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

{{archive top|Let me cut through this Gordian knot: an interaction ban it is. I don't think we need any more outside editors to weigh in here (who would want to?) to establish that these two don't get along and should stay away from each other. If either of them want to ban themselves from editing poetry articles, that's just fine, but for such a measure there is little rationale nor outside input. Elvenscout and Tristan Noir, you are hereby ordered to stay the hell away from each other. No talking on each others' talk pages, no commenting on each other anywhere, no editing an article that the other party has been working on, et cetera. (I don't know if this needs to be logged anywhere; I'd appreciate some help with that.) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 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)

(Retrieved from auto-archive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

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

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)

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that "Moving to AN or opening RFAR = forum shopping" because BAN explicitly states "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration."

You also write "Consensus is not a vote. Rationales were also weighed in the closure." Rationales are not what Jayron32 emphasised when (s)he initially closed the ANI "[details on numbers]. Based on a combination of the numbers and the strengths of the arguments,...". If it is not primarily based on the numbers, it would be most helpful to allay concerns that this was not the correct decision, if Jayron32 were to explain in more detail what were the very strong points raised by the participants in the discussion, or guideline and policy suggestions in favour of this topic ban, that caused the debate to be closed less than 29 hours after the initial formal topic ban was proposed. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from another uninvolved admin: Jayron32's close was both appropriate and a good judge of consensus. Those opposing the ban did so primarily because they said that LittleBen is right; however, this has absolutely no bearing on the behavioral issues which resulted in the call for a ban. Another editor opposed, saying that LittleBen should have been warned first; this is obviously wrong, given that he's not only been warned but, in fact, blocked for this same behavior. I'm not saying that all of the opposes are lacking, but some clearly are. The strength of the arguments lies with those supporting the ban, and, as such, Jayron32 acted to sum up that consensus. Note, also, that an indefinite ban is not an infinite one; perhaps if LittleBen can demonstrate a more appropriate approach to Wiki-argument, then in the future s/he could have the ban overturned. Alternatively, as pointed out above, s/he is free to appeal to WP:BASC. In the meantime, there are billions of things that LittleBen could do on Wikipedia other than worry about diacritics. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 7 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)

Ryan, US birth certificates are not in general public records. E.g. (Pennsylvania) "Birth certificates maintained by the Division of Vital Records are not public certificates and, therefore, cannot be released under the provisions of Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know-Law."[62] Consider also the hullaballoo about getting POTUS Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate even with his permission. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 03:45, 7 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)

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)

• I'm writing here because AndreaUKA keeps taking personal swipes at me. So far she's called me "arrogant" and "petty" as well as making several other comments that disparage my edits here on Wikipedia. She keeps getting nastier and nastier in how she is reacting. One of the latest things she's done has been to go onto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The UKA Press (2nd nomination) and make various comments about other articles I've created and edited. An admin really needs to step in here because she just keeps getting ruder and more petty with each day, making more and more personal attacks on my edits and character here on Wikipedia. Her current conduct on the AfD for UKA Press is pretty much the epitome of why I brought this up on this board. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to state that so far Andrea's recent edits are mostly comprised of her making personal attacks against my editing and other articles I've created. Other people have told her that some of her comments were way out of line, but all she has done is continue on with her activities. I'm at my breaking point: can an admin please step in and put an end to all of this? I'd say warn her, but she's been warned by people on various forums about her attitude and she's ignored them. I'm not going to say block her from editing for a few days, but considering that she has yet to take anyone's advice about ceasing her personal attacks on my edits and character, that might be the only thing that would really get her attention. All she's really doing at this point is being disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now she's accusing me of bullying in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaUKA. I want to state up front that at no point have I endorsed bullying, nor have I asked anyone to come onto the pages to harass her. All I have done so far is to open up an AfD and edit another article up for deletion. So far she's harassed me, insulted me, insulted my editing, and accused me of bullying. The only thing she hasn't done is call me names. I'm honestly not sure what else needs to be done for an admin to step in and take action. Nothing that I or other users have said or done seems to be sinking in with her. I'm getting rather tired of her getting away with making continual personal attacks against me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Seriously, can an admin PLEASE do something about all of this? Now she's going into my own personal userspace pages and editing them under the guise of "helping". If she wants to edit the mainspace pages then fine- go ahead. But it's pretty obvious that the only reason she's doing this is because she's angry that I edited pages that she created and put one up for AfD. This is getting really old and pardon my language, but I'm pretty damn tired of her being able to get away with this. These are not good faith edits she's doing. Just one look at her rude and condescending responses to me in the multiple AfDs and the sockpuppet investigation makes that blatantly obvious. She keeps making personal comments and other aspersions against my character. She's starting to lighten up a little, but the fact remains that she has been making personal attacks against me, editing my userspace pages without my consent (some of which are already on the mainspace, making her edits useless), and generally insulting anyone that tries to explain the current notability guidelines. Seriously guys, it's time for an admin to step in because at this point the arguments are just going around in circles and most of the arguments on the pages concern her behavior. Most of her edits lately have been to argue with people, insult me, among other things. She hasn't really been all that helpful lately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 8 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[63]. 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)
• Ed, I defer to your experience. IP66, you have plenty of experience too; I believe I've seen you before, with different last digits. That you don't think this is vandalism should be belied by that experience, which should include the thought that we take our BLP violations seriously. For clarity's sake, what is included by the supposedly clueless (and supposedly no more than that) IP is the suggestion that the subject is a call girl, time and time again. If this were an article on some slug, or the fossil teeth of an extinct rodent, we could let that slide, but it's not. Even if it were just "clueless and misogynistic", that this is a BLP places an extra burden on us, and that it continues on the talk page is an indication of a kind of determination that could be called clueless only with kindness--and if this were a registered account, it'd have been blocked for incompetence at the very least. Calling it "lame edit-warring" is, and I'm surprised I have to argue this with you, completely unjustified: there can be no doubt that this is a BLP violation, and edit-warring doesn't apply in such a case. "Lame", well, you can take that up on the talk pages of the editors who reverted it, including those of MountWassen, Tiderolls (a bunch of times, esp. on the talk page--thanks Tide), and possibly Gerda Arendt. Anyway, I will refer to Ed, and I will have faith in the rest of the editors. If you want to propose a merge, you know the process, and if you're successful we'll probably extend semi-protection to that article. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The allegation that Wulff worked as a call girl is apparently well known and notable (which of course doesn't make it credible; I'll put it in with the birther allegations about the US president). It's discussed in the article's "lawsuit" and "book" sections. Yes of course that picture is a BLP problem, though on the scale of extremity let's just say Wikipedia has had much worse. Anyway I'm ok with the 1 month semi-protection of the talk page, or the range block. You can probably read the German pages much more easily than I can, so I'll defer to you about their contents. My impression from recognizing some words here and there was that the IP was trying to use the talk pages as a WP:FORUM, which is already improper whether or not it's vandalism per se. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The German article is interesting enough (learned a new word: Verleumdung), sure, as is the talk page, where the links have been removed and possibly revdeleted. (I'm not an admin there and I'm guessing--I'm also guessing that they're not consistent.) Anyway, the allegation (or, the discussion thereof) is one thing, the links that supposedly prove it, that's quite another. I think we disagree, if we do, is on no more than intent--but even if we do, I think protection is warranted and when that runs out, a watchful eye and perhaps more protection. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 06:39, 8 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 [64]. 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 [65] with the edit summary "restored project banner".

• At 13:07 on 3 December, User:Oldhouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner [66] 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 [67] 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 [68] 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 [69] 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 [70] 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 [71].

• User:Brianyoumans became involved, explaining that the policy on adding WikiProjects is inclusive [72], and User:Iadrian yu agreed [73].

• 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 [74] 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 [75]. This is where WP:POINT became obvious.

• I reverted the addition of all the other templates [76], and User:Oldhouse2012 reverted [77]. 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)

• I got hit with a bit of vandalism on my talk page not long after I made this report (which is par for the course really) but it could be meat, rather than sock. Where do I start? I have a bit of a fan club developing, apparently... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with user Peacemaker67, Oldhouse2012 is abusing wikiProjects on the page of Vojvodina (WP:POINT) by adding "all and everything". I said other wikiProjects are welcome but only related ones. I saw some projects that don`t really have a connection to Vojvodina and I think that is an abuse of other projects. Adrian (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was beginning to think that Oldhouse2012 might have gotten the message, but he clearly has not, per Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Move_forvard. In particular his insistence that WikiProject banners not be removed unless the WikiProject in question removes them. It's straight out WP:POINT and WP:HEAR. EdJohnston, I think something firmer might be necessary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I only suggest that Peacemaker67 try to chalenge my arguments on talk page instead to attack my personality. I done nothing wrong. I was discussing this problem on talk page and I was changing my position because of good arguments of other users. But, my last arguments are also good and I do not understand what could be wrong in exchange of arguments on talk page? Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oldhouse2012 has made a large number of category-related edits in Eastern Europe in a short time, on towns that have been in different countries in different historical periods. When I saw he had removed a category tag for WikiProject Hungary at Novi Sad I figured he was on some kind of nationalist mission. It did not help that his edit summary was 'this is about serbia, not about hungary and this is wrong wp', which does not suggest any understandable reason for revising tags. WikiProjects traditionally have a lot of discretion on their scope. It is unlikely that Oldhouse2012 has any mandate from members of the involved WikiProjects to make these changes. I've notified him under WP:ARBEE and since then I left a more explicit warning for him to follow consensus regarding the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that, although I have my doubts whether he will accept the consensus to remove the other WikiProject banners if there is no response in a week. I'll bring this back if there are any further issues with this behaviour. Thanks EdJohnston. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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[78], 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)

I understand and agree with Bob's intent here. At the same time, of course as Bob indicates it is bad ... Just as saying "leaving aside any [fill in the most heinous accusation one could think of] by editor x of his sister" would be bad. But not, as Bob points out, a simple, direct accusation of the heinous act. The point isn't that this rises to an accusation of anything heinous. The point is, as we are all aware, that the intent of the person "ratcheting up the drama" (as Bob puts it) with such statements may well be apparent. Perhaps the project would benefit from us all avoiding baseless "implicit" accusations of that type. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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) 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)

This has spiralled a bit. Drmies and I failed utterly to resort to the talk page, now blanked, and Template:Did you know nominations/St Marys Church, Clophill seems to have sprung up. We've been visited by a bunch of flying pigs carrying a GPS receiver, and I woke up someone in the next county. But, per User talk:Senra#Churches in Bedfordshire and User talk:Drmies#St Marys Church, Clophill a Wikipedia writer capable of copying a drawing from an old book is still needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 7 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)

Just finished reading the off-site thread. Wow - no wonder Mkting left. Agent00f absolutely made it clear that Mkting and a few others should be chased off so they can keep building their walled garden. Ah well - anyone who's tried to get in their way has been chased off so they certainly don't have any reason to stop. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically. I had a look at the utterly laughable SPI report that some pro-MMA folk filed alleging that Beeblebrox (a damn oversighter) and Scottywong are socks of Mtking. In MMA-related discussions, I've seen numerous accusations that Mtking was some kind of "abusive admin" (his user rights log never show him having been granted the mop, of course). That a user as patient as User:Dennis Brown can jump headlong into the MMA disputes and come out of it reeling in disgust shows that something is definitely wrong. There was a RfC/U on Agent00f's behaviour and nothing has come from it. (I know, an RfC/U failing to positively change problematic behaviour? That's never happened before!) I have no idea what to suggest, but that this nonsense has continued for so long is ridiculous. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any current (or imminent) AfDs of MMA articles? bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MMA#Article_Alerts lists no items that in my mind would set the MMA flood to come and derail the conversation, however it has been observed on multiple instances that calls to arms similar to this one have derailed any meaningful progress in attempting to improve the guidelines so just as I'm one of the named individuals in "the axis of MMA deletionisim" I would strongly encourage the previous behavior be considered before this ANI vanishes into the archives as all the previous ones have. Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of the finding in WP:EEMLmessages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. I'd support an indef for Agent00f on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that this might be a joe jobs?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Having read the external discussion it reads like Agent00f and does have the hallmarks of their writing style including the blind hatred of people who understand WP's policies. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgment. I didn't bother reading it myself, but thought someone should raise the possibility.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LGR -- It's possible, but looking at the posts makes me think that's not the case. That someone cares that much about this is of order unlikely, but that someone would care enough about this to set up such a detailed fake is of order unlikely^several. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never personally participated in off-wiki canvasing, and I don't particularly condone it. Maybe it's fine for soliciting advice to make articles better, but I'm guessing that's not what we're talking about here, and I am no fan of cyber-harassment. However, the attitude towards MMA I am seeing here is the sort of thing that is making it very difficult to move forward. Meanwhile many excellent contributors to MMA articles have run away from all of the drama, leaving people who are heavily invested, people who are jaded, or people who outright thrive on drama (I assure you I don't fall into the last category). Meanwhile a very pleasant guy who also worked very hard on MMA articles like Oskar Liljeblad? Gone. Anyway I think very few people who have helped out in WP:MMA would object to outside editors asking them to trim the fat. However there's certainly a middle ground between cutting an extremely notable event like UFC on Fox 2 (was the first two-hour UFC card on national television, and was headlined by two title eliminators in addition to eight other matches that had ramifications in five different weight divisions), and an article on Wild Bill's Fight Nights (an actual promotion by the way). That casual Wikipedia users and editors with an interest in MMA have reacted to the top-down approach taken towards deleting MMA events as a malicious attack, is hardly surprising. If you were going to try and improve hockey articles, you'd maybe delete some articles on minor league players who never reached the NHL, not random NHL All-Stars, and while that's not a perfect analogy, it's basically what this feels like. Grouping MMA fans together and belittling them as a whole as I've seen all too often around here is furthermore not constructive and not a way forward. This has been going in circles for a year now and it's reached farcical levels. As it were, I'm all for reasonable discourse. I think the pro-MMA camp would be very happy to re-establish specific criteria of what merits individual articles, what merits omnibus condensing (omnibuses would mostly be for combining multiple events into single articles, by year or whatever), and what does not merit any sort of article. I believe this was tried very briefly last time but the two sides were miles and miles apart. If anyone here wants to try to settle this again by establishing clear criteria with an open mind for what is inherently worthy of an MMA article and what is required to support that, I would certainly be open to trying that again (probably I'm going to regret this, but again, I hope we can at least all agree we need a constructive path forward). Beansy (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Beansy, the reason why we're at the current situation is because a compromise of the omnibus article was offered however the "obstructionist" (for lack of a better term) crowd kept re-nominating 2012 in UFC events for deletion because they saw it as the gateway to all the UFC articles being deleted. Being that several editors who offered the omnibus compromise have decided that the drama, harassment, personal attacks, and outright grief are not worth it, many have moved on and elected from a orbital strike against the entire subject area with the option of rebuilding from scratch. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links for Agent00f:

• Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

So long as User:Agent00f continues his off-wiki canvassing and keep bringing in other warriors to help him out, it seems unlikely that regular editors will have the patience to work on articles on MMA. I support Elen's suggestion of an indef block for Agent00f. This guy is not new, there was an RFCU about him in May. If he had any intention to reform he would have done so by now. The discussion in the RFCU shows that people were making a serious effort to compromise with him. These efforts were fruitless. The new thread at Reddit shows he is continuing with the usual battleground stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through that thread, and I'm disgusted. What a horrible account; no wonder Mtking packed it in. I echo the calls above for Agent00f to be indefed. He's making everything even worse than it currently is; he's not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to win his own personal battle. He won't be satisfied until he's got his way and will never compromise, because he clearly views this as his own personal crusade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Agent00f. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I took the bold action of nominating UFC 157 for deletion. Not 2 hours after I made the nomination Common Sense MMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and argues for keeping reasons and personal attacks in the exact same way that every enthusiast (including Agent00f) reasons. I've already added the {{notavote}}, but I'm betting that we'll be able to drain some of the nonsense. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

More like you took the bold action of lying... You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable. Yet, anyone with a computer can take two minutes to Google search the event as I did and find out the contrary. Before you go making more accusations, I looked up the article after reading about in USA Today, not because of some Agent guy or some web forum. I found your discussion, because the top of the article links to it. Now again, why don't you Google "USA Today" and "UFC 157" and in a matter of seconds, you will see that this globally televised event is the 1) the first time women fighters will compete in the UFC; 2) the first time a women's world fighting championship will be contested both on PPV and in the UFC; 3) the first time an openly gay fighter of either gender will compete in a major televised MMA event from ANY promotion; 4) the UFC is the largest fighting league in the world. These milestones in women's, gay, and sports history are covered in USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, and other non-MMA specific newspapers even months before the event occurs due to these major changes in the sport and advances for openly gay people and women athletes. To say it is not notable is insulting to women, gay people, and thus not just to fight fans. Its significance is only going to increase. It is not somehow going to become less notable. It is an event of firsts. And as such, it will always be the first time that the biggest MMA promotion in the world announced a main event featuring an openly gay Olympic athlete female competing for a world title on a globally televised card.Please apologize and withdraw your frivolous and hurtful AFD immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense MMA (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the stuff belongs either in the AFD or better yet, use these many sources to improve the article. However you have accused Hasteur of lying which is a personal attack if you don't provide evidence. For starters, please demonstrate where Hasteur "You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable" as I'm not seeing it. They didn't seem to do that in the AFD, instead they simply correctly noted that there are not reliable secondary sources used in the article and therefore it appears to fail GNG. Note there is a big difference between saying there are none currently used in the article and saying they don't exist. (And saying they don't exist may be a mistake, perhaps even in some cases are bad mistaken, but is not a lie unless the person is actually aware of the sources.) Hasteur may have did the former (said there are no reliable secondary sources used in the article), but you have accused them of doing the later (said they don't exist) without evidence. Note that while people are encouraged to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion and may find people getting annoyed at them if they repeatedly nominate articles for deletion with plenty of reliable secondary sources (just not used in the article), there's no strict requirement to do it in every case and in MMA cases which appear to be a mess, it's perhaps not unresonable to someone does not do so. If you are unable to provide evidence Hasteur actually said what your claimed, I strongly suggest you withdraw your statements and apologise yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's not going to get the chance. This is another sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User Robbiann

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

Please note that Chris Natundi (and all variations thereof) are one and the same person- who in the UK is known as Chris Nathaniel. He has dual citizenship and refers to himself by different names. He was arrested and charged with murder in June 2012 along with 8 accomplices. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/agent-chris-nathaniel-charged-with-murder-of-teen-danny-oshea-7873604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiann (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

The "negative information" is that the subject was arrested on suspicion of murder, but that suspect appears to have been a different person with the same name, earlier in the year.[79] 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears that this is the same person, take a look at the most recent story I could find in the British press, dated September 2012

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/neasden_man_denies_taking_part_in_revenge_murder_for_sports_agent_linked_to_usain_bolt_and_ashley_cole_1_1537147

the story also appeared in The Daily Mail here on June 26th. I can find no retractions of this story that two people have been conflated into one with a possible case of mistaken identity by the press. Among other information, the following is in common between the kilburntime story and the WP article: Mis-Teeq, NVA, Live the Dream Foundation, meetings with PMs Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, etc. Nathaniel and his business partner Paul Boadi along with their other co-defendants had a court appearance on November 23rd, as reported in this UK blog, which originally reported on the story in June and has since updated it in September and in November: http://www.duchessofhackney.com/2012/06/25/christopher-nathaniel-and-paul-boadi-denied-bail/ . --Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes I did look at a few other news stories, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between the activities of the murder suspect, and those of the guy in the article. If they are the same person, then the article has quite a few other deficiencies, for the descriptions to be that far apart. It's possible though. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources that confirm that the agent and the man arrested for murder are one and the same:

• London Evening Standard
• Court News.

There are also two WP articles about Nathaniel & Boadi's business ventures: NVA Holdings, NVA Entertainment. The two founders/principals being arrested for murder is referenced from multiple, published reliable sources and is notable enough to be included in the Nathaniel, NVA Holdings and NVA Entertainment articles. --Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that it wasn't already in the article, given how long ago the arrest was. This kind of tells me that Wikipedia doesn't have the ability to maintain this sort of article any more (if it ever did). Thanks for chasing that down. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 10:14, 7 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)

Dear Marshal Bagramyan, your comments are controversial. In the beginning you blame me for NOT GIVING explanation to my edits (the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article), later you blame me for GIVING explanation for my edits (Sumgait Pogrom article, removed link at the bottom of the website). I put POV tag only on articles which have only or mainly one-sided sources. I am not against all articles about Armenia, I only put POV tags to the ones that (I think) need this tag. I don't do vandalism, I don't delete the content or reliable sources either. I just contribute for improvement of those articles with more reliable sources. Best, Konullu (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rapid fire AfDs by Probable Sockpuppet

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

---

I opened up an SPI for User:Puffmaster as a probable sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but they are setting up AfDs so rapidly (see here) that I was hoping more eyes may be at ANI than SPI. Any help would be much appreciated with this serial sockpuppeteer. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks at the least like an editor with an agenda—and not a totally new editor. I speedy-kept one of the AfDs because the nomination was to merge the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your timely help. 72Dino (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is complete disruption. Can we rollback all of the edits and delete all of the discussions? Ryan Vesey 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw another "requested merge" in an AfD he made, so I NAC Speedy Kept it, if someone else wants it to actually run, feel free to revert me. This looks awfully little like a new editor, looks like either a vandal or a hater of a certain school.. Either way, not beneficial to the project to keep him around imo. I agree with Ryan that all of them should be SK as bad faith nominations with no basis in policy, but I'd rather let an admin do those SKs. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if it were a good faith contributor, this might be different, but this is at best an SPA, at worst a sock, so I would concur with deleting the discussions. Go Phightins! 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Call me bold, but this is pretty obvious. I've blocked them since it's ongoing and I have no doubt. They should all be squashed; it's a repetition of what was happening last night on List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people and Polytechnic Institute of New York University. These nominations are sour grapes and an attempt at revenge on another editor. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The ones with no other contributors are clear delete, whether it be G3 or G5. The rest, I'll leave to others to judge, but I speedy closed the ones with votes. Monty₈₄₅ 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A few of the deletion discussions were closed; I deleted the rest (I think I got all of them). I tagged the user page; let's not waste any more words on this sad person. Only one question, I supposed--whether to keep the deletion discussions closed by gwickwire and Monty. 72Dino, thanks for keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting and salting them: the record should not reflect this vandalism, and salt is always tasty. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Monty, they posted an unblock request. I'm biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, now he's not after articles, he's after your admin status! gwickwire^talk_edits 03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you might as well get rid of them, too. They're not really doing us any good and they were created as disruption. That said we keep the inevitable April Fools AfDs, so I could really go either way. Go Phightins! 03:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting them, but also no problem with keeping them.. I lean delete as pure bad faith nominations/borderline vandalism. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all from a de-facto banned editor anyways (serial sockpuppeter, never going to be unblocked). Just delete them all under G5. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is true, as I see it; nonetheless, some of the articles written about various subdivisions of Cal Poly are in my opinion clear overcoverage, and need at best merging and quite possibly even deletion. I will be merging (or renominating) some of them. Drmies, I assume that you will have no objection to my over-riding the salt? And these are not the only colleges with this sort of puffery: the entire field needs a general clean-up. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blanked the disruptive rambling from the sock's talk page. There's no justificcation for the personal attacks and attempt at outing (regardless of it being baseless/inaccurate). If it hasn't been done already, I would venture to say that it's probably not unreasonable for his talk page access to be revoked should he endeavour to repost or further spew disruptive blather (or even if not, given it's a sock). jæs (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Revoke talk page Could some fresh admin eyes stop by User talk:Puffmaster and take the appropriate action. Launching attacks against the blocking admin is not an acceptable user of talk page access while blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

CoI 'Keeps' in AfD?

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

---

Please take a look on this AFD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/7 Techies. I suspect CoI comments there, especially those that !voted for keeping the article. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag comments of SPA accounts as appropropriate. If you suspect socking, which is what I think you are saying, open an WP:SPI. LadyofShalott 07:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Demolition of Babri Masjid

User:Wantsallanger moved the page to Demolition of Babri mosque citing Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW, without any discussion or move request in the article talk page. Given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case and since it is an issue almost completely covered only in Indian media as the demolition of Babri Masjid, considering WP:COMMON NAME, I request an administrator to review the move and move the page back if necessary.

P.S. Since I'm in my mobile with poor internet speed, I might be late in notifying the editor. If anybody can do this for me, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Suraj T 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Notified the editor. Suraj T 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably wasn't a good idea to do that without discussion, but the conclusion to do so probably stems from Babri Mosque being the main page and Babri Masjid being the redirect. For redundancy and ease of use, the redirect does not seem to be malicious in nature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "...given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case...". Anyhow, if the OP is contesting the move, then I think the natural course of editing would be to revert the move and open discussion on the talk page. Unless I'm missing something. Ditch ∝ 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Suraj. You can move the page back over the redirect and ask the other editor to start a discussion. No admin action is necessary here.--regentspark (comment) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried moving the page, but since the old page is a redirect, that has to be deleted first right? CSD R2 and R3 certainly doesn't apply for the redirect. WP:RFD? Maybe I am thinking too much here. How do I revert page moves? Thanks for the replies. Suraj T 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

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

---

There is a new user called LatinoLatino who is insisting on adding stubs (that no one will improve and that will never be more than stubs) into a template that is supposed to be a quick guide to the most important articles related to a topic. So far so good. I tried to talk to him through the template talk page.[80] He didn't care. He seems to be very emotional and things turned bad when he said "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation".[81] I'm unwilling to pick a fight for so little, even more with someone who is so offensive and perhaps unstable. I was wondering if someone could do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the one who initiated talk at the template talk was me. Lecen is ignorant, since he seemed to not have read the articles in question.

• He wrote: "None of those are about provinces of the Empire ,but of present-day states of Brazil. This template is suppose to be simple, straightforward".
• I replied "Not true, they are not about the states!!! READ. And see TALK!! "
• He writes: "You should stop creating stubs that no one will improve"
• I replied: "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation"

When I gave reasons for inclusion I replied "Yeah, whatever.". And attacks me with "I can see that you are new here." ... Not answering to the topic.

• I reply: ... have you seen Template:Portuguese overseas empire? Why can the Portuguese Empire have such a monstruos template, and the Empire of Brazil template can not have one or two lines for the provinces?

But instead of answering he runs like a little child to the board here. I think this is a content dispute and Lecen should properly discuss. If it is forbidden to create stubs, I would like to see the policy saying so.

His above statement about me "He didn't care." is a blatant misrepresentation. I did care, and replied to any of his comments. LatinoLatino (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, calling someone "an ignorant" (especially in capital letters) is a pretty significant personal attack. If you're going to get that hot-headed when someone challenges you, Wikipedia might not be the best place for you ... again, the whole internet might not be good for you. Or even a library. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing battle between both editors. I suggest that LatinoLation not use full capitalization in his edit-summaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all. He claims to work for progress but simply creates one sentence articles and changes names of existing ones. He seems to contribute nothing and only hinder the works of others, while having a truly fowl attitude. This is just my opinion, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I understand Lecen's concerns, I'm a tad surprised that he made the report. Afterall, he's in the process of retiring from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know ... I'd like to think that even if I intended to retire from Wikipedia, I'd still find the time to report a hostile and antagonistic editor such as LatinoLatino. That he seems quite sanguine about his personal attacks suggests that he sees nothing wrong with making them, and that's not an attitude we can afford on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a look what caused me to use upper case. He simply was ignoring and refused to properly talk about the issue at the template talk. This all is a pure content dispute, there are easy ways to solve them. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though it can be difficult at times in a dispute, it's best to try & control one's temper. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomas, aren't you the one whom I helped to find out that there were two entities called State of Maranhão, and that your placement of the article about an entity that does not exist for decades under that name, whilste there is a modern state Maranhão? Aren't you the one who created

• Category:Captaincies the Portuguese Empire and
• Category:Captaincies of the Portuguese Empire ?

Didn't you add a country template to an article that was about a set of entities? Didn't you violate WP policies by copy paste moving full articles? So maybe people have a look into what these two editors are into. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that User:LatinoLatino refrain from further personal attacks and name calling and work together with other contributers. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute and may be better brought up at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would also note that the opinion of User:Lecen appears to be without much merit as there is simply no way to know that "no one" will expand these articles and to suggest that they stop creating on top of the accusation that these articles have little to no value is what may have set off the other user. Civility is a two way street. While Lecen cannot be accused of a persoanl attack they may wish to reconsider their own approach when biting the newbie.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno -- "perhaps unstable" seems personal enough to me..Moriori (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I would agree that suggesting on an AN/I that they are avoiding a discussion out of a perception that the other editor is "unstable" would indeed be a personal attack as well as a method of undermining the editors work. Thank you. Good point.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And still no answer by Lecen or any contribution by Cristiano Tomas to the talk page Template talk:Empire of Brazil. Cristiano just made a hate-post here, and that's it. Maybe he is angry because I changed some of the stuff he did. But that is WP, not? LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Yes LatinoLatino, I am a human that makes occassional mistakes, but I'd like to think that the couple mistakes I've made have been overshadowed by the contributions of actual content I have also made. This arguement you just pulled, really quite low and childish of you. Why not take a look at Portuguese nobility? or why not look at Portuguese Crown Jewels? or Kingdom of the Algarve? But instead you call me out on what is obviously a few mistakes I've made. I would look past your mistakes if there was anything else to look at, but all your edits, as I have reviewed, have been really quite meaningless. Sure, you have added templates to many articles that were linked to it, but you have created countless stubs and articles, all the while having a quite rude attitude (which I recognized I may possess at the moment). Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what administrative action is being asked for. "I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all." Why? Just quickly reviewing his edits, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them (outside the unacceptable tone of his edit summaries). An "empire" is composed of territories, not generals. It is expected and quite natural to add them to the template, even if currently underdeveloped. His attempts to disambiguate Maranhao is spot on and necessary. I don't see anything particularly egregious or unproductive. He is a new editor, and yet instead of his participation being welcomed and his changes being discussed, he is greeted with reversals, dismissiveness and hostility and now an ANI asking for his block? What happened to WP:AGF? While there is a problem with the tone of his edit summaries, he hasn't exactly been greeted very cordially either. Walrasiad (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad - Thank you!!! Thank you for actually looking into the contributions. Too bad, I just removed the provinces from the Template:Empire of Brazil and used again the Template:Provinces of the Empire of Brazil (created by me). LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it might help if everyone would realize that what may be a strong insult in English isn't necessarily so in the romance languages (as it appears that ESL issues may be in play here). That is not to excuse LatinoLatino's responses, but to put them in context. And, as pointed out by Walrasiad, he hasn't exactly been received in the way one would expect of more experienced editors; he sounds like a frustrated, bitten newbie from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that true? I believe that Lecen is Brazilian, and therefore a speaker of one of the Romance languages, and he seemed to find some of the comments offensive. Having said that though, I've learned from bitter experience that even in different English-speaking countries certain insults such as "fucking cunt" are interpreted in quite different ways. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Lecen is, he went away from content discussion and impromperly attacks other users. [82] "And no, he isn't helping. He is clearly not improving, expanding or fixing any article. He is creati9ng a bunch of unnecessary articles that have no room to be expanded" - everyone can see how I did expand, improved and fixed articles. LatinoLatino (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? It seems you haven't done your hw. Lecen has almost singularly created many featured articles. Writing more content in one of the articles than you have added in your entire time here. But this is not on Lecen or my record as an editor, but yours, so why not stop bringing our edits into question. This is on your conduct, which has been below exemplary. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

POV and new/ip editors at White privilege

There is a new editor at White privilege, as well as a new ip editor, both pushing the same POV. This POV is nearly identical to that of an editor Apostle12 believed to have violated WP:CAN in the past, down to the focus on the lede paragraph and the insertion of mitigating language, which has been discussed at length on the talk page. I do not know if Apostle12 is involved, nor frankly do I have any reason to suspect them other than their previous seeming violation of WP:CAN. Regardless, the article could definitely use some experienced editors and/or administrators to help with this influx of new editors. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't now Apostle 12. I was interested in the topic long time ago, as it interests me how we can talk about white privilege of whites for example in Nazi camps compared to their Japanese allies-or state European colonialism where majority of European ethnic groups were not part of colonisation.--Questionentity (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I too have little reason to think that Apostle12 canvassed the new editors to the page. However, if anyone finds it relevant, here are diffs of Apostle12's apparent canvassing of other users: [83], [84], and [85]. There is currently an RFC/U being drafted to address this and other problems.WP:RFC/U/A#First_RfC -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I asked three previous editors to consider rejoining the discussion. I was completely transparent about my request and announced it on the White privilege talk page. Ever since, Marie Paradox has been endlessly harassing me about "canvassing," referring others to a section she opened on my talk page. Now she raises it once again.

For the record, when I contacted the previous editors I had no idea what their edits had been, since I never looked. I knew only that they felt the article lacked sufficient criticism to be considered NPOV. As I recall, at least one editor had quit editing out of frustration because the entrenched editors kept reverting his edits. I had no idea whether or not their opinions were similar to my own; I knew only that, in general terms, they felt the article lacked balance.

One previous editor I contacted, Thucydides411, did rejoin the discussion a few days ago. His comments have been extraordinarily thoughtful, and he brings a high degree of scholarship to the article. He too has become frustrated by editors UsetheCommandLIne and Marie Paradox.

Apparently some new editors have arrived (Today? Haven't read their edits yet, since I decided to take care of this first.) I certainly didn't canvas them--I assume they aren't even among the three I contacted several weeks ago.

Perhaps UseTheCommandLine and Marie Paradox would do well to drop their intransigence and accept that the article as presently written, and especially the lede, is flawed. The article carries an NPOV tag for a reason. Any similarity between the new editors' work and my opinions may simply be a case of "great minds thinking alike."

UsetheCommandLine has also raised the possibility of me using sockpuppets. I will expect a full apology when he discovers how mistaken he is.

By the way, in early November UsetheCommandLine explicitly requested that I add a "Criticism" section to the article, so I spent a full evening doing so--refreshing some criticisms that had been deleted for poor sourcing, finding new sources, and adding some new perspectives. Immediately I was attacked by Marie Paradox, and then by Usethe CommandLine himself - for adding the requested section.

Following these attacks, and especially following Marie Paradox's endless nagging about "canvassing," I decided to stop trying to edit the article. My participation since then has been limited to monitoring Talk and commenting occasionally. Apostle12 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of the blue an editor with the same agenda, with a one track mind. --Inayity (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will note that after further consideration and a bit of looking at edit histories, I filed a request with WP:SPI anyway. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I reverted the disruptive edits, I got this little bit of cheek. Clearly this user is a troublemaker. Midhart90 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you call somebody requesting source regarding a highly controversial statement and weasel word like "many societies" a troublemaker is beyond me. The article mentions three countries out of over hundred I believe, it is completely valid to ask for source that claims this is found in many societies.--Questionentity (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question for Midhart90, how is this edit [86] vandalism? It seems to me you are abusing twinkle. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem new to the page yet you are hitting one editor (User:Midhart90) while doing actions outside of wiki policy,There is a talk page discussion about those insertions, have you read them. Or are you beyond reading them? Do you help by talking about NPOV without referring to the issues raised on the talk page?--Inayity (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I could see, the edits in question served only to inject weasel words into the article. Apologies if legitimate material was caught in the crossfire. Midhart90 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And even if weasel words had been placed in the article, how is it vandalism? Or this your next revert[87] How is adding a tact tag vandalism? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I might have been a little quick off the draw in marking all this as vandalism. In hindsight, I probably would have been better off using the neutral revert button. However, judging by the edit history, I feel that the intent of peppering the article with these tags was more to disrupt the article than as a serious request for additional sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midhart90 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Note: UTCL has opened an SPI case against Apostle12 and Questionentity here. It is currently awaiting CheckUser attention. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And you gave him a final warning?[88] and then reported him to AIV[89] in which you make a personal attack by accusing the user of trolling. You need to have twinkle acces removed and read WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, this[90] was also not vandalism, removing unsourced content from a BLP rarely is. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't have the ability to revoke twinkle access, as far as I'm aware. However, you're right in saying those edits are not vandalism and Midhart90 needs to take more care over how he characterises the edits of others. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that content was unsourced. To me it appeared that a random IP blanked out half the article without explaining why. I left a message for the IP reminding him to use edit summaries in the future. That being said, I am still relatively new to using Twinkle and I think I'll lay off using it for a while until I have studied it more so as to avoid burning the place down with it. In no way did I intend any of my edits to to have been a personal attack against anybody. Midhart90 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense to me. It looks to me like Midhart90 was involved in a classic edit war and when Questionentity tried to discsuss the matter, not only did Midhart90 arrogantly ignore the conversation, but called it "a bit of cheek" and added a personal attack. Then forum shopped at AIV trying to get his/her opponent blocked. Talk about bad faith! Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Inayity's tooth-and-nail behaviour with White privilege is starting to attract more badly needed attention, and she tries the 'lump all comers into one entity' gambit. Questionentity, Apostle12 and I are three unrelated commenters. I stumbled across this mess only yesterday after seeing some of Inayity's activity on another page. It appears for some time she in the main has been actively resisting any attempts to neutralize the discernible "point-of-view" the article is written in. I also saw where she wrote on the SPI 'I call my mates, get them involved'. No doubt exactly what she does while fighting a batteground with all unified monolithic opposing hosts when her behaviour starts getting more attention. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that one must assume good faith. This type of edit, specifically inserting additional mitigating language into the lede, was the subject of a protracted discussion a month ago. As a relatively new editor, I am unsure of how to help deal with this, particularly given that both editors involved, Apostle12 and Questionentity have showed resistance to discussing the issue, often re-inserting the same or similar edits after they are reverted, without substantial good-faith discussion. This is particularly significant for White privilege, because putting out these proverbial fires surrounding the lede does not allow me or other editors time to do meaningful work improving the remainder of the page, a task that seems clearly necessary.

As a new editor, I was frankly unfamiliar with WP's advice on criticism sections. I suggested it to Apostle12 because the history of the article contained similar sections, and I believed that Apostle12 could help substantially improve the article if they were recruited to find and summarize relevant criticism. After weeks of patient good faith suggestions on my own part to produce such a section, other editors pointed out WP:CRIT, but I raised the issue of the quality of sources Apostle12 introduced (and their non-free nature, which was quoted). At that point other editors raised the issue that the section Apostle12 contained a number of sources that had been previously introduced, discussed, and felt by the editors at that time not to be worth including.

So again, I am a new editor -- what mechanisms are available to manage the edits to controversial subjects, as this one seems to be, in order for editors of all viewpoints to avoid constantly being drawn into edit wars? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User Dark something has just causally reinserted the same language which was fought over for months. I have used the talk page but Talk pages do not matter, why bother with a talk page, when your opinions on controversial issues matter. Then there is zero point in contributing. B/c 4 minutes after a 2 week debate on such language, some unknown to the page casually reinserts it, ignoring that talk page. I wouldnt even bother to reply to the ip above. --Inayity (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This exact same language has been inserted three times in the last three hours by three different editors (one an ip editor) without discussing it on the talk page. Inayity has actually started a new section at the talk page pointing to the previous discussion about mitigating language, and Apostle12 has been the only one to respond, though Apostle12 has, presumably, not been the one making the edits. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Her "discussion" consists of her saying she refuses to discuss it - because it was already discussed and decided permanently by a small group of Wise Elders in days of Old, long before lots more people started showing up asking questions. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this to be a mischaracterization. There was substantial discussion about this very issue on the talk page, and so perhaps your concerns are addressed. I seem to recall us coming to something that at least looked a little bit like consensus over this very issue. If you have additional concerns that are not addressed in that discussion, it would be much more helpful to be familiar with the previous discussion, which was extremely protracted and covered a great deal of ground, in the interest of not rehashing the same issues. If you have additional concerns, or feel as though the lengthy discussion did not address yours, then perhaps you can use the previous discussion as a starting point for your particular criticism. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that over the past month I have posted at WT:MOS, WP:DRN, and i believe here at WP:AN/I in reference to this same article. I and others had begun drafting an RfC/U in regards to Apostle12's behavior, but my and others' lack of experience with that process has meant that it has not been completed in a short enough time frame to be useful -- we are again putting out the fires set by those who seem to be unfamiliar with either WP:OUTRAGE or WP:SOAP, among others. Even further, additional historical interactions (before my time) between other editors and Apostle12 have found their way into the draft RfC, making any potential product of this process more of a jumble. Again, I believe I have assumed good faith and tried my best to maintain a NPOV on the page, as my edit history will attest, but I simply do not have the time or knowledge of policy to effectively navigate this ongoing edit war. I can only speak for myself, but I would very much appreciate guidance. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A person of admin status (assuming) does this enters a unresolved dispute because THEY single person agree with it. What should have happened was a contribution to the talk page to add to the resolution. That would be wiki policy per WP:DISPUTE--Inayity (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin, where did you get that from? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Its good that I returned to this page to read statements of UseTheCommandLine-contrary to what he/she says I have tried repeatedly to discuss the issue on the talk page only for editors interested in keeping the POV-mess that the article is currently in rejecting any sensible discussion. However at this time, at least one of the editors openly stated that he is not interested in NPOV of the article but will advocate a POV position, and declared that he will not discuss the issue with others...some people are hell bent on inserting a tone that cast doubt over the existence of WP.(its all in our heads) I will not waste time repeating the prolong contents of the discussion i have made ref to

--Questionentity (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Spinner (wheel)

Please review this diff. I have not notified the posting editor of this thread. --Tgeairn (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Gragg, his socks, and his IPs have already been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor (self-identified as Gragg) has posted an apology at the article talk, using yet another IP. --Tgeairn (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked too. He has also posted the same missive on my tp. The apology is just another promo for his patent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV notice removed, edit approved

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

---

Sorry, how exactly does it happen that after such a long discussion, a sudden edit request is made and confirmed by a single party without reference to others' suggestions, and a dispute resolution case is closed? I refer to the sudden edit request. Allowing this to occur and closing the DRN is ridiculous mockery of any sort of fair process, and sidelines many contributions with points arguably far more relevant than those present in the (immediately effected, without discussion) changes proposed by a single party previously involved in the discussions. On this basis:

• I reject Amadscientist's sudden motion to close (and re-open!) this DRN, which is simply a waste of people's time. The discussion has not concluded.
• The proposals made should be discussed and integrated. Someone's new proposal, ignoring significant content resulting from extended discussions, should not have been suddenly approved by Mr. Stradivarius without discussion. Furthermore, the POV notice for the section should not have been removed without comment when this edit request was suddenly approved.

Sincerely, with a view toward integrating all of the excellent sources uncovered during the discussions. prat (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit was not made by a "single party". The draft was proposed by User:Smickles86 on 29 November, I responded 6 days later with a small change, it was agreed to on 4 November and then the edit request was put in, and the edit was made by an uninvolved administrator. I notified you of the discussion and you even commented about the discussion, stating that you "do not think starting a new section was a good idea", so it's not like you just weren't aware of the discussion and someone snuck up and threw up an edit request before anyone could respond, the edit request was done six days after the proposal was drafted, in a section that you acknowledged seeing. Did you try discussing this with a single person before bringing this here? This is a content dispute, and not only does it not belong here, I really don't think you should be complaining on ANI about a tag that you as an involved administator inserted without any discussion before or after into the fully-protected article, ignoring the request to revert it per WP:BRD. - SudoGhost 10:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't read through the DRN discussion, but the discussion on the talk page looked like enough to give the edit consensus. If the details of the DRN discussion were such that there obviously wasn't a consensus to make that edit, then I will happily undo it. I don't really care one way or the other - I just made the edit as part of patrolling CAT:EP. I agree with SudoGhost that this is a content matter, and I'm not really sure that it belongs at ANI. Pratyeka, is there a conduct aspect to this dispute that you think should be dealt with here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing in the DRN discussion that would come even close to suggesting that there wasn't a consensus for the edit in question, indeed the only thing that came close to discussing the actual content was this comment from Smickles86. Pratyeka commented on the discussion not long after that, so I'm really confused as to why he's suggesting that this is some out of the blue thing, since he had seen the discussion and knew it was being discussed, and the edit request came six days after Smickles86 made the proposal, which is more than enough time for someone to make some objection to it. - SudoGhost 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Iranian weaponry article infobox image sizes

There seems to be a swath of IPs and single-purpose accounts intent on increasing infobox image size in Iranian weaponry articles from the standard 300px to 400-600px, blowing up the size of the infobox.

Users (that I know of) and example diffs:

• 114.108.196.217 (talk) [91]
• 222.127.214.149 (talk) [92]
• Thathgar (talk · contribs) [93]
• Makoremusko (talk · contribs) [94]
• Jkauhh (talk · contribs) [95]
• Akarinahk (talk · contribs) [96]
• Sakahalin (talk · contribs) [97]
• Lkaria (talk · contribs) [98]

Could an admin look into the matter? MKFI (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected AKM, Toophan, 9K38 Igla, Heckler & Koch G3, and PK machine gun for 1 week. I didn't protect Heckler & Koch MP5 as the image size has only been changed once so far, and that was 5 days ago. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this has been going on for longer; for instance, these edits by Rablu1 (talk · contribs) in October. (There are a lot more on various Iranian weaponry articles). Does Rablu1 have any connection with the users named above? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Tony_Estanguet.jpg

Can someone please double-check the spelling of the uploader's name in the original, deleted, en-wiki version? They don't have a User page or user talk, so I need to make sure we're crediting them correctly at Featured Pictures. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The only text on that image's page, as File:Tony estanguet wch prague 2006.jpg, as uploaded by Pavel.rycl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), read

Summary

Tony Estanguet riding for the gold medal at World Championship at Troja slalom course in Prague, Czech Republic, in 2006.

Licensing

{{cc-by-3.0}}

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

77.96.180.241 - Personal Attacks, Vandalism, and Edit Warring

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

---

I am coming here to report User:77.96.180.241. This user has been warned for edit warring, attacked multiple users: [99] [100] and attempted to hide this by repeatedly blanking his/her talk page. Vacation^nine 16:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't vandalise your own talk page. S/he's allowed to blank it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

HBC AIV helperbot7 incorrectly removing entries from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi, not sure where to post this as the author of the bot says he may not pick up messages, so it suggests posting here. The bot is continually removing the block request for User:220.244.57.53‎ despite no-one blocking them. The logs for both the anon, and the random admin that it claims has blocked the anon, both show no block has been made. Halsteadk (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The last 7 or so edits that they have made don't seem to be vandalism ... and that goes back a few days (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the converse, see this earlier discussion. I think these bots are seriously unwell; perhaps they're depressed in advance of the holiday season. One summary said that User:Kim Dent-Brown blocked the IP. Is that a BLP violation?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think this bot has been updated in 5 years or so, since it never really broke. The bot is screen-scraping to check if users are blocked (which is probably where the error is) and seems to be long due for a rewrite. If I get time to write a new bot after finals, I think it would be good for an addition of something like <!-- no bot removal --> or the sort. Legoktm (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

On the Star Trek: Klingon Academy article, I removed some info, another editor reinstated it, and the end result after some back and forth was that the article was protected to stop edit-warring and facilitate discussion on the talk page. The original editor hasn't responded, but another IP-hopping editor who is apparently following me around, has jumped in and started reverting. Eik Corell (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone reading this does it first, go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection for some stretch of time, like a week or two (for now). That will fend off the rabble while allowing regular users to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Things are pretty crazy backed up at RFPP right now. I gotta go to the gym so if any admins could investigate one or two cases I would appreciate it. Laters -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We are back down to a handful of RFPP requests; thanks to all who helped clear the backlog. The Star Trek case was declined by another admin, so sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Subtropical-man

User:Subtropical-man has long been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists and its related pages. Subtropical-man's disruptions include number of recent reverts to consensus based changes made in October to Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox. Back in June, Subtropical-man also made attempts to delete the template altogether which he didn't succeed in. I would also like to point out that not long ago, I with other editors decided to reduce the size of List of best-selling music artists by trimming the bottom 20 million at List of best-selling music artists. Subtropical-man, however, ignored the consensus and created List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records), which I nominated for AfD but still in process.--Harout72 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Harout72: Harout72 has long been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists and its related pages. This user made ​​changes despite the lack of consensus, users: CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus. Especially if there are strong opposes. Please see [101]. His changes have been undone, and user Harout72 started the edit war, please see [102]. Second case: yes, was a consensus to use options of reduce the size of the article, but were are doubts as to remove content from Wikipedia, I was the second user who created the article for lower sales (below 70 million). There was no clear consensus to "Trimming", there were also votes for "Splitting". Also, user Harout72 again manipulated pseudo-consensus, making changes two days after the positive vote of their colleagues. Only two days discussion between four users and making changes, please see [103]. Too fast. Two days is too short a time that can not comment more users, especially if concern significant change in the article. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that 2:1 is considered an actual consensus.[104] Also, a Strong Oppose is as good as Weak Keep: it's a vote one way vs. the other way. Nonpartisan Neutral will hopefully catch on. Has communication broken down on the talk page to the point where this content dispute should be here already? Doc talk 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You is right, should be further discussed and we should find a good consensus. But, user Harout72 do not want it. He will apply the principle: "I will give a controversial idea-->two of my colleagues support this-->quickly finish the discussion, announce consensus and make changes immediately. Then, if there are objections (strong opposes), others users must make a new consensus. If some administrator would support this manipulation, tommorow I create one-minute discussion, me and my colleague give voice and I quickly announce a new consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We did discuss it also in another thread wherein Subtropical-man didn't provide clear explanation as to why he opposed the newer suggestion. He seemed to be against the percentage requirements in general, which was based on earlier consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tommorow I create one-minute discussion, me and my colleague give voice and I quickly announce a new consensus. I'll apply the same principle as Harout72, only faster. Ok? User Harout72 wrote Wikipedia:Consensus does not say how many time should pass after the last comment to suggest whether the discussion has reached consensus. Ok, so... one-minute discussion does not break the rules. Just the way it should be? discussion important for the article are too fast and it is good? No, administrators should be noted and allow further discussion, especially if occur a strong oppositions.

This user made ​​changes despite the lack of consensus, users: CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus. Especially if there are strong opposes, there is no consensus, however, user quickly made ​​changes. This is a typical manipulation and this edition in article have to be withdrawn to time of clear consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED means that even a short consensus victory can be overturned by the greater consensus of the community. Talk it out on the talk page would be my advice, because no blocks are needed here to prevent disruption (which seems to be the reason for the filing of the thread). Doc talk 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Doc9871, the problem is that there was no consensus. User Harout72 made ​​the changes despite the fact that there was no clear consensus (CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus.) [105] - this is problem. This is lawlessness. Changing drastically change the article, should be clear consensus, not lawlessness by Harout72 (Harout72 started to make changes before the end of the discussion, and not looking at whether exist or not a consensus). Subtropical-man (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, are you aware that at 938 kB the article is about nine times the recommended size for Wikipedia articles? That users on dial-up or on mobile devices will find it impossible to load and view the article in its present state? Please consider revisiting your decision to restore the trimmed content. -- Dianna (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram on Indic communities

Can someone please take a look at the recent contributions of Doncram to List of Other Backward Classes and various related articles. They do not have a clue what they are doing, they are making a complete hash of things and they are doing so in a subject area that is permanently toxic anyway. There is an AfD here and there was much discussion and explanation of the difficulties in another recent Afd here. I've pointed out a couple of problems on their talk page but, really, this is going to spin out of control very fast. Whether accidental or not, of the source material are incredibly disruptive and there are not that many people who can do the inevitable and substantial cleanup.

I can't keep warring with him, obviously, but nor can the poor contributions stand: we'll have some sort of Armaggedon in the Indic sphere of WP if they do. - Sitush (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That notice sounds concerning, but I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate it. I suggest that someone post a neutrally worded notice on some relevant project pages asking for some knowledgeable users to take a look at this issue. And it might be best for Doncram to temporarily put a hold on these edits until we can get more input on them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will hold for a bit, yes. Discussion can take place at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes. About one matter of there being two different groups called Koli, but only one Wikipedia article that Koli links to, I also opened discussion at Talk:Koli people. I seriously wish that Sitush and others would csuch distortionsontribute to content discussion at appropriate Talk pages like those. Sitush has outright refused, at my Talk, to respond at Talk:Koli people, and rather has proceeded with threats of ANI proceedings (now carried out) and vile language. I am truly dismayed, seriously. --doncram 23:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I would like to contribute toward solution of great difficulty in Wikipedia by strictly using available, official sources to begin to make sense of India's castes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, etc., and have started List of Other Backward Classes and List of Scheduled Castes, now both under AFD.

However, I am horrified at Sitush's vile language directly at my Talk page, at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes, and in edit summaries at List of Other Backward Classes. "crap" "fuck" "bullshit" "twaddle" are Sitush's words, within the past hour or two. This is inappropriate, entirely unprofessional badgering, IMHO. --doncram 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am losing my rag, yes, but not directly at you. All this stuff has been explained in detail by people who do know the subject area and you are not getting it. After many hours of discussion, it is no wonder if someone starts to get frustrated, even more so when they are faced with someone so clueless who is barging around. The content is crap, is twaddle etc. That you cannot even interpret the lists correctly and have been linking to incorrect communities (same name but completely different) + inserting statements on the articles for those incorrectly identified communities is particularly worrying. I really do not think you appreciate just what a timebomb you are creating here, although you have been told often enough. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those pot-kettle and a certain lack of colouring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Doncram but Sitush's tirades and personal insults seem quite outrageous, being contrary to WP:OWN and other behavioural guidelines. Warden (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go with TLDR. I spend a phenomenal amount of my time on WP dealing with caste stuff. It is a complex subject area and it is prone to POV edits, vandalism, puffery and, well, you name it. And that is just from contributors who generally appear to be located in the Indian subcontinent. I have regularly been brought here and to other venues such as DRN. Far too often for my liking but if people want to try it then that's their prerogative. What is particularly odd about this episode is that it originated with a deletion discussion (linked above) relating to List of Indian castes. That discussion appeared to attract the interest of people associated with ARS who - put bluntly - had no clue about the topic and were seemingly arguing that various guidelines could over-rule various policies. The AfD discussion was lengthy and, broadly speaking, amounted to ARS vs people who knew the subject & have had a heavy involvement in it. The list was deleted and subsequently userfied.

Doncram took part in those discussions, as did Warden. From that, they should be aware of the numerous problems surrounding such lists, although they chose not to recognise them at the time. I'd asked Doncram to stop, I'd presented some diffs, and I'd made some suggestions but, no, off he goes ... and kept going until I raised the issue here. At some point, I am going to blow up when faced with a situation such as this. As the original AfD discussion noted, there are in excess of 20,000 recognised communities in India We have articles on only a fraction of those, and there are many instances where a community called X in, say, Maharashtra is not the same as a similarly-named community in, say, Goa. Given that the subject area is so toxic that WP:GS/Caste applies, it is unbelievable that people with no obvious prior knowledge suddenly weigh-in with "this is easy, we can just transcribe a list" etc solutions. It isn't easy, and just transcribing a list can be highly problematic. Even more so if, as Doncram was doing, he then links that list and makes changes to what he thinks are the valid articles for this or that community.

It isn't as if all this stuff has not been previously explained, and when - for example - he links the Dhangar community of Goa to Dhangar and says that the source indicates they are an Other Backward Class in Goa, well, expect some fireworks. Not necessarily from me, although it was in that instance. If Doncram seriously expects me to continue what amounts to the same discussion across potentially > 20,000 articles then they have another think coming. The discussion needs to be centralised and not turned into some sort of micro-issue. It is not a micro issue: Doncram may be well-intentioned but has no clue and needs to back off. Since they were continuing to make poor edits, I brought it here and - lo and behold - in the glare of ANI they announce a willingness to do so. I'll admit to knowing that Doncram has had issues elsewhere but this report was focussed narrowly. It is difficult enough dealing with this subject area without someone starting WW3 due to their ignorance. If you want to get involved then you're more than welcome, but I'd suggest beginning with an article about a specific community rather than a top-down approach. Do a few of those and you'll begin to understand the issues. Doncram was writing "twaddle", "crap" etc and was doing so despite this having being explained. Patience runs out eventually and, believe me, there was a lot of patience shown by the numerous !vote "delete" contributors in the recent AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly have to disagree. Sitush puts up with so much bullshit that I'm not so much surprised he's exasperated as amazed he's been able to deal with it so long. This is one of these situations where people who don't know what they don't know refuse to listen to someone who does. We don't expect editors to have infinite patience; and if you don't believe how rough it is in this topic area, I'll invite you to follow either of us around to see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram at lists of various churches

Taking Doncram's comments in mind and the direction of the above discussion, I've moved this into a subsection Ryan Vesey 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unrelated to Indic communities, there have been a number of other disruptive edits by the user. He has been displaying a lot of ownership at Talk:List of Methodist churches including telling Orlady, an editor who nominated the article for deletion, not to edit the article or to reply on the talk page. Later, he continued to edit war to restore red links (which are now blue) to the see also section and to add an out of process note to the bottom of a section that duplicated the see also message. He refers to any edits he disagrees with on the article page as disruptive "If any more editors want to claim credit for identifying some small criticism of this new article, please do claim credit here on the Talk page, or somewhere else, rather than disrupting the article itself". He furthered that with

Another editor, apparently also attracted to causing disruption, has repeatedly removed links from See Also. This editor, Nyttend, hasn't even bothered to check the contents, and has deleted bluelinks as well, e.g. in this edit which i have reverted. The point I take from this is that a few editors are dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on. If you are not part of developing this article, please go away. And, either if you are dedicated to disruption, or if you seriously think you have a legitimate issue, be civil and discuss it here, at the Talk page of the article. Repeated disruptive edits by administrators. without any explanation and demonstrating ignorance of what is blue vs. red, seem more to be about exerting control and bureaucracy and hatred, than anything else. If you are a real communicating person, Christian or otherwise, or at least Human / humane, use your words, please

In this, he attempts to depict Nyttend as not being human, which was furthered with an edit summary where he referred to Nyttend as an "idiotic non-person". On another page, List of Methodist churches in the United States, Nyttend removed empty coordinates which caused an error message on the page. Rather than thanking Nyttend for the help, Doncram accused Nyttend of disruption and pointiness on the talk page. Nothing individually has been beyond the pale, but Doncram has become disruptive in his claims that any edits he doesn't like are disruptive and his misuse of Wikipedia policies. Combining this with edit warring and the personal attack I mentioned has become disruptive enough that some type of discussion is needed on the issue. During all of this, Doncram has still been very productive in improving the encyclopedia. I'd like a solution that can change some of the behavior without discouraging content production. I think the best option would be to limit Doncram to a 1 revert rule and possibly find a mentor who can help him deal with disputes but who would also be free to impose sanctions for violations of 1RR or any further personal attacks. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with several characterizations by Ryan Vesey here. Can we/you keep this ANI to be about concerns about Indic community characterizations. If you or someone wish to raise a lot of what you admit are unrelated issues, there are other forums for that, and ANI is highly unsuitable for a full discussion. --doncram 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they were unrelated to the topic of your acitons, I said they were unrelated to the Indic communities-showing that there have been problems in more than one area. Considering your block log, it seems that edit warring is an important part of the problem and that mentoring and a 1RR should help. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are some complicated interactions here that I can't explicate all at once, and which are not suited for ANI, anyhow. I have to sign off now due to other obligations, can't comment further. Addressing Ryan Vesey's immediate interest in pressing on matters, though, see recent additions at Talk:List of Methodist churches. Maybe that will address some of Ryan Vesey's concern, anyhow. --doncram 23:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

{Edit conflict} Ryan Vesey has made some very good suggestions for preventing this situation from spiraling out of control and leading to another block. However, as I see it the pattern of edit warring is only one of the issues needing to be addressed.

After years of being a target of personal attacks by Doncram, I see his habit of personalizing content disputes as a problematic behavior that he needs to reverse for his benefit and that of Wikipedia. The recent comments that Ryan Vesey cites above are good examples of the pattern of Doncram blaming his own ill-advised behavior on others (for example, he created those problematic church lists as a proactive measure to prevent me from doing something to prevent their creation; Nyttend is driving him into edit-warring over red links in "See also" sectoons; and now it's somehow due to Sitush that he's creating these problematic Indic lists). I'd like for him to be required to expunge/revise any future talk page comments in which he blames other editors for his own foolishness, particularly but not only when he describes other users with terms like "evil," "hateful," and "dedicated to disruption". A focus on the substance of the content debates, rather than the personalities of the other participants, would be a big improvement. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistent use of inappropriate language

User Guto2003 is consistently using inappropriate language – "bitch", "fuck" etc – in edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guto2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhitter (talk • contribs)

Two responses: a.) Please don't forget to sign your posts and b.) Though I agree with you that language such as what was exhibited in those edit summaries isn't necessary, I don't think it was necessarily directed at anyone in particular; if it was, it would be a personal attack, and therefore I'm not sure there's much to do about it. Go Phightins! 23:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction, it was directed at an editor at least in one of the occurances; I believe Bwilkins may have blocked the editor. Go Phightins! 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing my previous post. Headhitter (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify here: obscenities are only a problem when they are directed as attacks at other editors. However, there is no rule against using "inappropriate language" in impersonal circumstances. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BAN

What exactly is the point of this "process" when it can be routinely ignored and resisted by sympathetic editors who allow supposedly banned trolls to use their talk pages as sanctuaries for sounding off against bona fide editors and insist that their pages are sacrosanct when said editors try to delete or revert the malicious posts?

Either User:Richard Daft and his half-century of malignant IPs and userids are banned or they are not. If the former does truly apply, then how can User:Johnlp be allowed to resist attempts at removal by both User:Dweller and myself to keep offensive lies by Daft on his talk page? There are two subjects in question, headed "Blackjack/Jim Hardie" and "Jim Hardie", both perpetrated by Daft using IP 86.155.74.151, which has been proven at WP:SPI to be yet another Daft incursion, but Johnlp who is a known Daft sympathiser (despite Daft's long record of disruption and harrassment within WP:CRIC) has steadfastly refused to allow removal of these edits from his "sacrosanct" talk page.

According to WP:BAN, "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances". Daft is banned site-wide. What are the administrators going to do about this? The posts on the Johnlp page are scurrilous lies about myself and User:Jim Hardie designed to drive us both from the site. Jim Hardie has evidently already left in disgust. I have officially retired for other reasons but I came back as a reader and found this garbage among other acts of vandalism by Daft.

I am totally opposed to the doctrine of "anyone can edit" because it allows free rein to people like Daft but what is the point of arguing against blockheaded stupidity? However, I strongly object to Johnlp, the sole Daft sympathiser in CRIC, insisting on "his right" to reserve his talk page so that Daft and the like can use it as a souding board to insult and harrass bona fide WP members.

I recommend that the offending edits are erased (not merely deleted), that Johnlp is warned about colluding with known trolls and that his user and talk pages are subject to protection from all except autoconfirmed users, regardless of his protests. His insistence on talk page control is completely out of order if he allows people like Daft to use it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

AJillani

This user AJillani appears to be primarily (or solely?) editing in order to promote/ advocate issues around issues of youth and breast feeding related to Pakistan. In September 2011 they created Juvenile justice in Pakistan, they have attempted through AfC to create SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan‎, SPARC & Breastfeeding in Pakistan, Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC and SPARC & Breastfeeding ‎ which appears to not gone through the process.

In the case of Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC (which I have just reviewed) it is pretty much copy & past from SPARC & Breastfeeding.

Other than sending SPARC & Breastfeeding to WP:AFD (they have used the WHO and some newspapers a sources) and kepp declining any AfC submissions that don't stand up and advising of WP:NOTADVOCATE and other guidelines, what can we do? Should we do anything? --wintonian ^talk 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)