflict, given recent history. Elvenscout, in his response to you, imputes bad faith not only to me but to another editor, when he writes, if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. Comments of this nature are neither balanced nor constructive. In addition, there are continuing matters like this edit of Dec 5 to Waka (poetry) where Elvenscout, in his summary, writes, Moving content from Tanka. My attempt to stop User:Tristan noir from continuing to post spam to Wikipedia has led to me taking a self-imposed exile from poetry articles. This is contrary not only to WP:REVTALK which states “Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved” but is contrary as well to WP:CIV which lists, among its “don’ts” of edit summaries, don’t “make snide remarks” and don’t “make personal remarks about editors.” Furthermore, Elvenscout's edit summary is incorporated into an article that this editor has never worked upon and arises from personal disagreements that have nothing to do with its content. If this were an isolated incident, it would not be worthy of remark, but that it is far from being so lends weight and credence to Stalwart’s proposed imposition of an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.Tristan noir (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is the kind of comment that makes it very difficult to discuss article content with Tristan noir, and has also made it very difficult to summarize why I feel his behaviour is not conducive to collaborative encyclopedia-editing. His citation of my edit summary for an edit I made to a separate article, and taking the summary out of context, rather than directly addressing article content, is typical.

The edit in question[51] introduced some rather messy, probably doubled material to an article that had previously been meant to be a translation of the admirably concise Japanese Wikipedia article on waka. I had to make this edit immediately as a result of the goings on here. I noticed that users had continued editing waka-related content in the tanka article, despite the fact that this content was doomed to get moved into the waka article. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this issue -- where possible, article-histories should accurately reflect who edited what, when; in cases like this, where the tanka article has been effectively split into three separate articles, this is problematic. I was going to slowly delete material from the tanka article and replace it in the waka article, but changed circumstances have made this impractical. Rather than wait however many months until my self-imposed poetry ban expires, during which time countless edits by numerous users could have been made to the now-irrelevant sections of the tanka article, making their edits practically invisible once the move was completed. Therefore, I made the decision to implement the move immediately, and therefore messed up the content of the waka article considerably. Out-of-context, this edit would seem bizarre and unjustified. Therefore, I provided the necessary context -- I am exiling myself from poetry articles in general; however, this is not because I have been banned, nor because I have been disruptive (you will find not a single fringe-theory promoted in the portion of the waka article I created); I have exiled myself in order to prevent Tristan noir from continuing to post fringe-theories and spam on these articles; that Tristan noir has been posting spam and promoting fringe theories on several articles is not my "opinion", and it is not a "personal remark about an editor" -- it is a fact that is backed up by almost every single edit Tristan noir has ever made.

In order to justify what otherwise looks like a bad edit, I needed to explain this context. However, now Tristan noir has again muddied the waters by bringing his personal issues with my outside edits to the table here.

Tristan noir, again, takes my quote if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources out of context. There is no "impuning of bad faith" here. Tristan noir has admitted repeatedly[52][53][54] that he believes content should not have to be verifiable in reliable secondary sources to be included in Wikipedia. (My mention of Bagworm's edits above is based on his/her habit of violating WP:NOR by taking primary sources and extrapolating from them broader "facts", and then posting those statements in Wikipedia articles.[55][56][57] I am concerned that User:Bagworm's above support for my being banned from poetry articles may have been in response to my questioning a number of his unilateral, unjustified, and somewhat odd edits to the article renku. The worst example is his tagging[58] a statement that is easily verifiable, waiting two months, and then deleting it[59], without providing any reason for the deletion other than the passage of two months. I reinstated the statement with an obvious source last weekend, and without responding to my talk page post[60] he/she suddenly appeared here and said that I should be banned from all poetry articles!)

It should probably be noted that, among impartial users (i.e., every user other than me and Tristan noir) who have posted here, two are in favour of this ban, and two are against; of the two that are in favour, one has on at least three separate article supported Tristan noir's spam/fringe theories, and might see an advantage to both myself and Tristan noir, but not him/herself, being banned; of the two that are opposed, one (Anthonyhcole) is the only user who has never interacted with either myself or Tristan noir in the past, and judged based on the evidence presented above that Tristan noir alone should be banned from editing poetry articles based on his clear pattern of disruptive activity, which is clearly motivated by a desire to promote the crack-pot theories of a non-notable poet.

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

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

---

After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as [version without diacritics here]" to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
• The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
• WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
• WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
• WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
• MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
• and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
• I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Wikipedia. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Wikipedia. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. GiantSnowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Wikipedia guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah that is my feeling as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Djsasso: It appears that you asked User:AlexTiefling to try to sabotage the RfC, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • • What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - editor refuses to listen. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal

I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: [61]. If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tarc. He's right  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• And now we have the much-anticipated appeal to Jimbo by Ben (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Wikipedia as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".

  Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Wikipedia, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to ask him first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another alternate suggestion

Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC) You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Resolute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here.  LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

continued discussion

"It's been over a day since this discussion started." When the community is deciding on an indefinite ban for an editor, a month at an RfC is not considered excessive. My count of the "votes" is 18 (excluding the IP opinion) to six, and a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus. I think that this should be reopened and lets see if a broader consensus can be found for a shorter ban rather than indefinite one. As I said above I think that two months for this ANI is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus" - but 18 for, 6 against is exactly 75% in favour.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then if you prefer to split hairs a ratio of more than 75% ... Either which way I do not think that there was a rough consensus here. [Repeat of last comment]. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (for the record). Came here to participate in the discussion and oppose a ban, but judge, jury and executioners were in a real rush to judgment this time and I didn't get my vote in.--Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd oppose, too. Unfortunately, I didn't get in under the deadline, either. --Nouniquenames 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BAN states "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly." (bold mine) The formal ban discussion began at 15:07, 30 November 2012; and I, as an entirely uninvolved admin, closed the discussion at 19:59, 1 December 2012, 28 hours and 52 minutes later. If you would like to change the rules at WP:BAN regarding the length of time a topic ban discussion should remain open, please do so at WT:BAN. I can only follow the rules that are written down. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  your highlighted section says "at least 24 hours" not "a maximum of 24 hours". 28 hours and 52 minutes may comply to the letter of the sentence, but the spirit of the sentence is to give time to see if there is a consensus to implement a particular ban. As there is not a clear consensus (not even a rough consensus), I think you ought to reconsider your close. -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  I have reconsidered it. In the reconsideration, I stand by the summation I gave. --Jayron32 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The extreme ban is not supported by 75% - at least one of the supporters makes clear that his support was not inclusive of a ban on discussions, ans I suggest that the close statement is errant with regard to the extent of any such ban. Further that where such a broad ban is proposed, that 28 hours is actually insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know where people are coming up with this "75%" bit. That's not a rule at all, and I think it's taking this discussion off-course. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and About RfA and its process as an example of where it is used in practice. It also used to be used more at WP:AFD and WP:RM, but those decisions tend now to be based more on interpreting policy and guidelines than they used to be, however for a number of years the %ages for all three used to be listed at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. This case is closer to the RfA process than the other two, so I think it is appropriate to ask the question would the rough consensus here be enough for someone to be given a broom? If not, then is this rough consensus strong enough to ban a user from editing or even commenting on an issue indefinitely? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea was *not* to have to ban the user from editing, but to stop the disruption he causes on his crusade. If he is willing to be mentored and someone is willing to mentor him to solve the editing issues that make him disruptive in addition to the diacritic issue, then he and his mentor can come back here and say, "we solved the issue, reconsider" I am sure that many to are for the topic ban now will reconsider. Maybe you can offer? If on the other hand the reason for some to oppose the topic ban is that he does their dirty work for them, and they succceed in allowing him to continue to cause disruption, then this no doubt will end in arbitration. And unlike the arbitration for Goodday I doubt that many of his "opposers" will plead with ARBCOM not to ban outright. Agathoclea (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, rough consensus has always as far as I am aware been considered to be about 60%. Except at RfA where it was specifically upped on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions re appeal: 1) Is there is an appeal to Arbcom in an AN/I topic ban situation? 2) Has a topic ban appeal board from AN/I, similar to DRV and Move Review, ever been discussed? Appeal would seem to allow for reflection, where a "quick" AN/I would not, and also perhaps bring more uniform standards, over time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would fall under point 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities. Specifically, otherwise restricted users appeals. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem a jurisdictional thing than, but does anyone know if it is "exclusive" jurisdiction (the appeal board, I am thinking of would be limited to indef. topic ban. To avoid/restrict the Arbcom v. Community, or Arbcom v. Closing Admin issues, as well as less stressful resolution (hopefully)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Arbcom would at least hear an appeal but in my view, LittleBen was on the fast track to Arbcom already. This reminds me a lot of Ludwigs2's obsessions that led to the Muhammad images bruhaha. I would rather see LittleBen step back from this issue and edit elsewhere productively than go down the route of RFCU then arbcom. And based on GoodDay's arb case, from which I took the exact language in this proposal, I think it unlikely that the committee would have viewed things differently than the community has. Resolute 15:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Right but with Arbcom, there is a lot more procedure, time, etc, when these things are enacted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just think it's important to say I agree that more time should have been allotted for discussion and consensus. I believe we need to do more to promote and protect the collaborative nature of the project, but I would have opposed an immediate, outright topic ban (trying more discreet tools before the banhammer, so to speak). jæs (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the topic ban should be amended so that it excludes LittleBenW's user space. He should have the freedom to refactor as he pleases there. Reyk _YO! 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion went on for "over a day" (!) and 25 editors voted. I noticed the discussion, blinked my eye, and it was already closed before I could vote Oppose. I guess you could interpret this as a really strong consensus, although I see it as more of a rush to judgement. Putting titles at the common name of the subject and writing articles in conventional English should not be controversial. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Anything that goes persistently against consensus is controversial. In this case it was the way he went about it. His bad luck was that his behaviour was so obvious. Others have managed to sock and delete/hide RM discussions with impunity because their behaviour was not quite so obvious to everbody. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • P.S. it should be noted that there was some email canvassing about this issue. Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the validity of the ban is in question, I propose that it should not stand on its own and should either be re-opened or a new ban discussion should be started. Quickly counting above shows 18 unilateral supports and 1 conditional that specifically does not support the ban enacted. 6 individuals opposed above (not counting the special case). Since the close, an additional 4 have opposed. That would give us a total of 18 for the ban as it is, 10 against a ban, and one against this specific ban. 18-6 (or a misread 19-6) may have appeared to be consensus, but 18-11 is much less indicative of such. Given the severity of the ban, a simple majority would not be enough. The community has not endorsed the ban in continued discussions, and the ban is voided, as it lacks sufficient consensus. --Nouniquenames 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're basing your hypothetical count on the assumption that all further votes would have been "oppose" votes. That is a highly unlikely scenario. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While that has proven to be the case so far, it would work particularly well if support and oppose both chimed in equally from this point onward, as the overall percentage difference would trend toward (without ever reaching) 0. My point was that, based on current responses, the ban is not sufficiently supported. --Nouniquenames 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that has not proven to be the case so far. You forgot to take into account that any potential participants that would have voted "support" have far less motivation to state their opinions now than those who oppose the ban, so their silent "votes" are invisible to you. As far as they are concerned, the case is closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then re-open it and fold in the opposes above. Silent supports would then have a reason to speak up, clarifying the issue. --Nouniquenames 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to reopen it. If you disagree, take it to Arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AN would be more logical. --Nouniquenames 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely to get you anywhere as the closure was consistent with WP:BAN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"the closure was consistent with WP:BAN" only if you think that there was a consensus for a ban ("The Wikipedia community can decide, by consensus, to impose [the] ban."), which is what is being questioned. -- PBS (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Rationales were also weighed in the closure. Moving to AN or opening RFAR = forum shopping. We can't stop LittleBen from emailing arbcom privately and we shouldn't try to do so. In the unlikely event that arbcom chooses to take some visible action on the email, we can decide at that time how and whether to respond. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad username

A new usernmae has been registered called User:Lionsystemss. Users single purpose is to edit Tau Gamma Phi and nominate it for deletion. User:Lionsystems (one s at the end) is a (spa) contributer at Tau Gamma Phi. Double s name appears disruptive, trying to look like the single s name. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Put {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page as a first step. If they persist in disruptive editing, take it to WP:UAA. I don't think any admin intervention is required just yet, but it may depend on this user's edit frequency. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Put the uw-username on as suggested. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In the afd in question User:Andy Dingley suggests we should "block that grossly bad faith username" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau Gamma Phi). I agree with his suggestion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We may well have a major sock issue here, or at the very least, a large influx of editors with a shared COI. User:TgpLionsystems is also an SPA that has only edited this page. User:Ribarch has made a single edit to the page, and nowhere else. User:Kepyas and User:Zebra1057 have made a multitude of edits to this article, but again, nowhere else. User:Sidenro and User:Wyzt have edited only at that page and a related page, Tau Gamma Sigma. User:TGPlink has made two edits here - also note the COI-suggesting username. In fact, there are several others going right back towards the beginning of this article - I got back to 2011 to find those, but I can see SPAs going back to 2006 in the history. And that's just looking at users in the Tau Gamma Phi... Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account which opened the AfD; it's a blatant attempt to impersonate. Plus an account whose first edit is to open an AfD is almost certainly a sock. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I take the sockfarm I believe I've found into its own AN/I, or can it be dealt with here? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass BLP violations - date of birth from primary source

By chance, I came across the biography of a living person today which had a birth date sourced to "U.S. Public Records Index". WP:BLP is quite clear on this subject: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". It also says that dates of birth should only be added if they are "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I left a note on the talk page of User:Spacini, who seems to have added dates of birth to many BLPs, but they simply deleted the message. A Google search shows that there are hundreds of biographies which use this source, but I do not know who added it or how many of these are living people. This may be a job for a smart bot. Additionally, it may be useful to have an edit filter look for this source in edits. Any other suggestions on how to address this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPN and what is the article, please? Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone strokes out, I started removing all of the primary source citations I added for living persons' biographies. I was completely unaware of the BLP rule about this issue when I began adding them. I was simply working from the Category:Date of birth missing page and adding in the DOBs where I could find them in the public index. Fortunately, I got bored with the never-ending work and stopped sometime in July (maybe August). I'm working my way back and will continue to remove all the citations where I find them. Should I be removing the DOBs altogether? I'm not quite sure why the WP:BLP rule was created, given that the primary sources where this information is found is public information, easily obtained for free. But, whatever needs to be done, I'll fix it. Now, back to my bourbon. Spacini (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Spacini. You weren't the only person adding this source, but I will give you some time to do your thing and then I'll fix the remaining ones myself if need be. An edit filter might still be a good idea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a terrible result. The purpose of that is not because primary sources aren't trustworthy for DOB, it's because the DOB shouldn't be included (per WP:BLP, which I think is a terrible decision for the encyclopedia). But in any case, having unsupported birth dates is worse than anything else we could do so either the birth dates should be removed, or the source should be reinstated. Ryan Vesey 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Per policy, both the birth dates and the source will be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could anyone explain the purpose of this policy? It seems like a bad idea, but I suspect I'm missing something obvious. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I learned long ago, Hobit, that many Wikipedia policies defy rational explanation. This is most certainly one of them. I agree with Ryan that it's a terrible decision; it diminishes the accuracy of Wikipedia and furthers the long-held notion that much of what contained herein is unreliable (a notion that I disagree with). I'm off to remove all the DOBs with primary source citations that I added. Peace Wikipedians! Spacini (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit more optimistic and suspect there is either a good reason or this is fixable. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's related to privacy; however, I don't know that it's a good policy, at least for people born in the United States. I'm not sure about laws in other countries, but birth certificates are public record in the US. I feel like, at a minimum, the US should be excluded from that. It's never a privacy invasion to post a public record. Even if they weren't public, I still wouldn't see a reason not to post somebody's birth day. Care to take it up at Wikipedia talk:BLP? Or Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy) (it probably needs a wider audience). Ryan Vesey 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Opened at the pump. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for keeping the DOB out of the article is that the combination of the name and DOB is used to identify the person in law enforcement and other databases, so publishing the exact DOB assists identity theft. We leave it out for the same reason we leave out the person's social security number, which public records can (sometimes) also let us dig up. We have been through this many times. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I added some links about DOB and identity theft here since some people were arguing against the connection. The notion that "it's never a privacy invasion to post a public record" is completely wrong here on Wikipedia. We treat home addresses, phone numbers, etc. as private too, and those are generally easier to find than DOB's. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin

This article came up in an September 2012 ANI discussion about promotional throwaway accounts. (wiki-pr.com was the subject of the original thread.) The article was created by a sock, but most of the content was added by User:Fountainflower in their first (and only) edit. The article looked great on the surface, with tons of citations for everything, but when you dug into the sources it was mostly sourced to blogs, Linkden, Twitter, and publications by or about the subject's company, Graphic.ly. Also when you started reading the actual text of the article it came off as very promotional. The subject himself is a CEO, and apparently one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. I'd guess that his notability is debatable. Anyway, the article was deleted near the end of September as "promotional".

Today the article was recreated in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (a new user with 51 edits) and marked as <d>"Reviewed"</d> patrolled less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (a user with 197 edits who has had an account for about 5 days and has <d>reviewed</d> patrolled about 50 other pages today). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along User:Denimd, a blocked sock of User:Bartlbs) basically rewrote the entire article to a more promotional sounding version. [62] Anyway, I suspect something hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. Apparently I'm not the only one who didn't know what to do. I went through the article and cut out all the sources to blogs, twitter, LinkedIn, other social media, and self-sourcing, and got rid of a lot of the peacocking too. There's not much of an article left [63] but it was an educational experience for me. Feel free to close this thread, but I believe that someday we're going to have to confront this problem. My feeling is that if we continue to allow companies to use "burner" accounts to create promotional fluff articles for their clients, they will keep earning money, and the practice will become more widespread. (Meanwhile the Wikipedia community continues to shrink.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article in good faith, though maybe a little precipitously, because the subject seemed to be notable and I couldn't spot any immediate problems with the article. As you point out I'm new to this whole reviewing thing and I'll be more careful in future! As far as I can see from your edits the problem I should have noted was that a lot of the sources seemed suspect. Smartse (talk · contribs) seemed to agree with me that the article didn't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, and I'm afraid I didn't think to check the page log for previous deletions. Thanks for flagging this up! --Noiratsi (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. A promotional page certainly isn't the worst thing that can happen to Wikipedia, so please don't let this deter you from page patrolling. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars

For some time now an IP (which changes every month or so but often signs messages as "Claudia") has been making poorly sourced (or not sourced at all) edits on various subjects to do with the New Zealand Wars. These edits tend to push an extreme anti-Māori viewpoint. Claudia relies mostly on self-published fringe writers (most recently, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart), often ones so obscure they can not be found in libraries; while her attitude towards mainstream scholarship ranges from the dismissive ([64]; and [65], the last phrase of which also displays her racial attitudes) to the outright hostile ([66], in which having been appointed to a position at the University of Oxford becomes having "high tailed it to England to escape local scrutiny".

The current incident involves the article Wiremu Kingi, at which Claudia is edit warring to introduce these edits [67], the only sourcing of which is to primary sources: proceedings of the New Zealand government as a belligerent party in the war in question, and to a self-published work by Wishart. This has been brought to her attention [68] but still she insists on its presence [69].

I can't figure out which of this labyrinthine series of message boards to bring this up at as it involves edit warring (but not 3RR), reliable sourcing (or lack of), fringe theories and skates close to including BLP issues. If this is more suitable at a different board feel free to move it. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that Claudia was also the subject of this report here [[70]]. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this is ongoing, and right now I don't have the time to delve much deeper into this--but a quick perusal (and a revert) of some of the recent edits, including but not limited to Wiremu Kingi suggest that edit-warring and disruption are happening here. Since it is ongoing, I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. They can make their case on their own talk page, if they have anything to say, and some kind editor will no doubt copy their comments here if they're worthwhile. What is to happen in the long run may be difficult: article protection is one option, of course. I hope someone else, in a different time zone, will invest a bit of energy in this case, to correct me or to add to it. Daveosaurus, as far as I'm concerned you chose the right forum; good luck with your efforts. Drmies (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was considering similar action myself, and agree with Drmies' temporary block and assessment. This has reached the point of seriously disruptive behavior (and yes, this is the proper venue to report that, as above). The anonymous editor has been counseled many times on appropriate editing behavior, to apparently no effect. Should they return to the POV pushing and edit warring following the block, I would support a significantly longer-term sanction. I personally would prefer to see a range block rather than semiprotection used if possible, it's always a shame to prevent editing because of a single individual's misbehavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think article protection is useful to prevent Claudia from editing, as her interests include very many articles on 19th century New Zealand history, particularly those involving race relations. We would have to semi-protect a very large number of articles. Also, she has been active on ever-changing IP addresses for at least three and a half years (Special:Contributions/125.237.35.252 are the earliest edits I can find at short notice).

For the most part, her edits are useful, although her odd formatting requires cleanup. She is undoubtedly very knowledgeable about her subjects, and her edits usually accurately reflect her sources. The sources vary considerably in reliability. Claudia sometimes emphasises subjects that most mainstream historians prefer to minimise, such as cannibalism in traditional Māori culture. I believe the Wikipedia articles should reflect the mainstream (academic) opinion, not by suppressing such viewpoints but by balancing them.

Because she is prolific, copyediting and balancing her edits would be close to a full-time job. So far, no editor has been willing to put in this effort in the long term, although several of us have from time to time made attempts.

More background can be found at User talk:Gadfium#Agenda pushing by IP user.-gadfium 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re your second link after "ranges from the dismissive" — according to Central Otago Gold Rush, the Maori had no knowledge of metalworking, so "Stone Age" isn't inaccurate, and if the culture were warlike (I don't know either way), then the idea of "Maori as stone age people with a very violent culture" is accurate. Even if they were peaceful people, it's not a racial thing; it's simply an inaccurate statement. No comment on anything else, since I've not looked at anything else. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not as cut and dried as that. See our Stone age article which has a section titled "The Concept of Stone age":

"The archaeologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries CE, who adapted the three-age system to their ideas, hoped to combine cultural anthropology and archaeology in such a way that a specific contemporaneous tribe can be used to illustrate the way of life and beliefs of the people exercising a specific Stone-Age technology. As a description of people living today, the term stone age is controversial. The Association of Social Anthropologists discourages this use, asserting:

"To describe any living group as 'primitive' or 'Stone Age' inevitably implies that they are living representatives of some earlier stage of human development that the majority of humankind has left behind. For some, this could be a positive description, implying, for example, that such groups live in greater harmony with nature .... For others, ... 'primitive' is a negative characterisation. For them, 'primitive' denotes irrational use of resources and absence of the intellectual and moral standards of 'civilised' human societies.... From the standpoint of anthropological knowledge, both these views are equally one-sided and simplistic."

Wikipedia is reporting experts as saying the term "stone age" is controversial and anthropoligists discourage its use. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is an element of truth in all the accounts of history (both the ones above and the ones promulgated by anon in many articles). However the way to improve our coverage is not though poorly sourced rewritings and additions, but though consensus-based, closely referenced articles presenting the several points of view. Many of these topics are politically, economically and ethnically charged and frequently revised by academics in the last 30 years. Add to this the fact that we have politicians passing history texts as law (see for example the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill) and you have quite a lot of space for confusion and thus demand for close sourcing. The anon has been editing for quite a while and shows little sign of improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(copied from Claudia (122.62.226.243)'s talk page by gadfium)

Hello One and all. Some editors seem to think that history has just one point of view and that is the "official" sanctioned version. My professional background and my extensive reading over too many decades show that this is seldom, if ever, the case. I totally reject any any allegation of racism or anti Maori bias. This is nonsense. My history edits are to show that often commonly accepted incidents in history are factually wrong. Even the most main stream historians in the past make endless mistakes simply because they didn't have the wealth of digital information that is now available even to a student. Both Belich and King made bloopers. Belich made some big ones. King in particular had an increasingly skeptical view of Maori only sources as he matured as a writer. Some of these he wrote about but didn't print. After his death his daughter published it for us so we can see his later thinking. Most NZ history editors will know that he got offside with some Maori academics who did not want a Pakeha writing "their" history. (Despite the fact that King was a tiny bit Maori -a bit like Christian Cullen, although he didnt know this when he first started writing Maori history ) One editor said that NZ govt sources are not acceptable for wikipedia as they were an interested party in NZ history. This is just complete and utter nonsense. On this basis you cannot have any Maori source for NZ history either as they are interested parties! What I am looking for is factually accurate history with a balance of points of view where there are different points of view (as their clearly are!). It seems some editors who undo my efforts are not historians or researchers and delete information for what I consider highly technical reasons ie they would prefer an inaccurate, lop-sided account of an historical incident although it reads lie something out of the 1950s. It is interesting that one editor has it in for I Wishart. Remember that M. King began as a teacher and journalist. At times Mr King was dreadfully sick and drank quite heavily by his own account. I note that no one has pointed out any errors or falsehoods in Mr Wishart's work. On the contrary his work has been praised for its thorough research. For example Wishart has gone into enormous depths to show the background to Wiremu Kingi's war in Taranaki, which was the immediate background to the NZ land wars. His research is first rate and 100% accurate. It blows away many of the wrong misconceptions that kiwis commonly hold about their history.

As part of my professional work I have developed a keen nose for censorship. Do I detect a whiff wafting through? Some editors seem wedded to a particular conservative point of view of NZ history that I would call dated and partial, in view of all the new information that daily flows out into the digital world. It seems strange but every day we know more about what really happened hundreds(sometimes thousands) of years ago. I note some editors have put their hands up to being cranky and impatient. They seem to delight in hitting the delete button as it is so easy to do. Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can.

Thank you to the editor who went into bat for me regarding Maori being Stone Age and historically violent. I think both these minor points are well accepted now, almost self evident if you read the Musket Wars and Maori Culture. My apologies if my edits are not always 100% technically correct as I have eye problems which are slowly being rectified. I always endeavour to improve. Seasons Greeting and happy holidays to all.C.

The IP editor admits above that she edits articles to try to redress what she sees as errors, for reasons of ideology or otherwise, of published historians. The problem is that historians such as Belich, Moon and King are reliable sources; self-published authors such as Ian Wishart are not. Wishart's claims do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The IP user has persisted with the use of terms such as "massacre" and "slaughter"[71][72] to colour certain wartime events in New Zealand colonial history despite the absence of such terms in academics' writings. (See here, where she justifies her use of the terms by saying a massacre "likely" took place at Oakura because of Maori traditions). She also relied there—as elsewhere—on contemporaneous newspaper reports that were indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership. Really, just grasping at straws to find sources that support her preconceived views.

In fact it often becomes difficult untangling the propaganda from the fact; elsewhere she has relied on reliable sources (poorly cited though they are), but presented cherrypicked facts in a manner only that supports her political or ideological agenda, and without necessary qualifications or balance. BlackCab (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note above the newspapers at http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa&l=en&nw=utf-8 do not fit the description above of 'indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership' but we don't use that collection as sources nearly enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have misread your tone, but that last comment, quoting my reference to a newspaper article being "indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership", sounds rather accusatory. Just to be clear, my use of that phrase related to the IP editor's resorting to a sarcastic opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald in 1866 to justify her use of the word "massacre" relating to events at Oakura.[73] I do agree with your earlier comment about seeking the truth from a range of sources. And thanks for the Niupepa link. BlackCab (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we're having a violent agreement. There are lots of sources, essentially all partisan on at least some points; the IP is not using an appropriate selection. Aside: My day job gives me access to some sources in this area that are not internet-accessible / google friendly. Editors are welcome to ask me for specific topics / works on my talk page or by email. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bite. Thanks for the offer. BlackCab (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivil comments by an editor

I'm commenting now on something that I see has been ongoing with an editor. I first took note of this editor (User:AndreaUKA) when I started taking part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. I simply removed unsourced content as well as links that would not be considered as reliable sources. In return I was called "arrogant", sniped at for my grammar, and generally talked down to when I tried to recommend that she not remove templates without actually addressing the issues they highlighted. While it always hurts to get your edits taken off, it is a fact of Wikipedia life. AndreaUK also seemed to have a sense of ownership over the article, getting angry at any changes to her version. She argued that she was going away for a week, essentially asking for the AfD to be put on hold and when I made the edits, got angry that I made them while she was away and presumably unable to approve the edits herself. If it was just this, I'd let it go, but I looked into her history and notice that she's had an ongoing history of abusive behavior to other people and a definite sense of ownership over anything she has put onto Wikipedia as in the case of User_talk:AndreaUKA#Yes.2C_I.27m_here_about_an_image.21. It also appears that every time something comes up, she brings up that she donates money and threatens to leave Wikipedia forever, as can be seen on her talk page as well as on the AfD for Bennett. There's also the stuff on Talk:The UKA Press, which generally makes me concerned because I've nominated the article for deletion. I know I'm going to be accused of various things, such as doing this as an attack and so on. (It's not- the company is simply not notable and if it was, I'd have left it alone.) Considering that her getting upset in the UKA Press AfD is a given, I think that it looks like it's long past due for an admin to step in here. If it was just the Bennett article I wouldn't particularly be concerned, but this looks like it is overdue for notice and I am fairly certain that more will only follow with the article about her company being put up for AfD since it doesn't pass current WP:CORP guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit seems very uncivil. Threats about her donations "drying up" and saying "surely you could have waited until I got back" are the only "arrogant" things that I've seen here. – Richard BB 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please remember to notify the user in question that you've started a discussion about them here. In this instance, I've done it for you. – Richard BB 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(she did: 23 minutes before you did ... it's just not under its own header) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Another uncivil edit which is cause for concern, including editing his talk page post. Will warn. – Richard BB 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd added it to the page, but it looks like it didn't come up with an automatic subheading and instead came up under my AfD notice. I've differentiated it to show up better on the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sincerest apologies! I appear to have forgotten how to use my eyes. – Richard BB 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Andrea certainly doesn't understand the project as a whole. WP:OWN is bad, "I'll take my donations and go away if I don't get things my way" is a threat that we don't need on this project. We have rules, processes and policies - you agreed to them when you signed up: if you don't want to follow them, the little X on the top right is always available. Otherwise, stick to the rules. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, but I find this all a bit petty (not to mention grossly over-exaggerated by Tokyo girl:)) I'm also at a loss to understand why a 'deletion' notice has been slapped on an article (UKA Press) which has been there since 2006 (approx) and has already been voted to 'keep' years ago. And yes, I'm afraid I do think it's been done out of spite. I could point out (possibly) hundreds of other WIKI articles far, far less 'notable'...

Still, never mind, I won't argue all the points, it's not really worth it from my point of view. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want to (don't forget all the other articles I started). I won't be able to help correcting spelling mistakes if I see them on articles, though :)AndreaUKA (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because an article survived one AfD, that doesn't mean it has a right to survive them all. The community will decide whether or not the article should be deleted, so there's no need to fear it being out of spite (which seems to be an assumption of bad faith, to me. As for other articles existing, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think there are other subjects out there less notable, please nominate them for deletion and let the community decide. – Richard BB 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, there's a widely held common misconception (more off-wiki than on, admittedly, but I see time and time again on WP:AfC) that articles are deleted because people don't like them, they're on a power trip, or they like stomping on kittens and clubbing baby seals to death. I can't emphasise it enough that this just isn't the case. All Wikipedia articles need to start from sources, and be based on those sources, and if they don't - they should! This essay by Uncle G has further reading which may be of interest. Unfortunately with several million on articles on Wikipedia, and writing articles from the source up being a non-obvious working method, it means some articles that should be cleaned up per our policy get left behind. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bux (band) is one such example I saw only yesterday, and that got wiped into oblivion without so much as a how-do-you do. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. It just seems a bit silly to propose deletion to an article which has already been voted (by the community) as notable enough (especially one with the glaring 'notability' of Kevin Brownlow). I'm sure there are plenty of other, more fruitful things editors could be doing. As for me 'nominating for deletion' yes, I could, but I won't be trawling around looking for them :) I have seen many which are pretty feeble though...thanks Richard.AndreaUKA (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something passed notability guidelines years ago does not mean that it passes the current standards of notability. It's actually fairly common for articles to be nominated for deletion because they were initially AfD-ed in the earlier years of Wikipedia where notability standards were incredibly loose. Over the years these standards have been made stricter and stricter because it was very quickly realized that the previous standards were not enough to keep out the blatantly non-notable topics such as "Bob's Burger Bistro" that has only gotten 1-2 brief mentions in articles. A great example would be books that previously passed notability guidelines simply because they had ISBNs, yet did not receive any RS coverage. The same thing goes for businesses and previously surviving an AfD does not guarantee that it will be notable in the future. Again, this is fairly common. As far as other things editors could be doing, this is pretty much what editors are supposed to be doing: adding articles and culling the ones that don't pass notability guidelines. I think that recently I've been saving and adding twice as many articles as I have nominating them for deletion, so it's not like I'm a deletionist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• And considering your reaction to the edits I made on Bennett and your reaction to other people questioning the notability of various things you've added, it's quite reasonable to expect that you would react at least somewhat poorly to an article you made for a company you work for being nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, many of your talk page comments seem to be removing other people's. While I've brought this up on your talk page, your last edit here deleted several parts of several other discussions on this page. I'm not sure of the reasons behind this -- I'm willing to assume that Andrea isn't doing this maliciously -- but it seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive (intentionally or not). Does anyone know the reason why this might be occurring? – Richard BB 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to happen from time to time -- haven't figured out the pattern. Probably an issue for WP:VPT NE Ent 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it to NE Ent in fact. Deleted something from an entirely different section with nary an edit conflict in sight. No idea how. I thought it might have been an issue with my mobile browser but was unable to replicate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is also taking place here. I'm curious as to how text could actually be added this way. I did a ctrl F for the added text, and found it replicated no where else. – Richard BB 12:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that a sockpuppet investigation for this user has been opened. – Richard BB 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC

Hi. I'm referring this up the ladder, since Poeticbent seems to want it to come here (and to be honest, I'd welcome that. It needs sorting). At Talk:Richard Tylman some time back, an RFC was run to deterime whether data from Genealogy websites could be used as a source - it was requested to be closed, having had no activity since October 12, and Chris Gualtieri closed it, with it having no consensus, thus defaulting to the status quo, of "no". Poeticbent reverted this close to the RFC on 3 December.

Now I've looked back over Richard Tylman, and indeed, Chris is uninvolved with the article itself, openly admitting that "I (Chris) don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject." He was completing a procedural close, for which he doesn't need to be an admin. Poeticbent then decides to revert his close of the Richard Tylman RFC a second time, this time with a threat in the edit summary. This occurred on 4 December.

This is where I waded into the battle - and I stress I wasn't canvassed to do this. I've had the Richard Tylman article and Talk on my watchlist for a while now, pre-RFC opening. How it got there, I have no idea, I don't remember editing it, still I digress. I reverted Poeticbent's undoing of the closure, and gave him a very clear, very blunt (read: bordering on incivil), untemplated warning on his talk page not to revert it again or he'd wind up here. Poetic has now replied at his talk page, to both myself and Chris, stating that he intends to "get more answers" here. So here we are :) All parties involved have been notified. Fish^Barking? 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The close by CG was fine. The "listen up" in bold stuff on Poeticbent's talk page placed by BarkingFish -- not helpful. (Rest of the message was okay). NE Ent 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The close by CG should've been "No consensus" as no one but TFD supported exclusion and yet CG closed in TFD's favor. The other two editors make decent points. But the biggest knife in the CG's close cake is that the larger consensus at the RS noticeboard was also non-consensus leaning toward careful use of Ancestry.com as a source. So I'd say that CG's close was actually poor. However, Poeticbent's behavior certainly isn't good; especially since he was involved in the other discussion. The right thing to have done would have been to discuss it with an administrator or bring it here rather than get into a fit with other editors and reverting the close.--v/r - TP 14:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that CG was a neutral uninvolved editor and Poeticbent would be well advised to not accuse others of bias simply because they didn't agree with his bias.--v/r - TP 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say throw out policy and convention on the number of votes cast in the RFC? Also, the actual discussion itself about Ancestry.com being a reliable source is pretty straight forward. See here. [74] Many well founded opinions and comments are already present for that, and I cannot simply disregard what seems to be a strong argument against Ancestry.com's teaser hints as being a valid and reliable source. As I mentioned in the RFC close, I would have taken them as primary or secondary sources provided they were verifiable, but the links used were not even viewed by Poeticbent himself, and much of the postings are a synthesis and original research because of it. Furthermore, as they were being used as external links and WP:ELNO is pretty clear about not having paywall and minimal use.

Also, please remember that these links were not solely Richard Tylman. They included links to "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children" and "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614). Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson." Furthermore, the links in this family tree assembled by some amateur are really reliable? [75] Even other 'reliable sources' used in the article are questionable such as this one. [76] 'Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com'? Seriously? This is no different then taking some random angelfire, yahoo or other website and posting it up as proof. Its like the one line fragment used from a Lulu.com (a POD print book) as a reliable source in this article? [77] So, I'd seriously consider what is really reliable and what stands out as a massive synthesis of material. We are already aware that there are many Richard Tylmans and that others lived in the same area, and there is at least 5 if the assembled geneology is to be right. Though this is coming from a website that tries to push that almost everyone is related to kings and queens of olde. True geneology research takes time and even people at Ancestry.com know that the trees of others can be entirely garbage. Only the documents themselves are useful, not the assembled product of amateurs seeking to glorify their pasts. I would assert that Poeticbent does not even have access to the pages upon which he linked, as the dates for the events and such would be surely included, but nothing more then what the 'free' look is taken. As far as I was concerned, they do not meet the standards for WP:RS and WP:V, let alone WP:EL under WP:ELNO as they were. So yes, even though the number of !votes were leaning away, the simple fact that the sources themselves were garbage in full view of policy means I could not simply go against a community concensus of what is reliable (even the side discussion at RSN proved as much) and had really no other choice then to act in accordance to policy. Poeticbent began disrupting and making personal attacks on me immediately thereafter. There was no activity in that RFC since Oct 15th, after I close I am called to be non-neutral, partisan, a bully, and commiting 'fakery' by mere closing of the RFC.

The real disconnect, even amongst the supporter of the previous link Clemrutter is as follows, "...I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR." This kind of mindset underscores my decision, Clemrutter agrees that they are not valid sources yet wishes to include them as external links for OR. If they aren't valid sources, they shouldn't be used, even if you must argue it, ELNO covers it then. If you cannot count the source as reliable and verifiable, don't stick it under 'external links', it shouldn't be on the page. So here we go round the circle again. I decided the RFC on policy. Clemrutter's comments seem fair. And if you really want to be super-precise on the RFC the count was 3 to use, 1 to not use, 1 comment. One of the uses were from a blocked sockpuppet (and didn't add an argument anyways) and the other use was include because AGF that the geneology info is correct rather then see if it is reliable or not. Making the whole RFC in reality, 1 to use and 1 not to use. TFD's arguments and the discussion at RSN was really the important matter as it as on policy, as all good decisions are made. I do not think I was 'poor' in judgement for deciding it that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that makes a great comment in an RFC, not a close. Taking a single editors comments and closing it as the "consensus of an RFC" is a joke. If anything, you should've closed it as "No one seems to care" or just simply "no consensus."--v/r - TP 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I listen on policy instead of popularity. You take a blocked sockpuppet's 'me too' as a vote? You take someone who admits the sources aren't reliable as a pro use? You take a comment by Clemrutter who just after the close agrees the sources aren't valid yet think I closed wrong? Seriously? If you oppose and state, 'the sources aren't valid', you really are saying that they are not valid, and Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. So Clemrutter doesn't understand External Links, but he knows what a reliable source is. 2 to TFD as I see it. The other not vote from GeorgeLouis fell into the same boat as 'Let the reader decide if it is reliable or not and I AGF it is correct'. These are not strong arguments. If the sources cannot meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V then we should not use them, not tack them onto external links and try to let it fly in the face of WP:ELNO. The RFC as small as it was, had only one major argument rooted in policy, and that was TFDs. Consensus is fine for certain things, but Wikipedia as a whole is not going to be locally overruled because 2 people with flawed arguments are numerically more then someone who roots arguments in policy, and that those said sources do not meet community standards. Unless I am sorely mistaken, rather then argue about the number of votes, how about someone argue on a matter of policy and how those sources are okay in light of it. Forget it being about external links, they won't even pass RS or V, if they do, I'd add them as sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed on the RS noticeboard about how WP:V can apply to Ancestry.com. Where you are mistaken is believing that your interpretation of policy is the only one. That is why we consider consensus in discussions. Other editors have a different idea of how WP:V can be met. As a closer, your job is the summarize those ideas, identify the ones with the strongest policy based rationale, and show how much support that rationale received. You can't stick with your understanding of policies when closing. You have to recognize the community's interpretation before your own. The larger discussion offered solid ideas and took WP:V into consideration. So the close wasn't done well. I would've said "No consensus" which would've resulted in the same thing. Instead, we essentially have a supervote.--v/r - TP 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the close is one thing, but calling a good faith effort "a joke" is uncalled for. My first thought when reviewing was there wasn't enough discussion on the article talk page, but when I followed the link to RSN my read of the discussion was similar to CGs. NE Ent 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The effort isn't a joke, the "RFC" is. I read the RSN thread completely different than you then. My takeaway from it was that WP:V could be met given certain conditions on Ancestry.com.--v/r - TP 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I understand the different. Ancestry.com has some good and rare records that can be used. As I stated and have been stating, I'd take a primary document of worth. As so is the discussion at RSN. The problem is that no documents have been provided and that even Poeticbent does not have access to said primary documents (its the free content only) and the tree as was in the external links was not even about the subject alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see RFC closure as a deterministic process -- it's a messy process. Lacking evidence CG was either involved or grossly ignored the discussion, closing it as they did seems reasonable to me. I'd have said the same thing had TP closed it as no consensus. The whole point of RFC should be to bring closure to a discussion; I think it counterproductive to Wikipedia overall to allow reopening of RFCs by parties disagreeing with an outcome unless there's compelling evidence the closer made a gross error. NE Ent 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, I fully support CG in this thread. It was certainly within discretion. It's just not how I'd have closed it. As I said earlier, the result is the same and I tend to get tied up in principals, but I agree CG was uninvolved and perfectly capable of the closure and Poeticbent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was in the process of opening this, when User:BarkingFish beat me to it, so 'm skipping the intro. Informing other editors about ANI is not a threat, and not an insult contrary to what BarkingFish said on my talk page... We have a prolific user here, ChrisGualtieri, a rollbacker with long edit history, who forgot that he's not an administrator (and for a good reason) dishing out controversial judgements with no regard for the contributions of other experienced Wikipedians. His personal views are so entrenched that he doesn't seem to realize that what he dishes out from his own little corner of RFC doesn't smell good. Comfort breeds contempt apparently, and his ego-self is compelled to pretend to the throne. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're currently at the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You've thrown out a ton of insults against ChrisG without at all addressing the close or substantiating your accusations. What makes Chris biased? What makes him egotistical? As far as I can see, Chris is completely neutral and uninvolved and although I disagree with his close, it doesn't at all support the remarks you've made about him. Editors have just as much capability of closing RFCs are administrators do. Whomever told you that only administrators closed RFCs was mistaken. You've given no evidence that he has a personal view prior to closing the RFC. You've given no support that his views are entrenched. You've given us nothing but your word that your insults and accusations are the truth. Seriously, welcome to WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (Quote): "Chris, I will report you to ANI for misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying." Now tell me - does that look like Poetic is "informing" the user about AN/I, or threatening to report him? To me personally, it looks like a direct threat to report Chris for a load of stuff Poetic can't actually substantiate. Partisan editing? Fakery? General Bullying? What the hell... Step up to the plate and back up your claims, if you can. Fish^Barking? 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Policy states it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. NE Ent 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks come against me from the moment I closed, I even mentioned this before. Its a wonderful example of 'i didn't hear that'. I never edited the page before closing the RFC, the view history is easy enough to check. He called me horrible things for simple closing in disagreement, based on policy nonetheless. Poeticbent created the article and has done a lot of the work, but is suffering from WP:OWN and is lashing out, even calling my close of the RFC as an XFD. I don't want to delete the article, never did. I just don't like the response to my close and how not once has an arguement over those sources been made, instead its attack the editor. If those sources pass RS and V, I'd be happy to have them on the page. Though they do not meet the criteria and Poeticbent does not have the primary documents either to back it up. Makes verification nearly impossible, and the marriage one is only one line in a book as are some of the other sources in the article. And those too have flaws, yet I didn't remove those. I was solely here for the RFC close as per the request on the page.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would probably be more easily solved by reopening the content issue and taking it to RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to WP:ELN as they wanted it as an external link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no dog in this hunt: it's very clear from the many WP:RS/N inquiries on ancestry.com that there's a wide consensus that its material is often unreliable and that most of the reliable material would tend to be considered primary sources. If the RFC had been conducted at RS/N it surely would have attracted a lot more negative responses. Moreover, a quick read over the article leaves me quite uneasy; it feels very much like a piece of original research that is having to put together a lot of material without benefit of secondary sources having done the work first. Personally, I think a procedural close sending to the issue to the correct noticeboard would have been an appropriate response, but I don't think CG's closure was out of line. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to the ELN right after I closed it by TFD. TFD was in favor of removal. [78] It should be RSN as it was before. Though I closed the way I did was because it had already been to RSN. As it was here [79]. So I closed the way I did because it I took both arguments from the pages into consideration (as the majority of activity occurred at RSN anyways). If you are implying that I should have closed by sending it back to RSN, then its surprising to me. Since I thought the matter was already handled adequately there. It bounced forums and is doing so again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done differently, only that you could have chosen to do so, with the likely outcome of that being essentially the same as your closing result. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This article was sent to AfD five times not because of Tudors... and certainly not because of Ancestry.com website. The subject was targeted by WP:EEML, one of the biggest arbitration cases in Arb history originating from Eastern Europe. When ChrisGualtieri approached this article he saw its history and instead of stepping back and acknowledging the lack of consensus he chose to take one side against the other. What's worse, he also performed unilateral revert in main space. No editor can call himself uninvolved anymore, as soon as he begins to perform unilateral reverts in support of one side in a bitter and long-standing conflict. User:The Four Deuces is an active participant in Eastern European conflicts regarding communism and he knows a lot more than he cares to admit. His two AfDs were no accident. Some of the best Wikipedians were prohibited from casting a vote by ArbCom. For him, the article subject does not matter as much as the fact that it is named Richard Tylman. Read the opening line of his second AfD. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - the "Richard Tylman issue" has been going on for quite some time and is far more complicated than some of this thread suggests. Having had a very good, long look at the whole history during the last AFD for Richard Tylman, I posted this note which gives some background. Poeticbent had tried to explain some of the background (as he has here) but without some of the details that might be construed as a conflict of interest on his part, given his openly declared conflict of interest with the previous article of the same name. Was it smart to create a new article about a different person with the same name as the subject of a very controversial article with which he had a direct conflict of interest? No, probably not "smart", but also not prohibited. There will naturally be more "eyes" on the new article given the history of the old one but it's probably not helpful to describe that extra scrutiny as "general bullying". Poetic might feel like he is being watched / scrutinised / hounded but transferring that anger onto an uninvolved editor won't help the situation, regardless of the actions of that editor. That said, nor is it particularly helpful to consider the history of an article (having "stumbled across" it) and then non-admin close a discussion based on an opinion. It doesn't help that the editor in question cited an WP:RSN discussion (with basically the same content) started by the same OP that had not yet been closed with any form of consensus that had been started only days earlier. I'm not sure why the OP felt there was a need for an RSN and a talk page RFC but citing one unclosed discussion to NAC another probably wasn't a great idea. In reality, WP:RSN is probably the best place for such a discussion and NAC'ing the RFC as a "duplicate" while directing editors to RSN would probably have been okay. To be honest, I can't see that there was a great deal of malice here, just a little bit of line over-stepping (all around) that can be quite easily resolved with a re-wording of the closure (noting duplication and directing to RSN rather than citing it) and an agreement to discuss it there with civility. Stalwart111 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and expansion

Some have thought my actions may be a bit much, in light of such strong words, even without evidence behind them, such attacks have already proven somewhat effective. So I'll point out once again, that I had no idea what I was stumbling into, I didn't even care to check the AFD history. After this little fuss started I checked and saw it was about some poet and figured that the article was in no shape or form related. How wrong I was. Stalwart seems to have pieced together what I did not know and it was eye opening. In fact, I was a little bit taken aback as the article probably didn't need to be deleted, COI notwithstanding. I really had no idea of what this drama was about or why my actions are somehow related to this mailing list and Arbcom stuff which has long preceeded my wiki activities by a span of years. When I say neutral and uninvolved, I really meant it in all forms, as I was entering the matter completely ignorant of any history and dealt with the matter purely from the RFC and the RSN noticeboard discussions. A plus or a negative, debate amongst yourself, but I had pure intentions. I decided according the guidelines for closing an RFC and did so with the policy, as policy is a foundation for good decision making, not !votes. Sadly, something with this article and the deception as well as the outlandish attacks against me have stirred a curiousity. While I looked at the sources briefly and specifically dealt with the ones concerning the RFC, the others I AGF and let them be. In light of such attacks, I feel that something was trying to be covered up, trying to scare me away, anyone who could disturb Poetic from this article. With Stalwart's post, I realized this entire thing is under POINTY. The Richard Tylman article is full of original research and synthesis and outright false information tediously crafted to portray a single individual. Simple fact, Richard Tillman was the merchant who in 1580 made 33 voyages during the 6 month recorded in the Port Book. Depending on your views as purposeful malicious action or very poor editing, the problems begin with lines like this, "In 1580 all corn sold by Faversham dealers to the London merchants came from Richard Tylman..." No source backs this. Its also blatently wrong. Even if he was mayor, the connecting stemming from a letter which states as such and a note in the history of Kent in one source but not the best one, states a Richard Tylman was mayor. Problem is that the best source says he was a merchant, nothing is said about him being a merchant AND a mayor. A bit rough to say based a single letter record which isn't a primary document, but an account of a letter rather then the letter itself. One of the sources tied to him is supposively 16 years after his death. The article itself is full of synthesis and original research. Not even Faversham's own web page makes a single mention of Richard Tylman.[80] I'd love to straighten this mess out, but I think something major is going on here and me closing the RFC was truly a blind man's folly as I've wound up in the middle of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close. It used the same reasoning recommended for closing AfDs, to evaluate the arguments about the interpretation of policy. This issue however would probably not have gone to ANI except for Poeticbent's defensive attitude toward other editors. I did not participate in the first three AfDs and, except for Poeticbent and myself, no one involved in the current article had any involvement with the previous one. And while some of the editors who voted to delete in previous AfDs were involved in Eastern European articles, many were not, yet Poeticbent impugned their motives. The only editor participating in the first nomination who was involved in Eastern European articles voted to keep. TFD (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is just another petty dispute about nothing. This should never happen. The article in question is really nothing, it may or may not exist - who cares? These databases may or may not be used - either way is fine. Whoever brought this to ANI, do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is valid to discuss whether the RfC was closed and reopened properly. My thoughts is that involved editors acted mostly in AGF, and that we should reclose the RfC as no consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I did actually revert the unclosing of the RFC by Poetic, Piotrus. If the RFC needs to be reclosed, fair enough - my understanding was that in the event of a no-consensus, closure reverts to the default - whatever it was before, in this case being a no to the decision. Will reclosing it again with a different reason make a blind bit of difference to this? It's still a no, either way. Fish^Barking? 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bettina Wulff

I'm requesting eyes on here, please. An individual with access to many IP addresses, or a group of folks (which would be a scary thought), are intent on linking to an image with an opinion regarding how it relates to the subject of the article. The first attempts were edits made to the article, when the article was protected they moved to the talk page. The talk page was protected briefly but they have returned to continue. I don't mind requesting lengthier talk page protection (and I don't mind continuously reverting the edits), but I'm hoping that there are other options available. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, I extended the talk page protection until the article's protection expires on 7 Jan. This has been going on since October (or earlier), so I doubt a month of protection will do much.--v/r - TP 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought - would blacklisting the image URL (per Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) be an option? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked into this matter before--it's about the worst kind of BLP violation you can imagine. I think we should pull out all the stops, if we have any. Range blocks, for instance, are a valid option, even one where we let the chips fall where they may. Blacklists, edit filters, whatever we have to prevent this (I'm wondering--is this happening cross-wiki?). It's one instance where I'd support Jimbo hiring a PI, a lawyer, and a gang of Russian mobsters to make a housecall. Thanks, Tide, for sticking to it. TParis, go ahead and make that indefinite protection, if you like: these articles are not that exciting for average editors, and it's better to be safe than sorry in this case. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Er, no calls for gangs of mobsters here, please, not even in jest. That sort of comment can be taken as a serious threat of violence. Otherwise I agree; talk page protection is indicated and perhaps a rangeblock of 95.33.xx.xx if this continues elsewhere and the collateral damage is not too high.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I take the jest back. I am waiting still, though, for someone to step in and make that block. In the meantime, I'm going to extend that protection on article and talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It was an entertaining idea (the mobster thing) but a bit of an overreaction for this lame edit warring (linking a cheesecake photo to the talk page). The permanent talkpage semi-protection over a handful of vandal edits is excessive too. (not sure why I thought it was permanent instead of 1 month) A range block or blacklisting/filtering/autoreverting/manually reverting the link would be more surgical. I do see some similar edit warring from the same IP range at de:Diskussion:Bettina Wulff[81]. I don't even think it's exactly vandalism as much as clueless and maybe misogynistic editing. The IP has been arguing about the photo on the German discussion page at some length. If it were up to me I'd probably just merge the article to the one about Christian Wulff, but I know that wouldn't fly. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually unless other pages are affected, a range block isn't justified IMHO. Even the month of talkpage semi-protection is maybe slightly overkill, and filtering/[auto]reversion of the specific link would be better. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Both the Bettina Wulff article and its talk page have been semiprotected into next year. That probably concludes the need for this thread, unless an admin wants to consider a range block. In my opinion a block of 95.33.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months would be tolerable and would block only a few legitimate edits. (The rangecontribs shows only 21 edits since 1 January 2012, most of which are by this guy). Since the editor only seems interested in Bettina Wulff at present and we already have semiprotection in place the possible range block should be deferred until it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Threat of Deployment of Law Enforcement Agencies by User/IP

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

---

I am here to notify the administrators of Wikipedia that I am receiving public threats of having law enforcement agencies deployed against me by the user/IP 82.73.35.159. I came to contact of the mentioned user while editing the article Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. The user seems to have abruptly undone a number of my edits, which earned him a ban by a WP administrator. Now the user seems to have come back from the ban and reappeared in the article’s talk page to threaten me personally. The user also mentions about my family in the threat and defamatorily categorizes them to substantiate the threat made at me. I request for attention of the administrators in the matter. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the comment by the IP, and I don't read it as a threat of physical harm. If read literally, it's a statement of fact that the IP has contacted the police. It's not an appropriate comment to make at Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble classifying it as a legal threat or a threat of harm; however, it is a personal attack. The article, which has a contentious history and has been a subject here before, has been semi-protected against roving IPs, but, of course, that doesn't stop them from posting on the talk page. The comment should probably simply be removed and the editor warned, but I'll let others comment first.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not a legal threat; but clearly intended to intimidate. Improper employment of the article talk page, altogether. I don't know if the connection the IP made is outing as I have no idea if the OP has self-identified. If not, the IP is seriously missing the point of our processes. Tiderolls 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a lot of identifying information on their user page, including a link to his LinkedIn profile. At the same time, I don't know if the material the IP refers to is disclosed somewhere by the OP (he has a lot of "external links" about himself on his user page).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In my opinion it seems an effective legal threat; in some areas you might have a lawyer send a cease and desist, and in others you call the police and get them to knock on doors. However, I'm not very experienced in these issues, but just wanted to give my impression. a13ean (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with a13ean. I don't see that criminal law is exempted from WP:LEGAL, and the IP's talk of defamation and settling personal scores is indistinguishable from the language of a normal legal threat. If you read the rationale for the policy, you will clearly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that the policy was created to deal with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where reasonable editors are going to disagree as to how to characterize the IP's comments. However, I've removed the comments from the talk page and warned the IP that the comments constitute a legal threat and/or a personal attack, in either event impermissible, and that a repetition will result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. a13ean (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Who cares if it's a legal threat or not, look at the rationale for why we have WP:LEGAL: It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith. This is clearly the intention here; saying you have called the police on someone is clearly aimed at creating a chilling effect in a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Some help with a suspiciously named new user account and some IP vandalism

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

---

Recently these two IPs 128.163.8.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 139.55.32.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (both geolocated to Lexington, Kentucky area) seem to have a fascination with reverting edits of mine(unexplained removal of infoboxes, etc), some are same article. Now, a brand new account Psedonymbosch (talk · contribs) (which is suspiciously named compared to my user name Heironymous Rowe) is making a similar edit to a related article (all are related archaeological sites). Someone is here to troll me. Thoughts? Any actions to be taken? Heiro 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I left the new editor a warning. I have blocked one of the IPs--the other one was not exclusively after you. I gotta run, but if you explain how that user name compares to yours, perhaps the next admin will swing the block hammer. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I guess it's something to do with Heironymous Bosch, with Psedonym being a similar misspelling of "Pseudonym" as Heironymous is to "Anonymous" (though perhaps not Anonymous --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, nothing to do with Anonymous, I've had this internet handle for years longer than they have existed. It is close to my real name (initials anyway) and I am a professional artist, plus it was a nickname I had in HS many moons ago. Heiro 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Theirs is "Psedonymbosch" or "Pseudonym Bosch", mine is "Heironymous Rowe", and then there is the artist Hieronymus Bosch, which is why I think they created this account to harass me. Heiro 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It may just be a kid who's read books by Pseudonymous Bosch. Deor (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have thought that if they had made edits with the named account before switching to the IPs, but it was vice versa, which makes me think they created the named account after I left them several warnings at the IP talk pages. Heiro 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently blocked for sockpuppetry now, along with 2 other accounts, one of which I had had recent interactions with, so I guess that's why I was targeted for this nonsense. Anyone should feel free to close this now so it can be archived. Heiro 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Article Ways of Seeing being used by a class?

Today there have been a large number of new accounts that have been editing this article. 14 18 20 22 different new accounts have been adding material. All the material is uncited, and much of it is synthesis that does not rely on any source for such synthesis. I've reverted once, but the additions continue to be added to the article. I've contacted each account that has been doing this with no response (example). Thoughts? Temporary semi-protection? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've put in an RFPP [82]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and looked, and just had to revert a plot summary that wasn't encyclopedic tone or referenced or anything at all.. I see a few options, either a class, a group of friends, an edit-a-thon for new users, extreme socking (AGF of course), etc... I'd support semi/full protection, or at the very least PC (but with such a high EC maybe not good). I'm watchlisting this so I could handle the PCs gwickwire^talk_edits 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My bet is a class, so where's the supervision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. Still, not a single account has been willing to communicate. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies protected it now [83]. Curious to see if that sparks discussion from them or not. Hopefully, they don't move on to another article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's a class, my assumption is that it's one that the instructor has not even bothered to contact WMF/WP or look around for our policies on classes editing; he just told his students go make an account and edit. I'll look through some contribs and see if I can't ascertain the supervisor's account (if they communicate with xe through xe's talkpage here) NOTE: One of the users may actually be in #wikipedia-en-help, can't tell if it's one from this class though. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is a class. Finally got some communication from one of them [84]. I've invited them here (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. Well, imo, the person I'm helping in IRC isn't going to be the same class. Thanks Drmies gwickwire^talk_edits 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

[ec: "where's the supervision?"] It's right here, BMK: I've protected it. Class dismissed, until it can discuss matters on the talk page, with supervision. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get the instructor to stop what they are doing, via the one account that has communicated (see User talk:Beliveau). I'm trying to get the instructor to review Wikipedia:School and university projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I have contacted the class and asked them to discontinue contributing to the page. I thought the contribution process was less cumbersome, and the page really needed expansion.I have to say that the more complex you make this the less they can get involved in the wikipedia project.Beliveau (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau Yes I am the instructor. Earlier this afternoon, I went to the page and posted an addition 9which is the first one that you probably went back and removed.) I saw it on the page, and then in class demonstrated the posting and the history page. I asked them to set up accounts and then read though the existing "Ways of Seeing" page and make a contribution. (We have been studying the book and the series for the last three weeks.) They started to post, and then the flurry of activity and the removals occurred. The contributions I have seen from the students are a good start for them to get involved, but they cannot interact if all the posting are pulled. what is it that they need to include for their contributions to follow wikipedia guidelines? Remember that they are new at this, I am new at using this in class, and I would like to learn how to get students involved, but really in the "without facilitators" structure...at least at this point. If I can get a handle on how to teach with it, I can devote more time to the incorporation in the future, but this was really a brief extra credit way of getting them involved. Beliveau (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

Was my user account terminated for some reason? I had to re-start a new page.Beliveau (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

• No it wasn't--you never had a user page. Hi Beliveau. The problem is that the content being added didn't really improve the article: it was mostly rather lengthy plot summary that might be relevant in a book report or so, but not in an encyclopedic article, where plot summary needs to be dry and concise. In one of the edits the cover was described at length--that is not usually the kind of thing that's helpful to a reader of an encyclopedic article, especially not if it comes with analysis. A short and to-the-point plot summary can often go without secondary sources, but analysis cannot: it's original research (WP:OR), and that's not what an encyclopedia should contain. Now, I think this is best handled on the article talk page; if a post there does not get a quick response one can always type {{helpme}} on it and someone will come along. I've protected the article since the flurry was considered disruptive (a judgment call); if discussion on the talk page is positive and can lead to article improvement, that's easily lifted and I will do so right now, in the anticipation of article edits being preceded by talk page discussion and being in accordance with various Wikipedia guidelines, in particular the linked one on original research, and probably the ones on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources WP:RS). Thanks, and let us know if we can help. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's that time of year again. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

" Women put themselves on a Pedi stole..." was my favourite. The best thing to do would be to copy the article to a sub-page of your user page, and play with it there. Let us know if you don't know how to do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Now happening at Talk:Ways of Seeing/Proposed revisions to Ways of Seeing article, with responsive instructor. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Oldhouse2012 and WikiProject banners on History of Vojvodina

G'day, this report relates to the disruptive and WP:POINT behaviour of User:Oldhouse2012 on Talk:History of Vojvodina (talk page of an article covered by ARBMAC).

On 30 November, User:Thehoboclown placed the WikiProject Hungary banner on the talk page [85]. Quite a reasonable action given Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austro-Hungarian Empire for centuries prior to 1920. I can't speak for User:Thehoboclown's actions outside of this one.

• However, on 1 December, User:Oldhouse2012 reverted User:Thehoboclown's edit, using the edit summary "Wrong WP".

• On 2 December, User:Thehoboclown restored the WikiProject Hungary banner [86] with the edit summary "restored project banner".

• At 13:07 on 3 December, User:Oldhouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner [87] with the edit summary "this is about serbia, not about hungary and this is wrong wp".

• At 13:55 on 3 December, User:Iadrian yu became involved, restoring the banner [88] with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Oldhouse2012 (talk): This is about history of Vojvodina... and that is related to Hungary too." User:User:Iadrian yu then created a section on the talk page for discussion here [89] and explained that it was quite reasonable to add the WikiProject Hungary banner, and using as an example the History of Transylvania article.

• At 21:35 on 3 December, without engaging on the talk page section created by User:Iadrian yu, User:Oldhouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner [90] with the edit summary "please discuss on talk page why this WP template should be here", and then made entries on the talk page section [91] stating "Page about Transylvania should not have WP Hungary as well. But, that article is not interesting to me. Let discuss this one: Province of Vojvodina was formed in 1945 and it have no any relation to Hungary. I understand that this article mention some events before 1945 to inform readers what preceeded formation of Vojvodina, but it is not reason that wrong WP teplate is included here. Also, former multi-ethnic country with name Kingdom of Hungary and modern Hungary of ethnic Hungarians are two different countries. Another problem is that many countries ruled in Vojvodina and only WP Hungary was adeed. Why? It is wrong. Why you did not add templates Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Great Moravia, Yugoslavia? Why only Hungary? And if we follow this logic we can add more than 20 WP templates because of similar reason why you add WP Hungary".

• User:Iadrian yu responded in the talk section [92].

• User:Brianyoumans became involved, explaining that the policy on adding WikiProjects is inclusive [93], and User:Iadrian yu agreed [94].

• I then restored the WikiProject Hungary banner per the talk page, noting the consensus of User:Iadrian yu, User:Brianyoumans and myself that the WikiProject Hungary banner was reasonable [95] with an edit summary warning User:Oldhouse2012 of a possible report of their actions if the disruption persisted.

• User:Oldhouse2012 then added 16 more banners to the talk page here [96]. This is where WP:POINT became obvious.

• I reverted the addition of all the other templates [97], and User:Oldhouse2012 reverted [98]. At which point I brought it here. In the meantime, User:Brianyoumans has been patiently looking through and culling the 16 banners added by User:Oldhouse2012. You are a better man than I am Brianyoumans...

Could an admin please reinforce WP:POINT with User:Oldhouse2012? I think the other users involved here have been more than reasonable and patient with this. This type of behaviour is very unhelpful and disruptive, and is clearly being done to make a (nationalistic) point. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse the version of events given by Peacemaker67 above. Except that he is probably a better man than I am, since he seems to do a lot more editing in this contentious area than I do, and he hasn't exploded with frustration yet.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't even read the entire description but just from what I saw on my watchlist I concur that Oldhouse2012's WikiProject censorship/spamming is entirely pointless. I'd wield the axe myself, but because it's a broad scope of articles that require intervention, I'm overly cautious because someone might cry WP:INVOLVED. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I looked at Oldhouse2012's categorisation; I think it's a little quirky (those categories could be better named, perhaps, without so much emphasis on the modern view of Hungary) but it's not really bad per se. Brianyoumans has already provided Oldhouse2012 with some good feedback and there's not much I can add to that. Those WikiProject changes look a bit pointy to me, but it's not an avalanche (yet) - I'd like to see what Oldhouse2012 does in their next editing session (they seem to edit at a particular time of day) - whether it's more pointy edits concerning projects, or going back to benign content work. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Bobrayner above. However, I have to wonder... this is a lot of very technical editing for a new account. When a new account pops up and the person immediately starts making some complicated edits, revising categories and wikiproject tags, one has to wonder whether they have edited on WP before. And when their edits are fairly contentious, almost immediately, one has to wonder if maybe their old account got blocked. But I agree that Oldhouse2012 has done some reasonable editing, and deserves a chance to show that they can play nicely.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Incidently, I had a very hard time commenting here, as the "edit" tags seemed to be way off; if you clicked on the edit tag at the top of a section, you would get a different section, several sections away. Very odd.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree re the editing. When I first saw these edits, the language and obvious experience made me think "duck" but I've given that aspect the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There have been a lot of socks in this area. I had a quick look at editing patterns and couldn't find a close match to any of the first few sockpuppeteers that sprang to mind. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012: copyvio immediately following end of 72-hour block

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

---

Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 3 days ago because of repeated copyright violations. Either he made a sincere attempt to understand why he was blocked and resolved to change his editing behaviour, or he did not, or maybe somewhere in between. Today, after the block was lifted, he made this edit to Battle of Aleppo (2012), 5 Dec 2012, citing a NOW Lebanon article (NOW Lebanon).

• Deonis 2012's text: "... Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."
• NOW Lebanon's text: "Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."

IMHO both the "did not" and "somewhere in between" hypotheses are excluded. Quotation marks are not used, the WP:WEASEL word "regime" is retained, and there is no attempt to summarise or place the information in the context of the article. This is not a case of "no other simpler, more correct, more compact way to state the information".

Deonis seems to have never responded to any attempts to talk to him on his user page, nor has he tried discussing on other user talk pages or article talk pages.

IMHO something stronger than blocking for 72 hours is needed, in order to prevent continual copyright violations. Boud (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone cares, Duplication Detector report for this edit and the source. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My assumptions are that Deonis has not learned and that they will not talk to us. I've indeffed Deonis. If they want to edit again, they're going to have to persuade us (this will require them to talk) that they will not continue to violate copyright, that they will not edit disruptively (they've done so in the past), and that they will edit collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

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

---

Confirmed Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk · contribs) has violated the conditions of the standard offer by leaving this personal-attack edit summary on his talk page after having been previously warned that the editing restriction in the standard offer apply to his own talk page as well, and that he would lose talk page access if he did not comply. (Which means he was actually eligible for revocation when he removed that very warning, but this mudslinging should seal the deal.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater is also trying to resurrect a blocked sockpuppet here after agreeing to the standard offer. 72Dino (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary. NE Ent 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have revoked User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba's talk page access for his continued abuse of the unblock system and uncivil comments being made in edit summaries. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Danjel

Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there’s this AfD for chili burger, an article I create. Most people have been voting keep; Danjel votes “Delete”, but that’s not the issue. What is the issue is that he’s turn this into another excuse (yes, he’s done this before) to character assassinate. He gets totally off-topic and mentions a series of AfDs regarding schools (his personal baliwack) that Epeefleche mostly started, and I voted “Delete” on, right here. Completely ungermane. Later, instead of actually proving an argument, he rants on here about my supposed AfD track record, using a tool that I’m almost certain is broken, by the by. Again, it seems to be indicating that this vote is some sort of compensation for my votes on the schools. And when I told him to stop mentioning the schools AfDs, and to not make it personal at AfD, not only does he ignore my imploring, he reverts me here and there, as if it was vandalism. Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate? (for previous times he’s brought this up, refer to the ANI archives, my talk page history, and Epeefleche’s talk page history) pbp 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, add Twinkle misuse here, undoing the good-faith edit that was the ANI notice. This is the second or third time a good-faith post has been tagged by him as vandalism pbp 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, you need to learn to sign and date your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't vandalism, as he alleges. I didn't want it to come to this, but he ignores and then deletes as vandalism anything I post on his talk page... pbp 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor is free to remove messages to their talk pages, with very few exceptions. While labeling the message vandalism in the edit summary is not appropriate, some editors just like to hit that TW vandal revert button. I wouldn't make a big deal over that point, and focus on the issue at AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If an editor misuses the tool to remove something off their own page as vandalism.....that IS a missuse of Twinkle. It is a big deal and one shouldn't just gloss over such on an ANI report for any reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, sorry. Being that I had asked for him not to post to my page per WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN it was WP:HARASSment (with particular reference to WP:HUSH). If only Twinkle had a rollback (HARASSER), I'd be fine. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've hatted a couple of the more offtopic diversions on the Afd. I encourage PBP to cease contributing to the Afd fracas by not responding to the off topic stuff. Stay focused on the article and ignore the ad hominem stuff, and don't start your keep comment with Seriously, dude, you're giving us deletionists a bad name -- the colder and more clinical your posts the less likely you'll get into these things. Danjel is entitled to remove message from their talk page per WP:TPO, but should stop calling the edits vandalism. NE Ent 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PBP, what administrative action are you requesting or expecting here? ANI should not be your first stop for dispute resolution; it should be one of the last. -- Dianna (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What? This is not a content dispute. This appears to be a problem with an editor during an AFD who is missusing twinkle to delete messages on his own talkpage. Where does it state anywhere that ANI is a resort for Dispute resolution of any kind? If it is urgent, then this is the best place and lets face it....very few things are that urgent. No.....ANI is not a part of the Dispute resolution process. Last resort for such is either formal mediation or arbitration. ANI is to report an incident which this editor has done. You can ignore it....but you don't need to post to blow the editor off. Just don't post at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Amadscientist. It was just a failed attempt to shut down the drama machine, — Dianna (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Above I said "Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate?" That's what I want: I want someone he'd listen to to tell him to not bring up resolved schools AfDs in AfDs and Wikipedia-space threads about other topics, and I want him to not go off-topic to mention my AfD track record using a broken tool. And it isn't my first stop: the diffs above show I tried to talk to him on his page, and he just reverted it. I don't necessarily think he needs to be blocked, but he should probably sit out the rest of the Chili burger AfD, and maybe lose Twinkle for continually telling attempts to talk to him vandalism pbp 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions for everyone's amusement:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements

The point is my !voting delete. I have provided clear argument for my !vote, and Purpleback89 presumably just doesn't like it. The WP:COMPETENCE and WP:OWN issues I have raised there are quite relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that Purplebackpack89 is trying to discount my !vote by pointing out that I drew a comparison between a school article that should have passed and this article in a completely tangential discussion with another user.

In regards to my removing his posts on my talkpage, WP:BLANKING aside, I have previously asked Purplebackpack89 not to post to my talk page, here. If I choose to call it vandalism, what's the big deal? Is he upset about the {{uw-vandal4im}} I didn't put on his talkpage? Or my missing report on the issue to WP:AIV? Drama. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There's some further comments by PBP and a response from me on my talk page: User talk:Diannaa/Archive 24#Danjel ANI. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Making an accusation on the edit summary of vandalism that is NOT vandalsim IS a big deal DON'T DO IT! It is beyond uncivil as it uses the space, watchlisted by many editors, to publicise your accusation. It is not appropriate and is a missuse of the twinkle tool. If you want a place to agree with you that such behavior is "No big deal", you came to the wrong venue because it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW and without digging for all the diffs, PBP has a long history of combative and POV behaviour. It's hardly surprising that Danjel gets riled. However, they both need to learn that AfD is not the place for a slanging match and that the DRN is the place for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Here here....accept for one small detail, is this a content dispute? I don't think so. Once a dispute goes to another venue, DR/N declines it until the other venue closes and....since this is about behavior on the AFD, it is NOT a content dispute and would not be accepted by DR/N. Only a dispute about the content itself would be accepted and not any discussion about behavior or conduct. I have to agree that it may or may not be surprising that Danjel got riled up......but his actions are unacceptable. Twinkle is not his/her personal sword of justice and making accusations of vandalism in the edit summary is beyond the pale and should NEVER be done EXCEPT when someone has actually vandalised his page. Just posting after a request to stop is not vandalsim. Its annoying, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to respond to the baseless accusations Danjel posted (taking an editor with 12K edits to AIV? Really?) or the equally unsubstantiated claims by Kudpung. I would suggest we close the AfD already; the article's been sourced and expanded; and merger can be dealt with elsewhere. And this can't very well go to DRN if one party won't even let the other talk on his talk page. Danjel's gotta open up on that pbp 03:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I have asked for you not to post to my talkpage is because previous attempts to reason with you individually were spectacularly unsuccessful and only served to further promote your belligerent attitude. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, though. I read them, found them to be erroneous, and archived them. That's the difference between you and me. I consider you to be offensive and repetitive. You consider me to be incompetent and a vandal, which is a distinction I think very few people would agree with (because it's wrong) pbp 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. That seems an accurate summary for the most part. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If a simple apology will suffice then I suggest Danjel simply make it and move on, but in my opinion he needs to be warned about accusing editors of vandalism, using Twinkle to remove non-vandal edits and for discussing the contributor and not the contributions on an AFD.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Without digging further into this, can i just say this: if I ask someone multiple times to stop posting on my talkpage, and they continue to do so, then yes, I MAY remove it and call it vandalism, and use whatever anti-vandalism tool I have. I can't report it to AIV, but I can report the harassment to ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Per Wikipedia:Vandalism. I see nothing that describes an editor refusing to respect a request to stop posting on an editors talkpage as vandalism. Using Twinkle to lable such as vandalsim is an missuse of the tool. Yes, you may report it, but it still may not be vandalism. Vandalim has a very specific definition for Wikipedia and this is not it. Annoying, maybe even harrassment in some cases but it is NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I ask you repeatedly to stop posting on my page. You continue to do so. That is certainly not a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and thus meets the definition. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not just by the posting. It has to meet the criteria for vandalism. Just not liking it does not meet that standard and is not written as policy or guideline anywhere. There are many things that it may meet to have an admin intervene but it is still NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed your rather bizarre amendment to my words - please do not do that again. We're going of down a road rather bizarrely here, and it's detracting from the issue at hand, but I just showed how it DOES meet the definition, and it has been held in the past to be appropriate on the situation noted above, so do not chastise editors for having done it - you're wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this is not assuming good faith. I was moving my own use of the same wording "Assume good faith" and simply made the mistake of deleting it off your post by accident. I accidently deleted your use of the same wording by mistake, thinking I was fixing my own. That is not an amendment, it would be a deletion and you need not go into a rant about "Bizarre" to undermine my posts. No, I am not wrong. There is no policy or guideline suggesting this to be vandalism. I have not chastised anyone. Please do not start becoming beligerent.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't delete anything from Bwilkins' post - you added something. GiantSnowman 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, your right. I see what happened now. I thought I was adding "Assume Good faith" to my own post! LOL! (not really funny I guess, but true).--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When WP:NOTVAND specifically points out that harassment is not vandalism, it's not appropriate to call it such, as it most certainly does not meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning, and is handled in a very specific way and harassment is handled another. Neither one is beneficial to Wikipedia in any way, but it serves no purpose to ignore Wikipedia's policy and call something vandalism that isn't. - SudoGhost 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been widely accepted that in the specific case where an editor who has been asked to remain off your talkpage continues to edit there, the tools can be used on your own talkpage, and it's not a violation of rollback or Twinkle ... let's not add more to what I'm saying. It's a very narrow point, not worth polluting this entire discussion over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you cannot rollback such edits or use Twinkle, but using rollback doesn't imply vandalism, and Twinkle doesn't automatically label them vandalism either; you have to specifically go out of your way to label such edits vandalism, that's something completely different than just hitting rollback on your talkpage. - SudoGhost 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take one for the team, so I have mentioned Amadscientist's concerns here. As can be seen above, PBK and Danjel appear to have made peace with each other. I move that this discussion be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirt58 (talk • contribs) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle provides four places to click when looking at a diff in the history -- clicking on one of the three that doesn't say vandalism is far less disruptive (and timesaving) than getting into wiki lawyerish justification rhetoric using the vandalism one. NE Ent 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Of course, I expect that you'll at least somewhat agree that if someone is edit-warring on your talkpage to re-include something they want there, and you have asked them not to post there before, that vandalism just might be a valid word :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you discuss it and get a consensus to change Wikipedia policy to say that, no. Wikipedia policy as currently agreed upon says that neither edit warring or harassment are considered vandalism. Harassment is harassment, not vandalism. - SudoGhost 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have reasonably precise wikiwords for most not good behavior -- vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring have distinct meanings understood by experienced editors. I certainly don't get terribly concerned when a newbie hasn't learned the code -- I'll usually just mention it like it's not a big deal, but in the future... The question I try to ask myself before pressing submit every time is: Does this escalate, deescalate, or is it neutral to the overall WP karma? (Note to stalkers: flooding my talk page with examples of where I failed isn't necessary -- I said try not succeed -- and I've probably figured it out already where I didn't.) Another wiki philosophy tenet of mine is WP is not zero sum -- when I'm butting into someone's conflict I'd really like to see a win-win outcome; unfortunately lose-lose outcomes are frequently common -- which is my segue back to the specific discussion at hand: Danjel's reverting with a description of "vandalism" is a suboptimal response to pbp's disruptive posting to Danjel's talk page; I don't see any particular benefit to ranking their respective poor behavior. PBP should stay off Danjel's talk page, except for required notifications, and Danjel should stop using vandalism for reverting non-vandalism edits. 14:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

You're asking for too much. If the guy is badgering me on an AfD page, and drops a load of meaningless information in response to me else, it's perfectly acceptable to ask him to stop, regardless of whether or not he has asked me to stop. If he didn't want to communicate with me, he should stay away from all my edits period. It is worth noting that after he attempted to kick me off his talk page, he continued to post comments on to my talk page; to say nothing of continuing to participate in this AfD that appears to be some sort of grudge match for him. I cannot condone your calling good-faith edits and requests to stop adding useless information "vandalism" because they aren't; Danjel needs to be warned about this on his talk page and maybe even lose Twinkle for it. pbp 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pssst ... you already know that Twinkle can no longer be removed - it's part of the basic interface (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof (in the form of diffs) that I continued to post to your talkpage, pbp? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proven You proved it yourself, Danjel, in that link to my talk page archives above (User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 7). On January 24, you began reverting edits I made to your talk page, while posting a long diatribe on my talkpage. In the middle of it, I ask, "Why did you revert comments on your talk page?" You cited WP:OWNTALK, then continued posting on my page. If you did not want to interact with me, you would either have a) Stopped talking to me on my talk page, or b) Never have posted on my page in the first place pbp 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So the proof that I kept editing your page after "kicking" you off my talkpage is... That I kicked you off my page? Presumably after realising that you will never participate in any meaningful discussion I should have retroactively removed all my posts? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have at least stopped adding more to my talk page. If you didn't want to interact with me, you should have not commented on my talk page, nor in the ANI I participated in. The accusation that I "will never participate in any meaningful discussion" is ridiculous, BTW pbp 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of Order Per the top of WP:DRN This is an informal board for resolving content disputes on the English Wikipedia. My reading at this point is a conduct dispute that is bordering on levels of harassment, and therefore has the strong possibility of being sumarily closed on the grounds that this is not a content dispute. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on "just take it to DRN: I had done that several back in response to Danjel's pestering of Epeefleche and myself, and in regard to the first time he reverted me as vandalism (archive 19). That was closed as "take it to WQA or ANI". The ANI discussion was closed as "take it to WQA", while the WQA discussion was closed as "take it to ANI or back to DRN". pbp 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You raised the issue at WQA on Feb 10 (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements). In that WQA thread you asked for me to blocked (or be asked to "step away from Wikipedia for a while"), topic-banned from schools and school related discussion, and forced into mentorship, in spite of the instructions at the top of WQA being that no binding decisions will be issued there. You received a less than positive response, mainly because of the fact that you wholesale ignored the WQA process.

While WQA requires a week long process, you then decided to move the issue to ANI on Feb. 12 (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel, because you weren't getting the mob-on mentality response. At ANI, yes, you were asked why you weren't letting the WQA thread run to term, a point for which you had no answer, editors surmised that you were out to silence an opponent and were told to "knock it off" because you were being a drama queen. I didn't even have to reply before it was closed.

Two separate questions: (1) why am I the only one actually providing links to evidence? (2) Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation? Actually don't bother answering. There's nothing of any significance or value in this thread but another attempt at high drama. In my opinion, there are significant issues for you of bad faith and competence, but I have tried to work these out with you before and failed. So I'm out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop calling me incompetent every other thread. Thinking I'm incompetent doesn't excuse your actions, and it's about time you learned that pbp 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of meatpuppetry

Danjel appears to be accusing me and Epeefleche (as mentioned above, the guy who started the school deletes he didn't like) of meatpuppetry here. That accusation is completely ridiculous; the only contact Epeefleche and I have had in months was a boilerplate notice I placed on his talk page to inform him of this thread. Meanwhile, he's been referring to me as a "kid playing on his whiteboard". I spent the last eight hours sleeping. He appears to have spent the last seven hours racheting up the drama. pbp 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another user, with whom you are associated, who is also renowned for a fairly high percentage of delete votes[99], particularly (excepting, of course, that he hasn't had to !vote on one of his own articles), comes in and almost completely echoes what you have said to the point where it could have been copied and pasted. Hmm. Yeah, as I said, I'm trying to leave that to one side and not go into it. He didn't contribute anything else, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why'd you bring it up? Why'd you use the term "meatpuppet" at all? pbp 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That diff says "leaving aside any possible WP:CABALism or WP:MEATpuppetry", which is bad, but it's not a simple, direct accusation of meatpuppetry. I think that everyone should stop ratcheting up the drama. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD on Eunice Panix and Administrator Mark Arsten

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

---

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AFD[ on Eunice Panix[100]

DRV[101] on Eunice Panix

I'm bringing this to ANI because this is a clear cut case of an closing administrator not just ignoring the consensus of an AFD but imposing an outcome that had virtually no support. The Eunice Panix AFD was closed as 'redirect' in spite of just one editor in the discussion favoring that result compared to seven editors for delete. The reasons for deletion, that the subject failed WP:POLITICIAN, and the supporter of redirect using the argument WP:Cheap.

Me and and another editor who supported delete, voiced our concerns. Go here[102](Please note the administrator rudely archived[103] this talk page discussion 13 minutes after somebody replied there[104]. Note there were older threads and ones not anywhere as close to active left on the page making the archiving look like an attempt to muzzle further talk especially when you consider the talk discussion was put in an archive without a link on the main talk page)[105] and here to see all the arguments. I'll quote two highlights from the first once.

Mark Arsten wrote[106]- 'You were the only one to voice opposition to a redirect. Three people were amenable to that close. To go against the numerical consensus would require a strong argument. That a "redirect" would encourage the recreation of an article is not a particularly strong argument against a redirect, in my view.'

Niteshift36 replied[107] 'You did go against the numerical consensus. 6 said delete. Just delete it. Get rid of it. Be gone. 2 said delete bet they didn't oppose redirect and 1 said redirect. Note that "not opposing" re-direct isn't supporting it. 1 even said it was pointless to do it.'

Mark Arsten said he went by the numbers, but the numbers don't support it. I suggested he let another administrator review the AFD for an outcome, but he ignored this and the thing went to AFD where the same editor is again arguing redirect and other editors don't seem to grasp that Mark Arsten totally ignored the consensus at AFD.

This shouldn't be in DRV now. I also will state that the AFD sets a very bad precedent. Namely that a closing administrator can override consensus. I also think the closing administrator was both rude and condescending in response to me and Niteshift. Yes he apologized, he still doesn't see how dead wrong the AFD outcome and that and his other behavior clearly brings into question his ability as an administrator....William 14:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit I was feeling a bit snippy on the day you approached me about that. I suppose I could blame it on too much coffee or something, but in any case, it was rude of me to cut you off by archiving. What I should have done was say "Please file a DRV, I believe our conversation is no longer productive". As I said earlier, you have my apologies. As to what to do with this redirect, I'll gladly defer to consensus at the DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the people mentioned here, I have to say that Mark apologized to me for his phrasing, conceeded that he could have said it better and, for my part, I consider it over with. I still disagree with his decision and reasoning for it, but since this is already in DRV, I'll continue to address that part there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• William, you have already opened (two days ago!) a deletion review about the article's close, you have already received Mark's apologies, what are you still looking for? Cavarrone (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

St Marys Church, Clophill

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at the history of this little article? I'd go duck hunting but I'm on the run. Also, edit war historians might get a kick out of the recent history. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've blocked the lot. Thanks y'all, for your timely assistance. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have blocked two accounts you had missed. You pretty much nailed them all. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There was more? One wonders how such edit-warring goes unnoticed! Thanks--and please see a note I left on Dennis Brown's talk page about the paperwork, and he'll send you the check for the two blocks. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd reinstate this. I've had a look around, and it isn't something that's just being made up and put into Wikipedia. It's also not related to the content dispute over the film. If you want a university press that gives the exact date, the name Jenny Humberstone, and — yes — the skull on a spike, you could do worse than Ellis 2000, pp. 211–213. Indeed, there are several worse sources to be had, but they all seem to agree on the facts of the media coverage of this church from 1963 onwards.
  • Ellis, Bill (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813121703. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's discuss that on the talk page or, if you like, add the info (minus the sensationalist weblinks) to the article. Note that I have just added body snatching to the article. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing (MMA)

[Not sure where better to post this]

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/13govr/hi_rmma_im_one_of_the_folks_resisting_ note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not really unusual. It doesn't look like Mtking has been notified of this and I'm not sure about who 'agent00F' is because the username is not registered. Slap the standard canvassing notice on the AFD and if we can figure out who the individuals are in this matter, have it brought to 3O or another venue. This really isn't major drama, but this is sounds like a personal matter and it does impact the wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Agent00f is who you're looking for... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified Agent00f Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've notified User:Mtking. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Of note there is a previous RfC/U regarding Agent00f and MMA based topics. See the mentioned previous visits to ANI in the RfC/U and their mainspace contributions when evaluating their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy. Recent AfD's have been plagued by socks. Look out, here comes another flood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Off site convassing from those who want every single MMA event and fighter ever to have their own article on Wikipedia and damnation to anyone who would dare disagree! 76.205.1.40 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Walledro

• Walledro (talk · contribs)

User:Walledro A SPA who seems intent since joining on BLP vios on this fellow David Hammond (director) for reasons known only to himself, I figure a ban is well overdue. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I've commented at the article talk page, 3RR noticeboard, and have asked for page protection. I imagine an account block will be seen as sufficient, but given the duration of BLP violations think a protection request has some merit. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the allegations at the talk page [108], it may be also appropriate to remove much or all of the section. It's inappropriate stuff, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the user was blocked for a week for 3RR. a13ean (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy of Nyttend, who must be in a good mood. 99, I am sure you're keeping an eye on this. Keep us posted, you defender of the wiki. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Nah, I'm inclined to go back into hiding, for a few days or longer. But I do maintain that there's been a string of BLP violations that beg to be permanently expunged. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User Robbiann

Robbiann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single purpose account that has been adding unreferenced information to article Chris Nathaniel in violation of WP:BLP. This has been treated as vandalism, though it has perhaps been done in good faith. William Avery (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should update the article with the negative information, properly referenced. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Slew of bad faith edits by editor Konullu

User Konullu has went on a rather wild editing spree, adding unsubstantiated POV tags to a large number of articles relating to Armenia/Armenians. He has added considerably incendiary material on the Armenian Genocide, in a vain and relatively pointless attempt to mitigate and cast doubt on its veracity. The same material has been copy + pasted onto the article on Armenia, Armenian resistance (1914–1918), Greater Armenia (political concept), the Armenian Highland, stretching the imagination on how this information can even considered remotely relevant. I think the sheer volume of these edits are enough evidence to warrant some sort of action. I do not think this editor is interested in discussing his edits; otherwise, he could have started on one article and opened up a discussion. No such discussion has been started and I and a few other editors have largely reverted every addition he has made. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless Konullu starts edit warring following getting reverted, I don't see any need for action at this time. Being bold, getting reverted if someone disagrees, and sitting down to talk is something we've always rather encouraged. Iff he's to start edit warring, I'd support applying the WP:ARBAA2 restrictions, but I don't see any indication that's happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant to reply earlier to this - I didn't realize the bot archives information so quickly. The problem is this isn't the first time such edits have been made. A while back, he created an article titled "Famous armenian [sic] murderers released from imprisonment," which was duly deleted. Just today, he readded the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article, again without any explanation or justification, and added it on other articles, including a work on Armenian history, dating back to the fifth century. On the Sumgait Pogrom article, he removed a link at the bottom of the website with the following explanation "I delete references to sumgait.info as it is biased propaganda source owned by Armenian guy in Yerevan." A source can be removed without making explicit mention of its author's identity but I think the pattern here has shown that Konullu isn't much interested in editing in a friendly environment but to edits certain articles and certain peoples without much to show for it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)