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

Continuing WP:OWN issues from User:TonyTheTiger

• Despite having been blocked for edit warring during his last visit here less than a month ago, TonyTheTiger has continued to display a propensity for ownership at WP:FOUR and related areas which boggles the mind. During an ongoing RFC to determine the future of the "award", Tony has posted such wonderfully enlightening (yet factually inaccurate) comments as "... will you keep the WP:FOUR name I originated (in fond memory of me)?", "I came up with WP:FOUR and popularized it in a sense", and ""I was really wondering if you are going to keep my memory alive with the project by retaining the FOUR, if and when you change the criteria".

Furthermore, despite an ongoing and fairly stable RFC, he has posted a deliciously anti-WP:RFC pseudo-RFC with (in the version that went live) such choice phrases as "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project. No arguments were presented," "in hopes of maintaining the historical integrity of the project. His attempts to revert these three editors led to him being blocked from WP for 48 hours by Bwilkins (talk · contribs)" (note how he doesn't seem to see how he could have been wrong for that block), and "TTT has done the vast majority of the work to keep the project running over the last 4 years. And even the majority of this RFC, setting up possible changes, was prepared by TTT. He has reviewed the vast majority of candidates and made the vast majority of promotions. He has established most of the policies by which the project is run."

In promoting this pseudo-RFC, he's canvassed at the very least twenty editors and Wikipedia talk pages with the decidedly non-neutral wording ""The first (RFC) is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.". Any attempt to make him see sense and recognise his shortcomings has been met with reverts, claims about a crew or Milhist drinking buddies ganging up on him.

I freely admit that I have not been on my best behaviour, and that in the past month TonyTheTiger has really started to get my goat and affect my impartiality. However, considering he seems to consider himself a "lone Brave standing against a cavalry stampede demanding a change in the FOUR award", suggesting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I think it's high time something is done about Tony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further reading:

WT:FOUR

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

Addendum: Wikipedia_talk:Four Award#RfC:_Eligibility_and_opting_out

I don't know the background issues here, I was just a recipient of one of the messages and was pretty startled by the egregiousness of the canvassing. (I "reported" it at WT:FOUR without realizing Crisco had brought it up here.) (For what it's worth, the number of editors canvassed was over 100.) I don't really understand what's going on (for example, Tony mentions two RfCs, but I only see one), but if this is really an attempt to get editors not to participate in a deletion discussion or other discussion, then I think a block for the duration of the discussion might be appropriate, to prevent him from disrupting the discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: How can Tony the Tiger claim to have "come up" with the Four Award when the first edit to the project page is by User:TomasBat? That was in February 2009, and TTT's first edit to the project page was in April of that year, two months later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He was apparently taking credit for creating WP:FOUR, the shortcut. I was flabbergasted as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The logic escapes me as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue started here, 1 month ago (almost the whole thing can be found in WT:FOUR). Ed also pointed out in the discussion that the issue that started all this conflict came up three years earlier. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the entire litany makes me believe that Tony is right, MilHist is ganging up on him. This started because an article that met the established criteria was awarded the Four award. The editor who had created the article felt that another editor should also get credit, but that's not what the criteria had been, so he basically said if you don't do it my way, I'll take my ball and go home, and take all of "my" articles with me. If he doesn't want his name associated with the award, he doesn't have to display his name, but why should he be able to remove the articles listed as receiving the award? The next thing that happens is a bunch of the MilHist guys show up, Tony gets agitated and gets blocked.

MilHist has done a lot of good, but a number of editors don't like the way the project is run. I don't, which is why I don't do much over there anymore, and when I do, it is way off to the side. I don't think that they should come in and change an established award because it's not the way they do it.

Finally, Tony and maybe one or two others have been the only ones keeping up with the Four Award - so I can understand how he feels - and he is trying to compromise while maintaining the integrity of the award. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• First of all: so you're saying Tony is justified in contacting 100 people about his pseudo-RFC? Second, so you're saying that anyone who posts on WT:FOUR or here is MilHist? Heck, Tony's been more active at MilHist over the past year than I have. Third, "he is trying to compromise while maintaining the integrity of the award" - Diff please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm certainly not MILHIST, and I have yet to see Tony compromise on...well, anything.Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  TTT and I disagreed a couple of years ago about when a citation was referring to in the career of Héctor López. Namely whether Lopez was a bad fielder always or just later in his career. I won out but TTT placed the citations lower down in the article. Which was fine with me....William 13:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  Can I note that there's no Milhist conspiracy going on here? Let's stop climbing the Reichstag of ridiculousness, please. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • ^Wow Ed you're still saying the exact same thing from 3 years ago. Didnt the RFC from 3 years ago prove that there were some serious problems with MILHIST? Caden ^cool 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What RfC? If you're referring to the FOUR discussion I started three years ago, did you read the page? It wasn't an RfC, and the Milhist project wasn't mentioned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We tried to remind everyone, remember? Hasn't worked yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Spoken like a MILHIST guy ed. I was not canvassing. FOUR does not have a membership, per se. So as I stated on the RFC that has been in draft mode for three weeks, I contacted everyone who has won a FOUR to solicit opinions. CRISCO is just desparate to find solid ground to fight on. Both of his MFD are pathetic and so he is grasping at straws here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

    • "I contacted everyone who has won a FOUR to solicit opinions." - My talk page is quite naked, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I can understand how Tony feels. I've been there before. Believe me I know how the MilHist boys work and that's why I no longer work on ww2 related articles. Caden ^cool 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • • Same here. My first article was on a WW2 double-ace (which is a GA). After dealing with the MilHist types, I decided that my efforts would be better spent elsewhere on WP. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I find your lack of good faith disturbing... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• And I find that you havent changed a bit in the past 3 years very disturbing. Caden ^cool 09:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• ...but not as much as I find Tony's blatant canvassing disturbing. This has been plastered over a whole passel of editors' talk pages. If that's a neutral notification of a disucssion, I've just fell off of the intergalactic turnip truck without my towel. Tony's "my way or the highway" approach to WP:FOUR is disturbing as well - it's obvious that he believe he's the possessor, defender, and sole arbitrator of the award; the fact that he's insisting on awarding awards to people who not only don't want the award, but who have never heard of WP:FOUR [1] is just one thing that makes it clear the award is badly broken - but have fun fixing it as long as it has its tiger in shining armor sticking a pike in anyone who dares disagree with his direction for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The core issue is the same one as it has always been; Tony does good work but has a massive ego and believes himself to be extremely special etc. I don't often say harsh words about him but his entire attitude every time I come across him just puts me off. I do think he needs to get a grip on himself and attain some perspective - he is not a crucial cog in the machine. Once he grasps that he will be a much more collegiate editor. Sorry to be harsh, I find egotism really pathetic. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a result of the widespread canvassing, it is clear that no valid consensus can be reached on TTT's RFC. It was transcluded from his userspace onto WT:FOUR. So I have (1) archived and collapsed it; (2) changed the transclusion to a link and left a note at WT:FOUR; (3) closed the MFD on the RFC as moot; (4) removed the RFC tag. I am not making any comment at the moment on any issues of user behaviour here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't thrilled to wake up today and see that Tony posted more than hundred messages all over Wikipedia implying wrongdoing on my part. FWIW, I asked Tony for several days to simply post something brief and neutral of his own, or ask an editor of his choice to do so. ([2], [3]) When he refused, I cut to the chase myself. The intention was not "to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions", and I'm not a part of any MILHIST cabal. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, apparently, does not see what was wrong with the 150 notifications he put out: "This was not WP:CANVASSing My statement was neutral saying there are two sides to the issue.". Can we please stop him from embarrassing himself further? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question - why is considered "acceptable" for someone who doesn't agree with the concept of the award to remove the articles that have met the criteria from the list? I'm not talking about removing their username, but the actual article name from the list. If someone removed an FA or GA from their respective lists, everyone would be screaming about it.

The criteria has be clear. Who created the article? X!'s Tools can show that. DYK/GA/FA can all have multiple contributors, but only one person actually creates the article.

I haven't been involved in the FourAward (other than to receive one), but this really strikes me as a number of editors who didn't get their way, so they wanted to take "their" ball and go home. Except the article isn't his ball. They don't own it, and they certainly don't get to control what lists it can or cannot be on. Why wasn't that an issue? That smacks more of WP:OWNERSHIP than what Tony has done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Re: GA and FA. That's essentially opt-in (people nominate, usually self noms, and at FAC at least primary contributors opinions are considered).. There is essentially no opt-in process here, not anymore since Tony's been running the ship, and if there's no opt-out process, then it means forcing all users to go through this. Re: "ball" metaphor. Where at WP:FOUR does it say this is a "list of all articles which meet these criteria", and not "an award given to writers who write articles that meet the criteria"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a Four award and I didn't nominate myself for it - it showed up one day, in the same manner as a barnstar or other awards do. The article met the criteria, and the individual that has been tracking those posted the award. While I certainly don't have to display it if I disagree with it, I also realize that I don't have the right to go and demand the removal of "my" article from the list of articles that have been so recognized. To do so would be to say that I "owned" the article and would be clearly inappropriate. Here, the issue started when an editor wanted to remove "his" article from the list, and then others from a project that he was on showed up and wanted to remove "their" articles too. I have a problem with WP:OWNERSHIP here, but it is not from Tony. And as yet, no one has even tried to explain why those editors have a right to demand that the articles be removed from the list. GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• They probably haven't tried to explain because it's WP:COMMONSENSE to the point it's hard to understand why it has to be explained. The very meaning of WP:FOUR is that "user X took article Y through creation to DYK to GA to FA". Note the requirement: "User X". This is a recognition of User X for their article - if User X doesn't want to be recognised, why is it right for Tony, or anyone else, to be forcing them to be recognised for the article? Given the very nature of WP:FOUR, in order for an editor to decline it, they have to remove the article from the list. Saying otherwise is the equivilant of saying they're not allowed to remove a vandal barnstar from their page "because they met the criteria". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yet if someone doesn't want to be associated with an article that has attained FA, we don't allow them to remove it from the FA listing. It's the same principle. They don't have to display the award, and it is disingenuous to compare it to a vandal's barnstar. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:FA. Notice something lacking there that is not lacking at WP:FOUR? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with GregJackP. I think it's kind of silly that someone wants their "award" taken away. They don't have to display it. Fine. OK. So someone else might be equally deserving, so then straighten that out. The thing of sandboxing an article before going to main page does confuse the creation issue somewhat, probably need to look at that, but for pete's sake, this is a pretty lame debate. I really wish it wasn't Tony and Crisco at odds because I think both are solid contributors to Wp and both have been helpful to me at various times. (And yes, I too have gotten a four award, though I think I did ask for one when a qualifying article made the cut...) And frankly, I don't see a problem that Tony alerted recipients of the award. Technically it would have been nice had he linked directly here or to whichever page the main drama is playing out, and technically he should not of hinted that he has a position on the issue (which is a dumb rule, WP:CANVASS itself is problematic... it's only canvassing if the other side does it, as far as I can tell...) Anyway, I'm just here to say that stewardship is not ownership, people getting a little possessive is only human, and can't we work this out with a carrot instead of a stick? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Montana, you're an awesome editor, but I think you can compare this (note that these notices were only sent to people who had commented at WT:FOUR, i.e. those who had actually shown an interest in how the project was run) and Tony's. That Tony shouldn't have hinted (or, rather, outright stated) his position is a given: it predisposes people to agreeing with him, which is why such a notice would never fly in the meatverse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Relevant thread on AN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed WP:FOUR topic ban for User:TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger is topic-banned from WP:FOUR for a period of one month. This topic ban covers all pages related to the award however does NOT cover any articles that have received or are being considered to receive the award.

The intention of this is to get Tony to move away from WP:FOUR and to edit elsewhere to prevent further disruption to discussion occurring about changes to the award. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support iff Tony does not show any ability to actually move on and drop the stick. If he actually can work collaboratively... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full fledged support now. Statements like this bring his understanding of "neutral" into question. I don't think we want an editor so active on the project, with such a poor understanding of WP:CANVASS, WP:RFC, and WP:NPOV to continue to run their private fiefdom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I don't think banning Tony from FOUR solves the underlying issues of ownership that have cropped up at WP:FAC and elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone here is talking about ownership at WP:FAC. As a rule I don't revert indiscriminately on articles I've written, and my objection to being listed at WP:FOUR (despite having something like 13 FOUR-eligible articles) was primarily because of Tony's refusal to listen to consensus which was built up at WT:FOUR. I refuse to be associated in any which way with such a broken process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not happy about Tony's accusations against me there and on 150(!) other pages, but hopefully this'll be his last attempt at disruption. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Contrary to Crisco's comment above, Tony isn't the one that needs to drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Funny. I don't see you addressing any of the issues I brought up above or trying to justify it, just being generally contrarian. Would you like to show us why Tony has no issues at all? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would rather discuss why it is appropriate to remove articles from the list. The articles don't belong to the editor that created it. To say that the article can't be listed shows WP:OWNERSHIP far more than defending the criteria for the award does. GregJackP Boomer! 14:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, if this were a list of articles that met all the criteria, you'd have a point. However, see the first sentence of WP:FOUR: The Four Award recognizes the persistence of Wikipedia editors who have taken care of an article from its humble beginnings through featured article status (emphasis mine). If the Award recognises editors, then without the editors there should be nothing to list, n'est pas? That is how WP:FOUR defines the award itself. It's an award for editors, not articles, and thus without editors there is no award. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• And he offered to replace the editor's name with "placeholder" - but how does that give the editor the right to control if the article is listed? The editor does not WP:OWN the article. GregJackP Boomer! 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The editor does not WP:OWN the article. - Who/what is awarded, the editor or the article? An award given to an individual cannot be awarded if the awardee rejects it. The actions may exist, and may be noted elsewhere, but it's certainly not part of the award, and as such should not be listed as such. The articles are secondary to the editor, as FOUR defines itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Then by what right does the editor get to demand that the article not be listed, when all other articles which have met the criteria are listed? GregJackP Boomer! 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The right that this award recognises, by its very nature, editors and not articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Quote by Imzadi1979 from WT:FOUR[4]: Our text is not public domain. In fact every submission made to Wikipedia is done under the CC-BY-CA3.0 license and the GFDL. That means each editor still retains his/her copyright over the submission, and the Wikimedia Foundation is granted an irrevocable license to use it. Under the concepts of WP:RTV, every editor in good standing has the right to disassociate him/herself from the prior association with Wikipedia. Other items like the list of WP:Wikipedians by Featured Article Nominations and WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits allow an opt out, so why can't an award be denied, and why can't the recipient opt out of the award scheme's listing?. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tony is overall a very good editor who I know to be capable of extracting himself from disputes like the above without the heavy hand of sanctions being imposed, even if - like all of us - he can get caught up in disputes when being set upon. bd2412 T 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I am sorry but Tony does a good job at the Four Award and looks like he's the only one taking care of it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how much care the award needs, Harold. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony is not the only one looking after it; Little Mountain 5 is also very active. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. He's evidently been in Climbing-the-Reichstag mode and his shenanigans are wasting time, not just inside the small circle who are interested in WP:FOUR, but also elsewhere. WP:FOUR as a whole is not important enough to allow it to cause time wasting across so many places, so whatever it takes to shut the noise out should be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I Oppose a direct topic ban for now, I want to strongly urge Tony to stop, listen and think. Tony, when you see nothing wrong with the way you advertised your RfC, we have a problem. And to solve the problem, I think it's by far best to take a big break from the FOUR award, so you can take some distance from it and look at it from the outside. I'd say stay away for at least a month or three. I don't think this will end well otherwise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony's conduct has been appalling, and the whole canvassing thing is disgraceful. But a topic ban from WP:FOUR is not going to solve anything - because the root cause of the problems there is not Tony. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What is the root cause then? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In the context of this discussion.... Not Tony. There are allegations about MILHIST members causing issues, and that may be something to look at - or it might not. But (as is noted further down this thread) it's not relevant to the question of Tony's conduct. And on that point, I don't think a topic ban would be helpful. Put another way, in what way would a topic ban help settle things down that a block for shenanigans on Tony would not? If his conduct is that egregious (and it might be), then we need to point the angry mob at a block discussion rather than a topic ban discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm still shocked that the Milhist conspiracy theory has gained this much traction. Ian and Nick's article that kindled this was a military history article, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there are a few more milhisters than normal. Even then, I'm only involved because I kicked off this topic three years ago (I happen to be a Milhist coordinator). Crisco basically isn't a Milhister, despite being signed up. There's your Milhist involvement.
      • I tend to prefer topic bans over straight blocks. It allows the contributor in question to keep contributing quality content without the distraction of the problematic topic area. That's just me, though! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support (and would support a longer, possibly indefinite, version as well). Whether or not Milhist has done anything to provoke Tony - and I see no real evidence of that being presented - Tony has very much dug his own bunker as far as insisting to the world that he owns WP:FOUR, that he must be deferred to there, and that consensus has no place in his fiefdom. None of these are acceptable behavior, and while it's understandable to want to have a say in how one's "baby" is run, Tony has continued doubling down on his seriously questionable behavior, even when it's pointed out that his demands/actions are unreasonable, against policy, or otherwise not consistent with either common sense or Wikipedia's normal processes. It's clear to me at this point that the only way to handle this is either to delete the award entirely or to remove Tony from issues related to the award, and I feel that deleting the award is throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we could stop the damage with a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC) last edited 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The infamous talk page message I received wasn't even close to neutral, and I'm fairly shocked to see anyone contend that it was. But a topic ban from FOUR is not the proper remedy for that. I'm not really sure what is, but Tony, please take this appeal from someone who's probably more on your side than against you on this one – own up to that mistake; it was canvassing. That said, a topic ban from FOUR makes this issue so much worse. By not allowing Tony to state his positions – however inelegantly he may do so, at times – you effectively eliminate one side of the debate, allowing the other to go on virtually unchecked. That's just ripe for accusations of stacking the deck, regardless of whether that was the intent or not. Also, it seems to me that WP:OWN is primarily concerned with articles, which seems to argue against Tony's actions being a blockable offense anyway. Let the discussion, however, messy, continue at WT:FOUR. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'll not place an explicit vote given Tony and I have clashed numerous times in the past over a multitude of issues. I will say that unless Tony learns to step back, a topic ban is inevitable, and likely with longer term blocks associated. His posting was blatant canvassing. Almost as blatant as can be. And for what? A god-damned barnstar. Really Tony? This is the hill you are prepared to die on? Pick your battles, dude. Resolute 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I believe Tony has to acknowledge his ill-judgement/mistakes so that we all can move on. Insisting that what he's done is not canvassing shows he's still in denial. On the other hand his long-time contributions and dedication to FOUR are hard to ignore. I see my self supporting such a ban if the problematic behavior continues though. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Tony's behavior in this issue has gotten steadily worse and worse; the canvassing is just the icing on one of the messiest cakes I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. There is, unfortunatly, no way that this is going to improve unless something drastic is done, and our options are 1. do away with WP:FOUR, 2. remove Tony from WP:FOUR, or 3. do nothing and let WP:FOUR become another one of the festering sores of Wikipedia that winds up doing nothing but feeding the nabobs until something drastic happens and it gets hammered by ArbCom for being an embarassment to the project. Given these options, a topic ban is the lesser of the evils. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Fluffernutter and The Bushranger have said it well. As far as I can see, Tony is the source and locus of many of the problems at FOUR. Certainly, he has done some good there; however, the issues seem to stem directly from his attitude towards the project and those who disagree with him. The most desirable outcome here would be to resolve the issues and FOUR without completely doing away with it so that it can work for the good of Wikipedia without causing this drama. As far as I can see, topic banning Tony for a while would remove the focus of the dispute and allow the project to continue and develop without this disruption. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Once again, someone who is dedicated to a project is at risk of being taken from the very thing he created and maintained - just like The Little Red Hen - does all the work and then everyone else wants the benefits. I don't know Tony real well, but if he's been maintaining this award in quite obscurity for years, it's only natural and human that he cares about it. But I also have had good interactions with Crisco, so nothing personal here, wish you two weren't going at each other. I also agree with a lot of what User:GregJackP said. But bottom line: We are confusing personality disputes with content. If Tony needs to back off, a topic ban is a silly way to do it. Better to just address the behavior with some cooling off time (For example, when the mob with pitchforks gets mad at User Eric Corbett, he periodically endures time-limited blocks, probably because he doesn't specialize in any one topic). I'm also rather tired of the wiki-wide screeching of "WP:OWN" every time there is an editing dispute. Stewardship and quality control concerns are NOT "ownership." Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Treating everything about the page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with an utter refusal to consider any viewpoints other than his own is, however. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support TTT's history of sociopathic behaviour is legend. lots of his problematic behaviour going on here. His domination of it is one thing if nobody minds, but the canvassing is TOTALLY unacceptable not just in the biased message but the audacious scale of it. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 19:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If it were just for the messages, or even the messages and the edit-warring on the page, then I would oppose. However, Tony frequently has dragged his disputes to ANI, and frequently has made unfounded allegations, violated consensus, and even complained about someone filing a better RfC than him quicker. Tony is either completely incapable of realizing he is causing major problems (so much so that "his" project has had a MfD discussion opened) or he just doesn't care. And he didn't create the project, that's a fib he's trotted out a fair few times. Time for a break, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Having looked at all that there is no actual evidence those actions are disrupting, except several editors are exasperated with one User because he sees things differently. I'm sorry, but all of you, wake up to what you are talking about (some award - not even content). So, just manage to treat the defeated and outnumbered User gracefully. Ignore it for now. The overwhelming majority will get their way, there is no reason yet to run this User out on a rail, just because he heavily invested himself in something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support the canvassing is disruptive and how anyone can think it isn't is beyond me. considering that tony has started this new thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I am trying to understand_my_recourse. even while the discussion is ongoing here shows how much TTT doesn't get it. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with GregJack's "ball" metaphor. Several editors from MILHIST didn't get their way, so they wanted to take "their" articles off from the list. Problem is the articles don't belong to them. They don't own it, and any responsible editor would know this. Caden ^cool 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Again with the articles. Read WP:FOUR. Does it say the award is given to articles, or editors? That "ball" as article metaphor is ridiculous. A proper one would be several people going home after they and their efforts are insulted. Editors have every right the get the F*** out of Dodge when they feel they are unwanted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco you are way too involved in my opinion. Not very good. Caden ^cool 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Which doesn't refute the fact that this is an award given to editors, not to articles, and waving the "ownage of articles" strawman around doesn't help resolve the issue at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ahh I see that Bushranger hasnt changed a bit. Still saying the same old things 3 years later as he runs to the rescue of his MILHIST buddies. Caden ^cool 00:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Apparently, judging by your comment, I'm so deep in the MILHIST anti-Tony conspiracy that I wasn't even aware I was part of it. More seriously though, the fact that you assume there's no way I'm doing anything but "running to the rescue" (instead of, say, voting based on my understanding of policies and guidelies) is dissapointing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Caden, please explain to me how Crisco is a Milhist regular. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And how I am also a Milhist regular. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Ditto. In fact, my first interaction with Tony, if I remember correctly, was very positive. However, everything I've seen from Tony recently, which is all related to this WP:FOUR (which I'd never heard of previously) has shown that he is a negative in this particular area. Caden, your personal attacks and unfounded accusations destroy your argument's credibility. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Could participants here please stay on track rather than turning the discussion into a mud-slinging contest between members of different thematic projects? I find some of the comments borderline PA and not helping any consensus to build. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Tony's gone far over the disruptive line here, and either a topic ban or a block could solve the issue. In a choice like that, I'll take a topic ban. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe he doesn't have to, but should I be waiting to hear from this TonyTheTiger fellow before I support this ban? Just wondering. --Malerooster (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I just saw his comment above, not to encouraging, but I am stepping out. --Malerooster (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This sudden proposal, an outgrowth of a RfC dispute, comes out of nowhere. It appears that TTT is abrasive and now people who dislike him are taking this opportunity to pile on. I recommend parties head to Dispute Resolution to solve their differences. Implementing blocks should not be a knee-jerk result when someone has made a mistake, they only occur when a user disregards admonishments and continues being disruptive or is guilty of vandalism. There are clearly underlying issues over page ownership that need to be negotiated and imposing blocks and bans isn't a good solution. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 03:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support until Tony somehow expresses that he understands that he was canvassing and that he won't do it again. When that happens, I'll be happy to strike this !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This style of reasoning has become more and more prevalent over the last years, and I don't agree with it. Demanding of Tony he says uncle is demeaning, and I don't think it will help. This discussion should be enough of a wake-up call for Tony to stop doing what he's doing. If his future actions show it's not, we can start looking for drastic measures like topic bans. To make him say I'm sorry under threat of a topic ban, what I believe this comes down to, isn't really useful IMO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "This discussion should be enough of a wake-up call for Tony to stop doing what he's doing." - I had hoped the same thing for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award (there's near universal condemnation of his behaviour there, be it from delete or keep !voters), but here we are now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Martijn Hoekstra, I'm not demanding that Tony say Uncle just for its own sake. When someone shows a pattern of problematic behavior, they need to learn to stop behaving problematically. I cannot be confident that Tony won't repeat these mistakes in the future, unless he shows some indication that he understands why they were wrong, and won't do them again. Assuming that I'm just asking for an apology is silly. No one cares whether Tony is sorry or not; what I care about is that he doesn't keep behaving the way that he has. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am one of the canvassed editors, I have a FOUR award, and I've been watching the fight for a while now. Tony's notice to me wasn't close to neutral and neither is either RfC. The behaviour from numerous editors at WT:FOUR has been pathetic, I am reminded of children bickering. Taking out Tony so one side can "win" is not a helpful way forward. The disputants need to be trouted and to try for a moment to act like adults. EdChem (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've spent the past two days reading through what I believe is every nook and cranny of this wicked web. My opinion may not mean much, and I'm sure both side will rebut, but this is what I think needs to happen: 1) Tony needs to understand that while he may be caretaker of this award, that it is not HIS or any editor's to set hard and fast rules. 2) Several of the editors that first came down upon Tony regarding the collaboration issue are leveraging their numbers against a single editor. I can understand why Tony has become what I can only describe as maniacal over the course of this discussion; he's spent years on this award and suddenly a group of editors have taken issue with the way it is run. This is very similar to the TFA RFC several months back. 3) Tony, you're normally a great editor, but at times through this issue, it almost seems as if you've lost your marbles! 4) The canvassing is undeniable. In fact, Tony's post to an editor's talk page on my watchlist is what brought this to my attention. 5) The collaboration issue has become a pissing match long past expiration. The solution is simple: if two editors, one of which made the first mainspace edit, claim they collaborated, and the article history (including sandbox) backs up that claim, then it's a collaboration! Don't get so technical with "This is part of the DYK phase and this is part of the New article phase." Reasoning, deduction, and logic are what make us human and not programmed computers! 6) The award is given to editors but concerns articles. Editors should have the right to request that their usernames be removed from entries; the articles should remain. That said, I can see that in this case it has been done as a way to take a stand against Tony, rather than being an actual issue itself. The argument that has split off regarding this is a red herring, and I hope that it be put to rest if the collaboration issue is addressed satisfactorily.

So, the solution here is to fix the cause, rather than addressing the symptoms. All the editors involved here are well-known and productive, so let's fix the problem instead of using discipline and creating disillusioned editors. I've got a handprint on my face from how many facepalms I've done these two days! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there would have been any problems if Tony doesn't treat the discussion about the award as personal, but the undeniable fact is he does, because he now considers it as his fiefdom. But the project doesn't belong to him – it never has and never will, and any discussion to delete the project page can rightly be decided on by the community at any moment. And that doesn't necessarily mean the community will necessarily vote to delete. As to what is the cause or symptom, just look at Tony's recurring guest appearances here at ANI – it's neither normal nor desirable. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Tony certainly needs to snap back to reality and work with others, otherwise the whole thing may as well be in his userspace. On the other side, others need to see that he has put years of work into this and that prying it away would likely result in the award going stagnant and a productive content editor hanging up his hat. In the end, what is the best way forward for the project? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The solution is simple: if two editors, one of which made the first mainspace edit, claim they collaborated, and the article history (including sandbox) backs up that claim, then it's a collaboration!" - I think that you'd find general consensus (I'm all for it) for such a position, but getting Tony to stop edit warring over FOUR needs to be finished first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, that's the solution, water down the criteria for the award. Make it a lot less meaningful so we can hand it out like candy. We could even rename it to the "Three out of Four Award." GregJackP Boomer! 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Tony's extreme WP:OWN in regards to this topic has become outright disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Vehement oppose per Floydian. Step back and think about it from TTT's perspective. TTT has been operating the award for several years, as I understand it. A few editors come in wanting to make sweeping changes. TTT's opinion is swept to the side. It goes downhill from there and we decide the solution is to topic ban him from the award that he spent so much time on? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right! Not only do they want to make sweeping changes, they want to water down the criteria for the award, make it easier to get. Only one person can create the article, whether it is done in mainspace or a sandbox, but now we can call it the ThreeOutOfFour award. So TTT gets a little testy in response to what is basically disruptive activities, and now the solution is to topic ban him? GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – After seeing Tony's inappropriate WP:CANVASS, this only reinforces my belief that none of his WP:OWN issues are going to change. Wikipedia has always been about community consensus. No matter how much time he's spent on the award, that doesn't give him more rights than others associated with FOUR. As I've said previously, enough is enough! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' basically per Automatic strikeout. I understand Tony's position somewhat. He has worked hard for a long time now in a particular area and then a group of editors come in and try to make changes. It is no surprise that he got a defensive. Yes he overstepped the mark, particularily with the canvassing, but to ban him from that area is not the right solution. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been interacting with TonyTheTiger here. I think there is something problematic with aiming for awards instead of aiming to improve an article. Judging from this interaction I'm tempted to think the two are aims are incompatible. TonyTheTiger seems to want to be the catalyst for successfully "improving" the article. It seems to me that he has a formulaic approach that doesn't take into consideration the wide range of possible considerations for successful articles on given subjects. The Talk page is of course not used but instead the "Featured article candidate" page becomes the new and temporary focus for discussion about the article. The article becomes not a product of editorial interaction but a product of TonyTheTiger's formula for resolving all "problems". In staccato fashion TonyTheTiger writes "Fixed", "Fixed", "Fixed" after each "problem" raised. If a poor quality article is all that is hoped for this model for writing articles works great. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from topic ban: Canvassing?

• While the topic ban discussion above is ongoing, and the topic is still fresh enough to need attention, can I please ask a neutral admin to weigh in and see if a) if Tony's posts were neutral, b) if Tony's posts constituted canvassing, and c) if, assuming they were non-neutral and canvassing, anything other than closing the RFC should be done. I note that "This was not WP:CANVASSing. My statement was neutral saying there are two sides to the issue." and this thread suggest that, if Tony had done wrong, he does not seem to understand it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this was canvassing - the posts are not neutral, as they state Tony's position on the issue at hand ("My RFC is more neutral, look at that one"). There's also the concern that people who should have gotten the notice ("I contacted everyone who has one a FOUR to solicit opinions...") did not actually get the notice, which means the notice was selective in its audience - a hallmark of canvassing. If we had a textbook about canvassing, this'd go in the examples. Does it rise to the level of Disruptive Editing that would warrant a block? I can see the case for it, certainly, but I don't know what damage such a block would prevent. I am concerned that Tony doesn't seem to understand why the notice was problematic, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• At the moment, fair enough, but how can we make him understand why the notice was problematic? He's yet to listen to anyone, from what I've read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you need an administrator for? Any editor can tell Tony he was incorrect. And he can argue otherwise, and nothing will come of it. An administrator closed the other RfC, and that has not been undone. Why isn't that enough? You expect administrative tools or administrative authority to convince him, how exactly? Much of that is already being discussed above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, Ultra got exactly why Admin tools are handy here. I don't expect "administrative tools or administrative authority to convince him", but I do expect a neutral admin to consider the worthiness of blocking in this instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see: "I don't know what damage such a block would prevent"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• You asked why I need another admin, I said Ultra got it already (that a block may be needed), then you ask if I read something which is not related to your first question, at all: you asked if I noticed that Ultra doesn't think a block is needed (which I did, to answer your question), which was not relevant to my response to your first question. No wonder ANI gets all the wonderful names like swamp of despair, great wasteland, etc; the communication skills were better in the Bush administration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The question I asked had to do with what remedy you wanted, which now we know. And the response was, what will be prevented by such a block? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This. If the tools were needed here to prevent further shenanigans, I already would have blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Now, since blocks are not punitive, can we perhaps look forward and find a way to have Tony understand how his edits were considered problematic by the community? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, Let me remind you the chronology.

1. For over 4 years I have run WP:FOUR, I have reviewed about 2000 articles, including the about 700 of the 793 that are currently either officially FOUR or officially rejected using the criteria that included the first stage assessment being a determination of whether the authors were editorially involved in the article before it had its first encyclopedic content (readable prose that defines a notable topic).
2. You the Ed17, Nick-D, and Ian Rose along with a few other declare a majority consensus for a new criteria in which the first stage is determined by when the article first appeared in mainspace with a 24 hour window.
3. I insist that since all of the previous articles I reviewed were reviewed by the original criteria I would not promote an article using the newly declared consensus criteria because no other articles were reviewed by that criteria and I would not use a different criteria on one new article.
4. Fireworks erupted. 3 editors withdrew their articles from FOUR listing.
5. I attempted partial reverts of these withdrawals using [placeholder] in the majority of the reverts to allow opting out by the editors.
6. The three of you kept withdrawing articles and I kept reverting until you blocked me for 48 hours.
7. I came back and took a while to cool off.
8. I agreed to an RFC on the issue and notified all parties of that fact. I was waiting on a full report on the nearly 800 articles at issue, which took nearly 3 weeks for WP:BOTREQ to produce.
9. As I drafted the RFC from August 1 until August 20 the intended list of parties to be notified of the RFC always included the 167 FOUR honorees.
10. Some people did not like my RFC and decided to do their own quick RFC.
11. I have always complained that this quick RFC does not address the items of controversy that we have had.
12. I asked that your RFC be tabled until the BOTREQ information was available.
13. I was told no.
14. After nearly 3 weeks no one has made any complaints about the intended notifications.
15. When BOTREQ finally produced the data, I sent out notifications of both RFCs to the intended parties, including the 167 FOUR honorees.
16. WP:CANVASSing involves telling people which side of the discussion to vote for, not which discussion to participate in.
17. My notification did not tell anyone which side to vote for, but only to look at the issues presented in my RFC rather than the other one.
18. I did not canvass either by contacting an objectionable group of people or by telling those people how to vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I think that Tony's above comments are quite worrying regarding his understanding of policy and consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, for number 2 (24 hour window?): Diffs please? I sure as heck wouldn't have pushed that forward. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Go to WT:FOUR and search for "hour". Multiple editors were mentioning this part of the proposed new criteria. I don't remember who, because I was trying to deal with so many adversarial opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I did. You and Little Mountain are the ones who use the word "hour". Again, diffs please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "You (I)" blocked you? Check your block log. The person who blocked was uninvolved. At all. You had gone 5RR. The discussion is linked above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "Some people did not like my RFC and decided to do their own quick RFC." - Check your RFC's talk page and your own reverts on that page. Multiple editors tried to forewarn you of issues with your RFC, and you reverted or made single-sentence non-commital answers.
    • "After nearly 3 weeks no one has made any complaints about the intended notifications." - Where the h*** were you storing them? You had those travesties pre-scripted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, calm down. Did you really reply to Tony's comments by providing a diff to those very same comments? Or did you intend a different link? Either way, your position is clear and you need to back off a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I did, in case he changed his comments afterwards. I recognise that my position is clear. Tony, however, seems to increasingly be making a fool of himself by misrepresenting history and misunderstanding policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

True - in this case, I believe Tony's comments say it all, really. So, if consensus is clear that the notices were canvassing, then we give Tony a warning and call it a day. There does not seem to be consensus for a block, nor is there reason for one now that the conduct has stopped. If you want to go further than that, WP:RFC/U is thataway - but I don't know that you'll get much traction there. With 5 different threads on various aspects of this trainwreck, I think we're all discussed out for the moment. Might not be a horrible idea to back off a bit and let things calm down. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, the notice advocated a position - it made affirmative statements about the quality of one RFC over another. By definition, that's canvassing. A properly neutral notice would have been "There is a discussion regarding which of two proposed RFCs is the most appropriate tool for dealing with the recent dispute at WP:FOUR. Your input is welcome at this talk page. You received this notice because you are listed at WP:FOUR as having received one or more FOUR awards as of this date." or some such. You identify the topic, you identify the page where discussion is to take place, and then you're done. That's a neutral notice. I'm sorry to say, but what you sent was canvassing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good example. Tony: whatever the justice of it, now you know how others view that message (whatever your intent). Unsolicited advice: use that knowledge constructively going forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, two very simple questions:

1. do you or do you not feel you were in violation of policy when sending those notifications, and

1. As stated above, I did not contact a biased audience (in fact by everyone's silence one might consider the audience pre-approved) and I did not attempt to tell them how to vote on the issues. I believe those are the issues of WP:CANVASS. I did neither of those things.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. do you or do you not feel that those notifications would have been found by an uninvolved individual to be neutral?

1. It was neutral on every topic at issue. I.e., on no topic at issue, did I attempt to influence anyone's decision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please answer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, if you honestly believe that your notifications were anything remotely approaching neutral, I don't know what to say. [5] "The first [not yours] is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions." - this is not, at all, neutral; a best it's a POV-presenting commentary on it, at worst it's deliberate misrepresentation. "Please look at the second one [yours], which I think is much better." - also not neutral, as you're (a) directing editors which one you want them to examine, and (b) making a statement as to which one you want supported. If you still think that's "neutral", all I can say is that you're obviously either unable or unwilling to comprehend what neutrality is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I have to agree. The entire tone of your message was "I'm right, and Khazar2 is wrong, so ignore their RFC and vote in mine". Meanwhile, your RFC spends most of its time trying to justify your positions and actions rather than honestly asking for input. That wasn't just canvassing, that was one of the most egregious cases of canvassing I have seen in eight years here. Resolute 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

He's answered. Why don't y'all stop hounding him, especially Crisco. GregJackP Boomer! 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do you get the irony that you posted this nearly 24 hours after my last direct response to Tony? ABF much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Common user interjection

(comment from non-involved user) this whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Not only is this ANI open, there's a RFC somewhere and also this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award. Too many discussions and too many opinions. Can I suggest that actions against Tony are temporarily frozen until the ongoing RfC and AfD are closed. Speaking of which, since when is an AfD used to close delete an article/project where there is a disagreement of opinion? Surely that's a misuse of AfD? IMO the following should happen:

1. AfD should close as a snowball keep.
2. Any existing four-award articles should keep their status.
3. New four-award article nominations should be subject to the new criteria IF there was a full consensus to the new criteria.
   1. This to me would be like WP:GA is reviewing articles one way. A bunch of guys come by with a new criteria for WP:FL and declare a majority that the FL criteria are the new GA criteria. All future GAs will be judged by the FL criteria. The FL guys should just go create their own award.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• You do understand that when you post on wikipedia you irrevocably waiver all rights under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? Thus when you created the four-award, you have no rights to the concept's application on wikipedia and thus you have no grounds to impose ownership. If the community comes to a consensus on change then those changes must be implemented. Just because you created the concept and then dislike the changes, doesn't mean your opinion goes beyond the consensus or is in someway more important. Without the community nominating and achieving the award the award is just a concept. Therefore if the community wants changes and there is a consensus to do so then I am afraid changes should go ahead. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't create the Four award. He usurped it, and seems to have considerable difficulty letting go of the fact that he can't simply dictate how it exists. Resolute 21:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Four-Award should have a proper project of users like WP:GAN and WP:FL do... it shouldn't boil down to the opinion of just Tony.
2. Tony should be given a 1-revert sanction for several weeks.

→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved). Frankly, I had never heard of the WP:FOUR project until this ANI came up. After spending (too) much time reviewing the whole issue, a) I think Lil-unique1's suggestions above are on the right lines. b) The MfD has been closed in the meantime with a rational I concur with (I didn't vote there). c) There is no doubt in my mind that the 'canvassing' message was biased. d) If the four-award project is to be retained (and that's a separate issue), all changes should be approved by consensus through properly conceived RfC proposals - TonyTheTiger would not be able to argue with that, and should understand project/article ownership principles and that launching counter-RfCs is not conducive to gaining consensus for anything anywhere. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that he has contributed significantly to the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to Tony still being involved in the project but I think now that the MfD has finished, a suitable punishment for Tony should be discussed... he is wrong in the sense that he has assumed ownership over the project and his RfC and subsequent invitations to the discussion were bias. Meanwhile the current RfC should continue and changes should only go ahead with a strong consensus. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I hasten to point out that no Wikipedia sanctions are applied as a punishment. Prevention and/or time to review and reflect upon policies are the objectives.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant as a means of diffusing the situation and also giving Tony chance to reflect on why his/her actions may have gone against the spirit of wikipedia or violations of our policies. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

call for closure

This ANI proceeding has run long enough. There is a lot of silliness and spite, and IMHO it is embarassing about Wikipedia to watch this go on. Any serious issues about the Four Award can be addressed at its Talk page, where spiteful remarks continue. The MFD, clearly invalid from the get-go has happily been closed, although not without plenty of vitriol. Here, while some wish to extract a pound of flesh, an option might be to ban those persons from all discussion, but there has not been coherent discussion of the blame to attach to others from their participation here, in the MFD, and the ongoing RFC. I submit there is nothing good for ANI to do here, and this should be closed. --doncram 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is pretty much why I suggested that it be closed, above. On Canvassing, there is consensus that Tony's notice was non-neutral and a violation of policy, and further such notices may result in a block for disruptive editing. As you correctly note, the rest is sideshow. Someone should sort out the topic ban, though, one way or another. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think the canvassing accusation is overblown. On the 4 criteria at wp:canvass, TTT's note was good on Scale Audience and Transparency, not good on Message (seemed biased). I've seen worse, and the remedy is to call attention to it, which has been done. So what, that is what some want to extract flesh for. Since the appeal for commenters failed to move the RFC, clearly, i don't think there is any likelihood that TTT will use bad-type canvassing again and again to get his way. So, no need to prevent anything on that front.

I think there is not consensus for any topic ban. A "compromise" topic ban would ban TTT and one or more opponents to TTT, but that would mean the opponents win and the main contributor would be banned. There's no fair solution by a ban. So, again, I think this is ready for a close of all parts. That's my view, anyhow. --doncram 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I commented on the topic ban, and so didn't think I should comment on what consensus may or may not exist. Nor can I close that section, for the same reason. Perhaps someone uninvolved could take a crack at it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to close this and move the discussion either to the Talk Page or Dispute Resolution so the underlying issues about this award's future can be resolved. As for the canvassing, I think that spectacularly backfired and so, if anything, it hurt Tony rather than helped him. Hopefully, he learned his lesson from how badly it was received. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

Can some uninvolved admins please keep and eye on Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning and the talkpage. We have a high profile BLP whose subject has today announced a change of gender and what name the article should be at, what pronouns should be used in the article and which policies apply are generating tension; the article has already had five moves today and some of the comment on the talkpage is getting heated. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are no legal papers or documentation affirming an actual change of gender, and that the subject has not used the name in any known legal capacity as far as I can determine. Collect (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the move was premature at best, but I'm more worried about the behavior of some editors in BLP/N and the article's talk page who seem to think that anyone who objects to it is a "transphobe". Definite dearth of AGF there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And editors opposed to the new name are also being called ignorant.--v/r - TP 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Collect, please don't bring the argument about the name here. The issue (including the points you've raised) is being actively discussed on the article's talk page, and that's where it should stay. This thread here on WP:ANI is just a request for more administrator eyes on the discussion to handle any necessary policy enforcement (WP:NPA and the like, I suppose). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We also need people to keep an eye on the article feedback, where some inappropriate comments have been popping up. — Scott • talk 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A mega RM debate is already underway. The article has also had two attempted copy & paste moves. As Bradley Manning is currently edit protected this just resulted in a redirect loop; however the other c&p move went for Bradley manning. We're probably going to need more protections all over the place whilst this one rages. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Plus Edit warring and the first block I can spot on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly advise all admins to cease fire and allow time for consensus to develop. Technically WP:WHEEL has already been violated at least once here, and even a single instance can lead to being desysopped by ArbCom. nobody wins when admins wheel war, so please just don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it hasn't necessarily been violated at least once. David Gerard (talk · contribs) believed he was reverting a move based on BLP, which is a valid exception to wheel-warring. That is, unless, of course, you're arguing that I was the "at least once", which seems like a hard case to make, given WP:RMT explicitly allowing requests reversing undiscussed moves (and, by definition, admins to act in accordance with them). -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is going to be a contentious close, because the closing admin will have to weigh up both consensus and policy/best practice. I'd therefore like to preempt any dispute about an involved closure to ask that none of the admins who took admin action on the article today (or, obviously, who edited it or expressed a view anywhere) be involved in closing the move request. The best thing would be to post a request on WP:AN/RFC for someone entirely uninvolved to make the close. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked on WP:AN/RFC for an admin with no involvement in this article to oversee and close the RM. That will hopefully head off any problems in a week's time. If someone here or there would be willing to volunteer, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• BD2412 has agreed to close it; see his comment below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather you haven't seen Slate? Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is no conceivable reason for us to want to garner such a headline, even though it may feel good for now. We are not the news, and what's right today might be wrong tomorrow. Like it or not, we need to be conservative--not in a political sense, but conservative nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK news sites appear to be considerably more on-the-ball than their US brethren, who are presumably the whole world to Slate bloggers. In the UK, even the Daily Mail article is consistently "Chelsea", "her", "she" - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• On a related tip, my attempt to move Gender identity disorder to Gender dysphoria to be in compliance with WP:MEDMOS and the DSM-V has been reverted. Could I get an expedited move back, or does everybody have to suffer through a seven day WP:RM process with the same results? Abductive (reasoning) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: there were discussions in July at the medicine project on this issue, and a decision was made to keep it at GID. I'd suggest opening up an RM. DSM-V is an American framework for example, so I think we need discussion and arguments from all sides on that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The move by Abductive was made without consensus; a requested move (not page move warring) is the appropriate way to handle this discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion there someone uploaded the file File:Bradleywomanning.jpg. Besides having uncertain copyright status, the filename appears to be a jab at the subject of the photo. If the file is to be kept, could I ask an administrator to rename it to something more neutral? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• LFaraone moved it to File:Chelsea Manning with wig.jpg. I've deleted the old name as G10. — Scott • talk 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Page title war

Ok so this has something to do with the previous discussion of Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning but not the same points. There were several over redirects on the article and the ongoing dispute upon the page [6][7][8][9]. Now I understand that the original move was bold but the first revert should have started a discussion should it have not? All individuals involved will be notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All individuals for this posting have been notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I've been accused on the talk page of abusing my admin bit, which is puzzling, since I wasn't aware that moves over redirects with no history needed it. Someone is demanding I apologise to Wikipedia for it, even! I got an apology from the person who did that first revert - they'd assumed it was vandalism. Since then there has been a quite active WP:RM discussion. I'm not sure what admin action is required - despite all the repetitive tendentious policy-ignoring arguments it's not got to the stage of banhammering people yet, surely? Morwen (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) What administrator action is necessary here? The back-and-forth moving has stopped and the matter is being discussed on the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny I am not involved anywhere and don't really care about the current dispute. I noticed something that was on going after the talk page made a point of saying that it would need to be brought to the attention of ANI since these were administrator actions. Further I am not requesting admin action of this but instead admins to actually watch what is currently going on since the last time it changed over was a mere 4 hours ago. While this may have stopped permanently (one could only hope) if it should flare up again or someone decide to do something unilateral then it can be addressed with previous behavior identified. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The only issue I see here is with David's last revert. Standard operating procedure, as suggested by WP:RMT, is to revert undiscussed page moves that are likely to be controversial, upon request. David invoked BLP in reversing that technical move [which I performed], so his action does not meet the mens rea element of being wrong, but I am struggling to understand how WP:BLP applies in this instance at all. In the ongoing move request, most of the supporters of the Chelsea Manning title cite MOS:IDENTITY instead (no comment on the applicability of that to the article title), and those who invoke WP:BLP, including David, have failed to elaborate upon what part of that policy the Bradley Manning title violates. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrative note: Since I have no interest in the outcome of the RM discussion, I have volunteered to shepherd it for the duration, and close it in ~ seven days. In the long run of decades and centuries, it really doesn't matter where this article sits for the length of an RM discussion, so long as the title is not libelous or nonsensical. bd2412 T 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title is nonsensical. It's a violation of wikipedia sourcing rules. And the admins who continue to abuse wikipedia by reverting and reshaping the article according to their personal opinion, should have their admin privileges revoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have neither reverted nor reshaped anything, and I have no personal opinion about what this title should be. I have merely volunteered to close this discussion once the appropriate time has passed. bd2412 T 14:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

True. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As the above is utterly characteristic of Bugs' lack of AGF on this issue - essentially arguing that anyone disgreeing with them should be severely punished - I propose Bugs be topic banned for the duration. It's a contentious debate already, and Bugs' contributions (off-colour jokes, attacks on the integrity of Manning's lawyer) are adding vastly more heat than light. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made no "off-colour" jokes. An "off-color" joke would be one you can't say on regular TV. I don't do that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And Bugs has also demanded my apology for supposedly abusing my admin powers, when I've not even used my admin bit in the entire thing. Anyone could have done what I did. Morwen (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't demand an "apology" from you - I recommended that you do the right thing and revert your abusive, non-consensus moves back to "Bradley" until or if the valid news sources generally start saying "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". Speaking of "lack of AGF", aren't you the one that called anyone opposing your page moves "transphobic"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

a) you said 'The move to "Chelsea" was wrong, every time. Move it back to "Bradley", and then you can apologize to the rest of us, for abusing Wikipedia and for abusing your admin privileges'. I have not used my admin privileges this entire time! Strike out that lie and you'll go some way to making peace. b) I have done no such thing. I said that there are a distressing number of people making transphobic arguments. There were and there still were Look at the number of people saying the trans people don't really exist and shouldn't be acknowledge at all. I at no point said that *all* the arguments were transphobic. Morwen (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You "can" apologize is not a demand, just a recommendation. And you don't need to apologize to me at all, just to Wikipedia in general, for allowing your advocacy to override Wikipedia rules. Move the page back to "Bradley Manning", and things will be fine. If the name ever legally becomes "Chelsea" and/or is recognized as such in the media broadly, then you'd be justified in moving it to "Chelsea". But not until then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have any dog in this fight, but I just find it interesting that this was changed instantly, whereas the RM on A. J. Allmendinger failed despite their being plenty of evidence his preferred styling is 'AJ' because "the majority of sources" (before he changed how he styles it) use punctuation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs?

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

---

The longer I work on the talk page of Chelsea Manning the more egregious comments I see from Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) including: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The BLP violations, Tenacious Editing, Personal Attacks against the article's subject and Wikilawyering are not hard to see. Would it be possible to topic ban Bugs from this BLP per this Arbitration remedy? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at those links in isolation, which admittedly has the potential of stripping context, I would say that he is making an ass out of himself but might not be crossing the line such that that remedy comes into play. In my humble opinion, of course. But his evident zealotry is concerning and if I was a betting man, I'd predict a community invoked topic ban is inevitable at some point if he doesn't tone it down. Resolute 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd thank God if I were you that gambling only comes to those who wish to profit. I believe Bugs attempted to speak truth to advocate. A hard task indeed. †TE†Talk 04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Resolute. Some of what he's posted in those diffs is just strongly-worded argument, and some of it is rather snarky, tasteless, and dirsepectful, but none of it alone rises to the level of banworthiness. But if you look way up and squint your eyes right, you can see a tiny speck which must be a big banhammer falling from the sky. I sure hope he steps out of the way before it makes impact. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn; please see my new comment below. –Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more egregious things he has said have been missed: [15], [16], [17] and [18]. Frankly, personal attacks like these warrant a block, not just a topic ban, as it can spill over into other parts of the site very easily. There is also a good deal of political bias laden in his comments, from what I have seen, such as his "The Guardian hates the US" comment, which also makes this a conflict of interest issue. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also going to call out User:Tarc for a couple of rather vulgar comments on the same page: [19] and [20]. I know it's not quite relevant, but I'd rather this be nipped in the bud with what are serious personal attack and COI issues. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints, despite their blatant violations of the rules about sourcing and their twisting of facts to make a bogus "manual of style" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

None of that, true or false, justifies your personal attacks. Your actions are as accountable as anyone else's, and you have repeatedly attacked other editors, as I have demonstrated. If you want to continue editing, you should be apologizing for that and demonstrating that it will not happen again, not weaseling out of the issue with distractions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Distractions" like their hijacking of the page and violating Wikipedia rules... and threatening blocks for pointing that out, which would be a further abuse of their admin privileges. They own the page, and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Using the invented phrase "advocate-admins" over and over again doesn't make it a fair or credible characterisation of anyone's behaviour. It's also abundantly clear who it's intended to refer to, so it's not really any different to a direct personal attack. I still favour a topic ban as a merciful option, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I was going to be neutral but "The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints" remark above put me over the fence. Bugs needs to step AWAY from the ticking bomb! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see anything particularly objectionable in any of the diffs provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AQFK. What personal attacks? GregJackP Boomer! 11:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I'm all for healthy discussion, but Bugs' comments have consistently been beyond the pale - when I attempted to engage with him on his talk page, he instantly removed my remarks. Regardless of the different sides to this discussion (and the idea that this is somehow the result of "biased reporting" falls a bit flat when newspapers as diverse in their views as The Guardian and The Daily Mail are using the female pronoun to refer to Manning), Bugs' remarks are a clear indication of some of the prejudices and opinions that Trans people have to deal with every day. Trans Media Watch offer a coherent guide to journalists and publications writing on Trans issues . Bugs is far from being the only offender, but is clearly the most visible and seems to be leaping upon every single comment in that discussion, essentially claiming that anyone with opposing views is clearly "abusing Wikipedia". Is this really the healthy debate we want to nurture here? Horatio Snickers (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and a hearty thanks to Haipa Doragon for canvassing at my talk page, as I would not have known of this discussion otherwise. Stating an objection to the automatic "we must call he a she" advocacy of the LGBT advocacy campaigners is not in itself uncivil, a personal attack, or disruptive. These are tactics being used to remove opposing voices from a discussion; critics of Israel are called antisemites, one becomes a homophobe for raising objections to gay innuendo in unrelated articles (e.g. fisting in Crisco), and so on. It's the oldest trick in the Wiki-book. As for Bugs specifically, his presence in ANI's unrelated to himself can be a bit trying on everyone's patience, but when involved in a substantive topic, his candor is sorely needed in the face of politically-correct tinged censorship. It doesn't hurt that the policy on article naming convention overrides any Style Manual on identity, a point which has yet to be adequately rebutted. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose but support a block for disruptive editing if this continues. Baseball bugs has engaged in delioberately inflammatory rhetoric which, if it was not deliberately calculated to offend, certianly has offended in an entirely predictable way. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "I identify as a rabbit" is a personal attack now? And what's wrong with "tenacious" editing? Strong support for the Lapine-American in his tenacious struggle against the forces of Daffiness and Elmerhood! --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this is what it takes to get a topic ban, then 80% of the people involved in the discussion would be outta here... Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Consistently offensive and unhelpful comments. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Horatio Snickers and Guerillero.--В и к и T 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Resolute, ThinkEnemies and Psychonaut. Bugs is making an ass out of himself, but time has clearly shown that doesn't bother him, but he doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks or BLP violations. On the subject of disruption, there is plenty of it in that subject area and we need an admin to patrol. I'd suggest both sides police themselves. Those here in the support column should address those calling others transpobes and ignorant.--v/r - TP 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Baseball Bugs' comments have created a markedly hostile environment. --April Arcus (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone being a jerk or making crass remarks isn't the same as engaging in a BLP violation or personal attacks, these aren't personal attacks on a BLP: [21][22], this is most certainly not [23], this is a BLP violation [24]. From what I can see, there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Note that if there are future BLP violations administrator action does not require community discussion. I also don't see why requests for arbitration enforcement aren't done through WP:AE (obviously no need to move at this stage, but for future reference perhaps). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, some of the comments are distinctly douchebaggy. And yes, the attempts at enforcing the BB:Valid Sourcing policy against feminine pronouns for male-born transgender individuals who self-identify as female are blatant bugsilawyering, particularly as the policy is changed the moment its demands are met (e.g. first, it makes WP usage contingent on "non-tabloid" reporting practice, then when The Guardian and The Independent are cited BB:VS suddenly requires CNN). I think it was the patron saint of patience Monica of Hippo, or maybe a sysop who's name I've forgotten, who said: "See, it'd be so much simpler if we could block for simple douchebaggery." Writegeist (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I've changed my mind since my last posting upthread. The sheer volume of jerkish, crass, provocative, and disrespectful comments has risen to the level of disruption. Individually, I was willing to rationalize them as merely strongly worded retorts, but taken together they are creating an extremely hostile and even threatening environment. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that his behaviour amounts to Wikipedia:Harassment as defined in the first paragraph of that policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm arguing in favor of Wikipedia's own rules. Sorry if that fact offends you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It does not offend me that you are arguing in support of Wikipedia's rules. What offends me is the vitriol, calculated insensitivity, and relentlessness with which you are now prosecuting this argument. Turn your flamethrower down, Bugs, before the community steps in and takes it away from you for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm very close to kissing wikipedia goodbye as it is. The continued gross violations of the core principles of wikipedia, with advocacy winning out over the way wikipedia is supposed to work, is extremely disheartening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Please tell me how "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?" is even a remotely acceptable comment to direct towards another editor. Note that that editor's actions do not justify such a comment. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The advocates for this change, in defiance of the rules, are making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Another attack. It is not helping your case to use further inflammatory rhetoric on a thread concerning your potential sanctions for such actions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
              • If you think it's a good idea to make wikipedia look stupid, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I was criticizing your tone and language, not your opinions regarding the topic itself or another editor's actions. It is inexcusable to call someone's actions "stupid" no matter the context. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • I agree that Bugs is very much out of line, and, in fact, so much entrenched and without any kind of perspective that I see no chance that he will ever constructively participate on this topic. So I support a topic ban - maybe three months is enough for now. But on general principles, calling someone's actions "stupid" may not always be polite, but, at least for me, is sometimes necessary, and covered per WP:SPADE. I'd rather see honest opinions than sneaky pseudo-civility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                    • There are many ways of criticizing someone's actions without resorting to such insulting and incendiary language. Bugs crossed that line multiple times and has done so even on this page, and such "honesty" is not a virtue when used to put down and intimidate other editors. This is an editor who has shown blatant disrespect and disregard for other editors, who therefore cannot work with other editors, and that warrants site-wide sanctions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • The height of arrogance and of making-wikipedia-look-stupid is right smack on website's the front page: "Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning)"??? That wording is an absolute abomination. Yesterday it said "legally Bradley Manning", which is true. This "formerly" bit is living proof that Wikipedia has sold its soul to POV-warriors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from anything to do with Manning, for continual assumptions of bad faith. While there may be some ABF going on on the other side of things, Bugs is the only person I see who is completely unwilling to drop the stick. This has reached the point where he's now tacking on his indignation to every single thread relating to Manning—see, for instance, #User FS making legal threats below. Note that while there have been some BLP violations, I don't think they rise to the level of warranting a BLPBAN (and, indeed, if they did, we wouldn't need to discuss it, since an admin could oppose it unilaterally); rather, this !vote is for his behavior toward other contributors. Bugs has made his point on the talk page more than enough times for everyone to hear him, and if he's unable to walk away on his own, it's high time we make him. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm unsure as to how so many people have missed the personal attacks in question, that I quoted, but Bugs has repeatedly referred to editors as "stupid", the most egregious quote being "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?", as well as unhelpful, sarcastic comments such as comparing someone's comment to a post on the Onion and the analogy comparing trans people to rabbits, and even slander here: [25] regarding Manning's intentions. These are blatant and repeat violations of policy to which the user has not shown any intention of apology or changing his behaviour whatsoever and therefore warrant a complete block from Wikipedia activity. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Well, mild incivility isn't seen by many editors as being block-worthy these days. This is a deeply contentious ideological and political issue, and Bugs simply happens to be on the opposite side of your own opinion on the matter. While he may be brusque, and the comments rub some PC types the wrong way, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This comment in particular is one I've seen raised elsewhere in off-wiki boards for example. It is not beyond the pale to suggest the timing of the "call me Chelsea!" announcement is a bit peculiar, coming on the heels of the 35-year prison sentence. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Repeated comments calling editors or their actions "stupid" or putting down their comments as mere jokes on par with The Onion do not constitute "mild incivility", they constitute intimidation and manipulation, even, dare I say, bullying to get a point across. Political and ideological topics are not even remotely an excuse for these actions and I do not support leniency just because someone couldn't keep their cool. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on the matter seems to be in the minority, so maybe it is time to drop the stick, back away, and stop badgering people just because they disagree with you. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Given some of your edits, I am surprised you're still even here. You've already gotten away with phrases like "gender-bending" and "bullshit criticisms" on the Manning talk page, but how you haven't been held accountable for some of your past edits is beyond me. To quote just some of your edit summaries: "I will strike this part only, if it is going to make Bob's undies bunch up" [in reference to another editor], "quite Gestapo-like" [again, to another editor], "article is still under that retarded "1RR", regrettably", "If you're offended by THAT, then I'll probably offend you in far, far worse ways if you choose to come to my page complaining about something", "learn to read", "we're not listing every minor rtarded thing done by the media". You have no business in trying to shut me up for calling out other's personal attacks, let alone on this site at all. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I will lecture the likes of you as I see fit, buddy-boy, especially when you fallback on ad hominems and strawmen. This thread isn't about me, but if you feel the need to make one then kindly hit the "new section" link at the top of this page and knock yourself out. We're here discussing a topic ban proposal for Baseball Bugs, a proposal that simply isn't gaining the consensus that you had hoped for. Instead of accepting that sometimes one's opinion simply does not and will not carry the day like an adult, you are resorting to badgering, berating, and belittling those editors with whom you disagree. You keep say things like people "fail to understand", but the thing is, we do understand. These comments made simply do not rise to an actionable level that warrants a topic ban. So take some advice; stop whining, stop attacking other editors, and let this straw poll play out as it will. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I find it funny how you accuse me of ad-hominem in a post that also patronizes me with the phrase "buddy-boy" and compares me to a child. All I have done in this thread is argue for the blocking of an editor I have found extremely disruptive and try to argue against points others have raised. You have no place pointing out so-called personal attacks with such a history of disgusting and degrading slurs, attacks and put-downs. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
            • All you have done in this thread is harass and berate those with whom you disagree, and in a thoroughly Streisand effect-ish kind of way have probably done more to drive more editors to oppose than had any appreciable effect in supporting your cause. My "history" is a strawman argument, deployed to detract from your present examples of slurring other editors in this very thread. How does it feel to have become the thing you profess to hate? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Do quote the so-called "slurs" I have used, and we can compare them to "retard" and "gender-bending" and the other vulgar attacks you have used already. Frankly, this thread is as much about you as it is about Bugs because you have acted as badly and, in some areas, worse than him. I really don't care about "what goes where" with regards to opening a new thread. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                • You have repeatedly belittled editors who vote oppose and claim that their oppsition is because the "fail to understand" what a personal attack is. That itself is insulting. Then, the suggestion that this thread is at all about me is quite frankly asinine and shows just how far into the deep end of the pool you have waded. Go start a topic on me,; it'll be closed in 5 mins tops. I think I'm about done being trolled by you, and as this topic ban proposal of yours is a guaranteed fail, you may consider this the proverbial "last word". :) Tarc (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • Fair enough, looking back at that sentence I see it as an unfair assumption about other editors. I apologize for that. I have tried very hard though to raise my objections to what I see as incredibly objectionable editing on both your parts, however, and with that, naturally, comes terse and frank language and tenacious discussion. I do not intend to denigrate or belittle anyone and I certainly believe I haven't compared to the slurs, sarcasm and bad faith that have been going around. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AQFK. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is not Baseball Bugs. The problem is that article should not be called "Chelsea Manning." 68.195.91.181 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not what you say, it's how you say it. There is no cause noble enough to warrant disruption of this magnitude. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is cited as a reason for the topic ban, but it is preceded by this which I find more toxic. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose. I'm not a fan of Baseball Bugs in general, but in this case several admins are getting away scot free with far worse policy violations than a little soapboxing on a talk page. Also, another user posting something far more inflammatory on that talk page has been blocked for ... gasp ... one day User talk:LudicrousTripe#Bonus_points. An indef topic ban for BB would clearly be disproportionate. Maybe 12 hours next time he says something naughty. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither this nor Bus stop's comments are even remotely pertinent. Just because policy isn't being enforced in one area doesn't mean it shouldn't be in another. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic bans are suppose to be the last resort to long standing disruption. Nothing here fits that definition. JOJ ^Hutton 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His comments are ignorant in the extreme, but it's an argument, so we have to canvass all views - even his delusional views about the transgender issue being a confection to bolster the appeal, and Tarc's cartoonish, 2-dimentional, 19th century "understanding" of gender and sex. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No, we only need those views pertinent to the article. Insults and political statements do not count towards that, and the former in particular is utterly intolerable. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bugs has a history of acting out and not being able to control his behavior at BLPs about whistle-blowers. Last time it was Edward Snowden and now it's Manning. His contribution to these topics is clearly hostile and a net negative. Removing him can only help calm an already inflamed situation. N^oformation ^Talk 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a short topic ban. Give Bugs some time to cool down. If the disruptiveness continues after the ban expires, impose a longer ban. His comments are obviously way over the line of our policies governing personal interaction (and his unwillingness to accept reliable sources that contradict his personal views indicates that this isn't just a case of someone soapboxing and making the editing environment unsafe, but rather of something that affects Wikipedia's articles), but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that he's a worked up and will become a productive user if he takes an enforced break from the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Suppport a topic ban. This is not the first time i have seen such behavior from Basebull bugs. He tries to disrupt the project anytime somebody disagrees with him. Pass a Method talk 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban. Some comments are a little snarky, but on the whole his points are well thought out and relevant. Talmage (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as a preventive measure to limit further disruption. As the diffs at the start of this thread show, Bugs has been making personal attacks on other editors, personal attacks on the living person who is the article's subject, and soapboxing on his own POV about a range of issues. That conduct has not eased despite requests to back off, and it disrupts the formation of a consenus on the substantive editorial issues here. As suggested by Roscelese, I think it would be best to start with a short topic. Hopefully, that will be enough time to cool down, and if that isn't the case then a longer ban could follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban would be merited, but it's an important principle of Wikipedia that admins with high edit counts are allowed to be as twattish as they like. This is for very good reasons which are unclear. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugs is not an admin. And a high edit count won't keep an admin from being blocked, either - see below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on the first part. On the second, yes it will, so long as the offence is being twattish. Even extremely twattish. Every single time.

Instantly overturned blocks do not make a great counter-example, in any case. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So, essentially what you're saying is, Bugs would merit a ban but shouldn't because some other people get away with things? That's not how it works, as I've said already. Haipa Doragon (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying a topic ban is merited, but proposing one is pointless. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose - and instead suggest one for FormerIP who can't be bothered enough to check on basic facts before making a decision on what should happen. (And in any case, calling them twattish is twattish.) --Onorem (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother disputing that last comment or pointing out the obvious logical extension. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. But he/she needs to cool the jets. --RA (✍) 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Nothing of his jokes is of a bannable grade, although a stern warning might be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

These are not "jokes", they are personal attacks. There is nothing remotely amusing about repeatedly calling people "stupid", mocking someone's comments as if they were an article on the Onion (a joke site), the nonsense bad-faith accusations he has been making or the allegations and political bias he has introduced. These actions, especially when repeated so many times, disrupt and abuse this site and its editors and warrant severe sanctions against the violator. It is ridiculous how many people fail to understand this. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference was not to editors being stupid. The reference was to making Wikipedia look stupid. There is a considerable distinction between an assertion that editors are stupid and an assertion that editors are making Wikipedia look stupid. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per this and WP:OWB#37. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing Bugs has done is topic ban-worthy. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(more - Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs)

• Support - No comment EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per Tarc and A Quest for Knowledge above.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
— Mike Godwin

Oppose per Godwin NE Ent 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• How does a question asking if a particular Arbcom precedent would encompass circumstances related to Baseball Bugs' current editing endeavor—presumably to establish authority for the sanction and support the request if made become a discussion for imposing the unrequested topic ban? With Guerillero's question now moot; I oppose the egregious notion that Baseball Bugs should be topic banned for his eloquence in advocating one side of a contentious content discussion. I'll venture a guess that mine is the first contextually correct use of egregious although a majority will likely see mine as hyperbole. :) John Cline (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just an IP and I'm !going to !vote, but I see little benefit in allowing Bugs to continue. Failing to take action on behavior like this, especially with an editor with known discipline issues, just encourages more of the behavior. Given the other problematic users on the page, failure to take action is also saying to them that "this is the accepted and expected behavior of established members of the community." Is Bugs's behavior what Wikipedia wants to see? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm just going to be frank here. I am close to fucking tears here with all the intimidation and bad faith levelled against me by the two utterly unaccountable editors in question who deride me with their every edit with things like the ideas that I am a "troll" and I belong in the "funny pages". I have tried to get across for some time now the point that personal attacks are intolerable and how badly they disrupt the site, but apparently the swath of Bugs' and Tarc's put-downs and sarcastic responses, and the latter's disgusting slurs, are not enough for any sort of action whatsoever, despite the fact that neither has bothered to apologize for such misconduct. I have both mental health and gender issues, and I know more than most in this thread how the vile "retard" "gender-bender" rhetoric hurts, both psychologically and physically, and the simple and very stark fact that it kills people. The inaction on the part of administrators to enforce rules, and the willingness to let sanctions on bullying, intimidating, bad-faith editors slide via some "straw poll" charade, the last couple of days, is a sodding disgrace to the project and I hope will help tarnish this site's already awful reputation. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's comments like these that make me want to say Oppose to the proposed topic ban. Discussions such as this should not be used as a soapbox for broader issues about the rights and abuses of transgendered people, or emotive comments about statements killing people. Baseball Bugs' statements are clearly insensitive, but (based on the diffs presented), do not seem to constitute personal attacks. Further, it may be that Manning's statements about a change of gender could be part of a legal defence strategy. However, because Baseball Bugs has not backed away from the dead horse, I'm leaning towards Support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I'll also be frank, and I'll try to avoid the worst of my usual discursiveness. I like Baseball Bugs. Sometimes I agree with him wholeheartedly and admire his tenacity for upholding policy and principle. Even on the occasions when I vehemently disagree with him or am annoyed by his inserting fatuous humor in wildly inappropriate contexts, I still like him. I'm 99.9% sure he means well, and I think he has done more good around here over the years than he's sometimes given credit for. In this instance, his conduct has been absolutely inexcusable. The diffs linked at the top of this thread are deeply troubling for several reasons. For one thing, they indicate an inability on his part to check his personal political opinions at the door, which is something that any Wikipedian should be prepared to do before wading into a contentious discussion about a controversial topic. They also point to a complete disregard both for the the project's responsibility to the subject of the article (a living person) and to the sensibilities of his fellow editors, many of whom share Manning's specific minority status and even more of whom are sufficiently grounded in the 21st century to be offended by callous remarks directed towards any minority.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that Wikipedians reading this thread not so many years from now will be appalled less by Bugs's behavior than by the amount of support he has received in the wake of his awful behavior. If Bugs had expressed the slightest bit of contrition after being called on what he did, I'd chalk his transgressions up to ignorance and look at the whole thing as a learning opportunity. Instead, he has adopted a classic IDHT posture, and he has been aided and abetted in doing so by multiple editors. Sad indeed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support short ban perhaps 6 months. I too like Baseball Bugs and appreciate some humor, but with over 14 people advising "Support" he seems to have no limits to the jokes, so a limit should be imposed, to reduce wp:DE disruption with other editors. Many people would know to avoid similar numerous jokes or innuendos in this topic area, as not helpful to collaboration. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BLP violations and other unacceptable comments on the talk page of a biography of a living individual. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

References

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposed. Any positive contribution Bugs may have made to the talk page has been far outweighed by repeated, and frequently gross, BLP violations. This is despite many warnings to cease and a good few people recommending his walking away. He is far from the only editor to have behaved badly there, but being in a crowd of people making BLP violating comments does not excuse your individual behaviour. Given that everything short of a topic ban has failed to have any effect we are left with only the one option short of a full ban, and I don't want it to come to that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Judging by his posts here, he apparently sees nothing wrong with his behavior and fully intends to continue on this path. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The POV warriors of all stripes are having a field day. BB's conservative politics are well known, let him have his say. It's a discussion, after all. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly this. If BB's comments are enough to cause hurt feelings, then there are plenty of other things in the real world (and by that I mean outside world, sans computer) that are even more scary. You can't have a political discussion, especially for a controversial topic like the one at hand, without some degree of bark. What BB has said on that article talkpage is nothing compared to a day's job of the Australian Prime Minister taking and giving banter left and right during parliament. Most IRL politicians have spines, so why can't Wikipedians? --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• What absolute nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum or a legislature, and we cater to far more varied ilk than either of those. The idea that everyone, of all ages, political beliefs, disabilities, genders and all other such distinctions should just buckle up, "have spines" and accept abuse from others is the most atrocious and disgusting way I have ever heard of to run a site like this and I am sickened by your disregard for fellow editors. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you have no compunction against lambasting an editor you disagree with, even calling their thoughtful regards (assuming good faith) nonsense. Even while I disagree with the disgusting double standard you would impose upon this site's governance, I do not believe your voice should be silenced (though it may appall some) with such an atrocious suggestion as a ban. :) John Cline (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything against lambasting Benlisquare in this situation. He showed blatant disregard to my feelings, which have been extremely hurt in the past few days by both Baseball Bugs and Tarc, and called practically the entirety of this site's editors spineless. I am right in expressing my disgust and sickening towards those actions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to understand that this is a controversial topic, which naturally attracts prickly behaviour. There are many ways of avoiding such behaviour, including avoiding controversial topics. I'm quite certain that you know quite well and clearly what you're potentially walking into, when you enter a controversial conversation. The real world and modern society does not have walled gardens to protect adults from things that might hurt them, and Wikipedia isn't any different; you will come across hurtful material from time to time. Finally, regarding me calling "entirety of this site's editors spineless", please don't put words into my mouth. "If all As contain X, why can't Bs contain X" is not the same as "all Bs do not contain X". --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The hurt feelings via the slurs, sarcastic intimidation and patronizing I have received from some are not my idea of mere "prickly behaviour". Being told that I should just grin and bear it just adds to that. I'm upset and sick to death of the sterility and lack of compassion aimed against me in this thread and being told how trivial and irrelevant my feelings are is the last nail in the coffin. Thank you all (except a few) for your apathy towards me and thank you BB and Tarc for driving me away from this project as soon as I was trying to get back into it. This is the most worthless the internet has ever made me feel and I congratulate you for that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe I understand your motives. I do want to be clear that I am not attempting to exacerbate the genuine pain I believe you've expressed. I will even apologize for deliberately inserting inflammatory snark to illustrate my opposition to the ban request. And close by wishing you the best, as well as the others who have commented here; regardless of whether or not we agree. Peace. :) John Cline (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Snarky speech is expected of a controversial political discussion, regardless of venue. BB is not supposed to be a priest giving a sermon in a church on Easter Sunday. It is understandable that emotions fly high at times like this, and he should not be punished for natural human behaviour. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Close the RM discussion early (IAR)?

(@BD2412:) Given that that:

1. the Manning page is currently very highly trafficked;
2. this move is causing controversy in a number of areas across the 'pedia and is very visible (linked from Main page);
3. the move discussion is very highly contributed to; and
4. there is a high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides

... can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR? I don't foresee any new insights arriving and it would be better to decide the matter than to let it go on for a week IMO. I'd suggest closing it 24hrs from the when it was posted (as opposed to 7 days as per a regular RM). --RA (✍) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a search on for multiple admins to eventually close it so this would be premature. And I suspect some people are holding back on commenting a few days to see what the actual trend in the sources is. An early close would just be one extra controversy that isn't needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"...to see what the actual trend in the sources is..." Which itself indicates the move was premature.

We can always return to question of moving it to Chelsea Manning (if the result of this RM is to restore the original title) but it doesn't serve the project to have a mess like this on a highly visible article. Mop it up quickly for now and get it right next time. --RA (✍) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An early close will be just as problematic; it will create the appearance of wanting to cement an existing voting trend before other editors have a full and fair opportunity to discover the discussion, weigh in, and set forth all arguments to be considered. This is not a WP:SNOW situation, where one outcome is inevitable. bd2412 T 01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. The current title of the article is, in my opinion, inappropriate, but it's not a crime or a BLP violation or a whatever other extravagant catastrophe people are claiming. With redirects, no one will have trouble finding the article anyway. The overly motivated editors are going to rage without respect to whether the formal argument is closed or not. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note however (just to get it out there in advance) that I will not be opposed to closing the argument early if discussion has clearly petered out, or if it clearly becomes a WP:SNOW situation, or if it becomes so ugly and uncivil that blocks are being handed out left and right. This is not, by the way, a call to make it ugly and uncivil, as that will end up being all the worse for those who engage in bad behavior. bd2412 T 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that this article was controversialy moved and then frozen by a byrocratic procedure for seven days while at the same time being featured on the main page... Normal procedure would be to revert and the discuss the new name. Space simian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true, there was no consensus to move the page to Chelsea in the first place, some editor just did it and the wars started with the page frozen in it's place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A technical revert to allow for discussion was reverted citing BLP. There are no BLP issues with having the article title at Bradley Manning. There are however major policy issues when a news site declares that "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations" (src) on a biography of a living person. Wikipedia ought to be behind major sources, not ahead of them, on BLPs. --RA (✍) 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not a news site, it's some blogger who happens to be on slate.com - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's how slate.com works. The piece on Wikipedia "beating" news organisations is a front-page headline on the site (link). But in any case: wow, way to miss the point. --RA (✍) 09:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is a train wreck. IMHO you've got people who really don't have a neutral point of view pushing for changes, mainly to get it changed to Chelsea. They then insult people who think it shouldn't be. I'm staying well clear of that. One of the main instigators is a supposed respected member of the community! I think I was the editor who initially reverted it back to Bradley after it was changed to Chelsea. Now I don't mind either way but there was NO discussion at all about changing it, protocol was NOT followed and TBH I thought the name change was trolling to begin with as I read about Manning for the first time when he/she appeared on the front page. Cls14 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I must object to that characterisation of the events The record shows there was a small discussion and consensus in favour of moving it when I did it! Yes, this has somewhat dwarfed by the scale of discussion afterwards, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Morwen (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Move request discussions are supposed to remain open for seven days, precisely to avoid that sort of thing. bd2412 T 11:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And undiscussed (or improperly discussed) moves are reverted to allow discussion. --RA (✍) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the move was reverted; and the reversion was reverted; and so on. That is not a matter involving me. I have volunteered to close the current discussion once it concludes. That is all. bd2412 T 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another abuse of Wikipedia: Blatantly defying the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. And even worse when done by admins, who should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are never supposed to "beat" anyone, because everything must be properly cited and referenced. I support a technical closure (revert to the status quo) and then restart the discussion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is only one proper source on Chelsea Manning's correct name, and she has been completely clear. If you're more hung up on having secondary sources all in a line than demonstrating basic respect for a person's identity, I assert that you've taken your eye off the ball. --April Arcus (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Manning's alleged "name change" has no legal standing and is not being used that way by sources. It is, at most, a nickname chosen by the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That I'll disagree with strongly. It carries no more legal meaning than a nickname, but for someone transitioning it's a lot more meaningful than that. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • That personal issue is beyond wikipedia's purpose. Once broad sourcing starts saying "Chelsea", then you'll be in the right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • As I pointed out upthread, the "a person is the only proper source for their own name" theory has been directly shot down at previous WP:RMs in favor of the name as reported in third-party sources regardless of the person's own preferred name format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

As standard operating procedure with any LGBT topic, the activists have come strong with accusations of -phobias for anyone who doesn't support their point of view. I'd like to request an uninvolved administrator with no strong opinion on LGBT topics to patrol the article's talk page and warn/block for personal attacks of this nature unless there are very real -phobias present. Such comments as (paraphrasing) "Anyone supporting is ignorant" or "Only those with transphobia have supported returning this article back" or "It's evident those who still use 'Bradley' have transphobia" are inappropriate, chilling, and discussion-stifling. Diffs on request.--v/r - TP 12:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear. Those making such ridiculous accusations are doing nothing to help the situation, and if anything are making it worse. GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to understand their perspective, and counsel them to make their arguments without using inflated rhetoric. Calling Manning "it" is clearly deliberately offensive, and the reaction is predictable. Let's not criticise those who were trolled, where trolling has taken place. The entire debate could do with less indignation on all sides. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Guy is right. Strong action needs to be taken on that page against those making inappropriate and thoughtless comments (as well as addressing hyperbole from the other side). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"thoughtless comments" are exactly where strong action need not be taken. We don't execute folks for having a brain fart. Nor do we execute those who disagree. Perhaps some folks intended "it" to be gender neutral. You don't know what's in people's head, that's why we have WP:AGF. Calling each other names is not going to help Wikipedia at all. If you can prove trolling, as I did say "unless there are very real -phobias present," then fine but do not shoot the good faith contributions because they don't share a POV.--v/r - TP 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A number of the comments on the page are inappropriate - whether good faith or not. And strong action need not take the form of e.g. blocks, but someone making a strong statement to those individuals about sensitivity to a subject per BLP. Anyone describing Chelsea as "it"... well it's not a defensible thing to say and anyone doing so cannot be doing it for a positive reason. Either they are trolling, being abusive or a complete idiot - whichever one of those they need to be stopped from making matter worse. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally find "not defensible" to be a pet-peeve. Of course you find it not defensible, you disagree. I'm not saying this to ABF, but being an idiot is a defense. We need to separate good faith stupidity and bad faith malevolence and treat them appropriately. Calling the good faith folks transphobes is not helpful.--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Why is someone using "it" immediately decreed the Antichrist? It could - just could - simply be an editor, who doesn't know how to deal with trans prononous, trying to be as neutral as possible without realising they may have caused offence. GiantSnowman 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bleh, AGF my ass. What rational person would call an individual, in any context, "it". That is globally a disparagement. As I said - either they are being deliberately negative, or stupid (hence, AGF that in some cases they are simply stupid). In either case they shouldn't be contributing. :) But what we term it is a side issue; the page is stuffed full of personal commentary about Manning and people need to be dissuaded from that in whichever way is most appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a consequence of an illegitimate action, in this case a controversial page move without consensus or any valid basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:TParis I agree the rhetoric is inflamed. And a large part of the problem is that we've got some people who have a lot of exposure to trans issues. And we've got people to whom it is a weird/sick/or just unheard of thing. Having had to deal with trans issues for 15 years (my boss at the time went from a male to a female, and let me assure you we all had no idea how to deal with it and originally suspected it was a joke), I'm finding a lot of those comments really offensive. "it" is way, way over the top. But yes, using "it" also might be cluelessness. Trans issues are pretty common in academia (where I live now) and in fact one of the most famous people in my field Lynn Conway transitioned in the 1960s! We know the expected language and understand the issues.

The basic theme is that people (Bugs and others) are being very offensive. Perhaps not on purpose (it's hard to guess motivations in person, on-line it's a crap shoot). To me, it's just as offensive as calling someone a chink or a nigger. It's just not acceptable. Sure, the person speaking may just be clueless, but the offense rises to the level that it needs to be addressed. And of course, we've got people who think everyone is being over sensitive. Again, being an academic, I get that too (political correctness is crazy here). But the line I draw is that hurtful words are rarely needed. Calling someone "it" is hurtful. Calling a trans person by their pre-transition name is also hurtful. I'd never do these things any more than I'd use "gay" as a pejorative or use the word nigger in nearly any context (other than this one in fact). And I'd expect in any kind of reasonable conversation others would do the same. I'm a person who uses swear words in normal conversation (even in front of a class). But those words aren't hurtful (if used correctly). The difference is key. I think it's fair to ask people to accept that they are being hurtful. It's also fair to ask others to try to explain the issue (I needed it explained to me those 15 years ago) rather than just calling them names (trans-phobic or whatever...) Hobit (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Errant, your assuming LGBT issues are global, widespread, and generally undisputed. Outside of liberal dinner tables, I'm not sure that isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. You've been around long enough, picture this in a different topic area. Global warming, perhaps. Zero tolerance beliefs are harmful. Advocacy is harmful. We cannot allow folks to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Wikipedia isn't the place for "Strong action" and certainly not name calling. It's the place for good faith. I'm pro-LGBT, I believe people should be able to live openly about their true selves without fear, and you see my take on this whole thing. That's because I see it both ways. But living openly involves opinions as much as it does sexuality. We cannot allow attacks on opinions simply for their mere disagreement with our own. We must seek only to crush those who, in bad faith and full intentions, seek to humiliate, cause fear, and disparage others. (After ec) Hobit, I don't think we disagree.--v/r - TP 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I find myself largely agreeing with TP. As much as I hate to say it, there is a difference between homophobic/biphobic/transphobic comments and, say, racist/sexist/anti-Semitic comments. Namely, that the latter cannot usually be excused as ignorance, while the former (very unfortunately) often can. A lot of people just don't understand transgenderism. That some people don't realize that calling someone "it"—for whatever reason—is offensive saddens me, but that doesn't mean they're bad people. We don't allow the promotion of fringe views here, but (once again, unfortunately) it's not a fringe view to believe that people can't truly change gender, or the like. So while it might be acceptable to go to some people and say "Hey, just so you know, saying 'it' or things like that is often seen as offensive, and we have some users here whose feelings might get hurt by seeing something like that," we don't need to actually punish them for what they said.

That said, any oppose ^support !votes in the RM based purely on the belief that people cannot change genders aren't pertinent, since RMs are about Wikipedia policy, not social issues. My suggestion to the closing admin (whichever poor sap that may be) is that they discount any oppose ^support !votes that just say that "he's still a man", and also any support ^oppose !votes that just say "it's transphobic to not move it" (since that view discounts a perfectly reasonable WP:COMMONNAME argument, even if I personally disagree with said argument). !votes that aren't about Wikipedia policy should not be counted in Wikipedia decisions. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, that's what I tried to say, just written 10x better. :-) Hobit (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Nicely put. If I'd read that first, I might have been a bit gentler on Bugs and Tarc. ... Nah. (I think you, PinkAmpersand, may need to swap "support" for "oppose" in your second paragraph: "oppose" means "keep Chelsea Manning".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Gah. Fixed. I should try that "sleep" thing sometime. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Coffee superior, sleep inferior - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everyone making rude comments on that page is a bad person. But regardless of context (e.g. LGBT) referring to a living person as "it" is clearly disparaging - and aside from any transphobic intent it is a stupid, unpleasant thing to say. But we're getting bogged down in a total side issue; whether the comments are in good faith or not and what to call them. The core issue is we have a talk page where a number of editors need reminders to contain their comments to policy issues, and refrain from personal commentary abut the individual in question. Who is going to stop faffing around and step up to do that?? I was previously involved in discussions on that talk page, otherwise it would be me. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm involved too, can't be me. I feel sorry for whomever volunteers too.--v/r - TP 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't edited at or about the subject, and would like to consider themselves neutral - though I opposed Risker's blocks, below. That said, after all of this drama, I do feel an overwhelming urge to pull an Ed Poor and delete the flipping article outright. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

About the admin actions

Can we get a little bit of discussion about the propriety of the admin actions that surrounded this page? In particular, I'm interested in the following exchange:

• David Gerard (talk · contribs) move-protected the page at 13:31 (UTC)
• I (Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)) moved the page back toBradley Manning at 14:32 (UTC), in response to a request at WP:RMT
• David Gerard (talk · contribs) moved the page to Chelsea Manning at 14:34 (UTC), citing BLP.

Incidentally, Morwen (talk · contribs) moved the article to Chelsea Manning earlier, but before the move protection (so not an admin action).Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) also fully edit-protected the article at 14:41 (UTC), which was downgraded back to semi- at 14:49 (UTC); I'm not sure either of those actions are particularly controversial though.

I'm not at all suggesting that the article should be moved to Bradley Manning for the duration of the move request; that is obviously a very bad idea. However, these actions were before the move request began. So I'm curious about the permissibility of the move on RMT grounds and the move back on BLP grounds. I feel my RMT reasoning was quite self-explanatory (controversial, undiscussed move). I have tried to query David for an explanation of how the Bradley Manning title constituted a BLP violation, both on his talk page and the article talk page, to no avail. (Well, he would argue that's been explained a number of times, and I'm being dense, but you can be the judge of that.) -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was and still am outraged and disappointed with the actions of David. David performed a move that was hugely controversial, and then proceeded to move protect the page. This served to stifle discussion and lock the page at a title that many found controversial. Page titles are not trivial; they have implications. The media pays attention to such matters. To make a controversial move and then to move lock the page is an astounding abuse of power. It makes me question why I contribute to Wikipedia, when those in power use their privileges with such reckless abandon.

I suggest David be blocked for a period of time, as a reminder of Wikipedia policies.

I also strongly disapprove of Morwen's external postings and communications, which framed the issue in an inaccurate and POV way. Namely, Morwen suggested that policy was clear on this matter when it was very far from clear. Misleading the media about the actions of Wikipedia is not only disappointing, but also damaging to our goals as a neutral encyclopedia. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well; clearly David's second move was wheel-warring, there's no doubt about that. There is, of course, an exemption in WP:WHEEL for obvious BLP issues, but you only have to read the talkpage to see that there's clearly no agreement that it was an obvious BLP violation - indeed, most of the proponents of the move are citing MOS:IDENTITY rather than BLP. So, yes, David should clearly not have moved the page back. Whether there's any mileage in pursuing that avenue is doubtful though. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It is understandable how David could think it was obvious, though. I've warned David about taking further admin actions on this page. Other than that, I think we should chop it up to being accidental and move on. David clearly thought his decision would receive overwhelming support and because hindsight is 20/20, we can't blame him if he was wrong in that assumption.--v/r - TP 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But this action plainly does not fall into the BLP-related exemptions to WP:WHEEL or WP:3RR. The WHEEL exemption is limited to "Material deleted because it contravenes BLP. The 3RR exemption similarly is limited to "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Changing the title of an article is not deletion of or removal of material. The applicable standard is not "good reasons for taking action based in the admin's/editor's interpretation of BLP policy," even if they believe their conclusion "obvious." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, let's go down this rabbit hole a bit further. These are the bits of WP:BLP that I think are active.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone,

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I would claim that misgendering people harms them, is certainly not responsible or cautious, and definitely not fair. Obviously this is a judgement call, but that's what WP:BLP requires us to do: use our judgement responsibly and with appropriate deference to the wishes of the subject. And I think honouring someone's well-stated wishes about a transition is so well within the bounds of appropriate that I can't believe I'm having to argue this still. It's not like we are trying to suppress the old information, or anything! Morwen (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL only makes an exception of obvious BLP violations. As the talk page shows, it's not an obvious violation. You can argue the points, but the controversy itself is the defining factor that decides here. There are different interpretations of WP:BLP on this.--v/r - TP 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course in most cases of obvious WP:BLP violations there are going to be people who disagree that it is an obvious violation, vis. the people who made the bad change in the first place (or are refusing to allow a good change). It is precisely because of people who lack good editorial judgement that we need such a policy. Morwen (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There in lies the problem. It's not a handful of people who lack "editorial judgement," it's a slight majority. The (slight) majority opinion is that the BLP policy has been taken out of context. That a handful of people who are part of that majority are morally corrupt doesn't change the argument of the whole. But it doesn't even come down to that. The fact that the controversy hasn't leaned one way in particular strongly is the very demonstration that something was not "obvious" and the only reason David shouldn't be judged harshly is because he couldn't have known that beforehand. It's reasonable that he would have anticipated the outcome that he did. But his assumption was wrong, as demonstrated by the mere existence of the controversy itself, and that means that the action was not acceptable. However, I've warned David and that's all that needs to happen here.--v/r - TP 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not all that needs to happen - the page needs to be moved back to its original name until such time (if any) when moving it back to the current name is justified by Wikipedia rules. Which it currently is not. No legal authority and no valid news source is calling Manning "Chelsea". As the Army folks indicated, Manning can go through legal steps to legally change his name. Until any of that happens, "Bradley" is the real name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was commenting on the previous admin actions that have already taken place. The RFC will determine what else needs to happen.--v/r - TP 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Admins have no special authority to defy the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. The only real issue is that the page needs to be reverted to "Bradley" until or if it becomes appropriate to rename it "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's really not how WP:BLP works. Unless something has changed recently, Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies. Morwen (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to break the below thread to address this. You're right, that's not how BLP works. However, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. When the consensus determines this is not a BLP issue, then BLP cannot be used by single people saying "is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies". Ohh, and by the way, we do take votes on core policies. That's how they were created. We !voted on WP:V recently. The size of the discussion determines whether we can change or suspend policy. A small consensus doesn't override policy, but the size of this discussion means that we can determine how to properly implement policy. That's how Wikipedia works.--v/r - TP 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what you do instead is unilaterally impose your personal view and violate those core policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, you need to be open to the possibility that your interpretation of "core policies" may be incorrect. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That would conflict with his desire to be an advocate for the subject of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Morwen is participating in this conversation in good faith. She has explained her rationale and maintained a dispassionate and even-keeled tone. --April Arcus (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And now Bugs has added to their earlier misstatement regarding my supposed use of admin bit (still not yet withdrawn as far as I can see) by misgendering not just Manning, but me personally. This is rapidly becoming a WP:CIVIL issue. Morwen (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user name "Morwen" has no identifiable gender, so "he" is the standard default in English. If anything, it sounds more male than female, as it kind of sounds like "Morton" or "Marvin" or one of those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Morwen lists her first name as Abigail, and Morwen clearly identifies her namesake as a female character. It would only have taken a minute to check either. --April Arcus (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Morwen being female does not excuse abusing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

All of which, of course, could have been achieved by noting that the subject self-identifies as Chelsea Manning, and performing a pronoun switch. In general though I agree; whilst David probably shouldn't have moved the page back, I don't think we can castigate him too much for doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A core premise of Wikipedia is that we report news, we don't create news. Reporting what the lawyer said is fine. Renaming the article and changing all the pronouns is a gross violation of the core premise... as noted by at least one reference that said Wikipedia is "ahead of the major news organizations". That, just by itself, demonstrates that Wikipedia has violated its own rules. Wikipedia is already a laughingstock, and this advocacy-driven move only makes that situation worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said earlier in this mega-thread, I don't feel David's actions meet the mens rea element of wheel-warring. However, I do question his unwillingness to explain afterward how he felt BLP applied or admit now that maybe it wasn't as clear-cut as he felt; on the contrary, he has claimed my inquiries were a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This claim is incorrect; my reasoning was the immediacy provisions of WP:BLP - we most definitely do not have the luxury of eventualism with BLPs - and MOS:IDENTITY, both in its words and its use in practice. I said this several times on the talk page as well, which is why you're giving the impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "reasoning" for applying BLP is bogus. That alleged "name change" has no legal standing nor is it supported by broad sources. It is, at most, a nickname until something happens otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't derail this into another thread arguing the move. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The illegitimate move is the only real issue at hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The thread is there for all and sundry to see; people can make their own determination. But, the fact that an article is a biography of a living person doesn't absolve you from explaining why an action you reverse (in this case, my move to Bradley Manning) constitutes a violation of the BLP policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• As it appears BLP trumps all other considerations. If subject identifies with a certain name and gender then BLP is clear that is the name under which the article should be titled and the gender should be identified as.--MONGO 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That isn't how it works, no. WP:COMMONNAME is the guiding policy, it does not violate BLP in the slightest to refer to a person by the name and gender that they actually are rather than what they simply declare themselves to be. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely. That name "Chelsea" has no legal standing nor is it accepted broadly by sources. Also, some months back it was "Breanna". What will it be next week? Wikipedia is not supposed to become a subject's personal advocacy tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • <ec>@User:Tarc Turns out a lot of us would strongly disagree with that including the mainstream literature in the area. It might be helpful to read our article on Gender. The word itself was rarely used outside of grammar terms until the 60s when it was used to distiquish between biological sex and the social construct. Your view of gender is pushing into WP:FRINGE-land. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That's original research that's irrelevant to this particular issue. We go by sourcing and common usage, not by how a subject would wish their article were tailored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • That use of gender is OR? If so, our article on gender is in really bad shape (and the cites are all wrong). But I think where we disagree is this: calling a trans person by the pre-trans name, is, to a trans person, quite offensive. That makes it, IMO, a WP:BLP issue. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, it's OR. It's trying to apply a general discussion to a specific case. There is no valid source demonstrating that anything has changed legally or otherwise as regards Manning. The name is still legally "Bradley" until or if Manning pursues a legal name change and/or the general media (not just the advocacy sites) start saying "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • Trans people actually are their identified genders, regardless of whether they have filed their name change paperwork or are on hormones or have had surgery. I understand how that could seem weird from your perspective. Feel free to ping me if you want to learn more about it! --April Arcus (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you explain then why consensus-building move requests have not resulted in articles like Lily Allen and Cat Stevens (both subjects who have changed their legal and professional names) moved? And why it took consensus-building move requests to get other articles, like Ron Artest, moved? In fact, I'm struggling to think of any other example in which a move to a common name was reverted on BLP grounds. Consensus appears to be against interpreting BLP policy in the manner you have described. (Perhaps we need the policy clarified.) -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that calling a trans-person by their pre-trans name is profoundly insulting and thus runs headlong into WP:BLP policy. I personally think the article should be at Bradley Manning until there is consensus otherwise. But I also think it's hugely insulting to not move it as rapidly as policy allows. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hobit, being free of insult is not a right; a lot of people are insulted or offended or shocked by a lot of things, day in and day out. Those who wish to preserve the status quo and have Bradley Manning's current, ral name and gender preserves in the article are not "fringe" and are not "transphobic", they are simply people with perhaps a more conservative opinion than your own. If we wish to get into the "who is offended" schlock, I'll point you to Stephen Fry, who sums up my point of view perfectly. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My use of fringe was with respect to your use of the word gender, not with respect to you. And I think you'll also note that that above I've urged people to not use words like transphobic. So right off the bat, I really don't feel this is about people and I agree one can in good faith be opposed to this name change. In fact I'd say I know you well enough to be able to say I'm certain you aren't making your argument to to hurtful. That said, I do think that being hurtful to others is something to be avoided and I believe that this is profoundly hurtful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the truth. If someone was arrested and it's relevant to their bio, we cover it. If someone stole from their employer, we cover it. But we don't offend when it's not needed. And in my opinion, referring to someone by their pre-trans name is offensive. That needs to be weighed against the potential of confusing or misleading our reader. That can be dealt with by use of redirects and a clear lede (Chelsea Manning, nee Bradly Manning) and I think that's the right way to deal with it. I suspect most news sources will begin to use Chelsea in just that way before this RM closes ... Hobit (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy any of that. This is eerily like the Muhammad pictures all over again, where the intent is not to offend, but to inform. It just so happens that sometimes the act of informing causes some to be offended, but that is the tradeoff that an encyclopedia must make; openness vs censorship. Y'know, it's not like we're walking up to this person and saying "hi Bradley!" or personally badgering/berating him. This is about writing an article about a person who is notable...and keep in mind that Manning isn't notable for this gender stuff, that is at best a sidebar to the notability of being convicted of passing classified intel and sentenced to prison. There was a lot of "fuck the government" going on to begins with here, and now even more bandwagoneering by the LGBT community who didn't give a whit abut Private Manning a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I agree with most of that and was thinking about the Muhammad pictures situation here before you brought it up. Like you said, I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a trans person by their pre-trans name in person. But just as we wouldn't call someone a name behind their back, I don't think it appropriate to call them a name on Wikipedia unless it's necessary to the article. In this case, it is. But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the name change, and use the new name as the primary name in the article. I don't see how it hurts the article. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia policy or bureaucracy, but preferring Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam strikes me as obviously and intuitively wrong. --April Arcus (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The sad part about all this, to me, is that regardless of which of the six men of Hindustan is correctly describing the elephant in the end here, the only winner will be the nattering nabobs who are getting a full recharge of "hurr hurr Wikipedia" material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Other than the fact the article should be at BM not CM until consensus dictates otherwise, I think things are actually going pretty well given the nature of Wikipedia and the wide cultural gap this topic covers. Oh, and I use that exact story all the time. Useful elephant. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Black Kite on this. In no way does BLP justify the move/wheel warring done by David Gerard. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• @Someone not using his real name - Ditto. Misuse of adminly powers. Protected a clearly controversial change without discussion. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• David Gerard showed very poor judgement and a severe lack of understanding of policy in this incident. He did wheel war. That he defended doing on account of BLP policy doesn't explain his actions. It raises further questions because it demonstrates that he doesn't understand BLP policy (and the contexts in which content needs to be removed quickly on biographies of living people).
  We do not play fast a loose with BLPs. In fact, BLP policy is the very opposite:

  "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..."

  This is a sensitive matter and was plainly going to be a controversial move. David's poor judgement and lack of policy understanding has resulted in one of the biggest dramas I have seen in years. Worse, the resulting drama on the Manning article is being reported in the mainstream media (with no small help from Morwen, I may mention) which does't serve the project well. --RA (✍) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the media is not reporting the debate but making it sound like Wikipedia has in fact definitively decided to rename the article Chelsea Manning. I see that The News Statesman carries an interview with User:Morwen regarding her original blog posting here and Morwen's tweets on the topic are reported at Buzzfeed. I don't know who alerted the media to Morwen's original blog posting here or to her tweets. But this is what her writing off wiki about this has lead to and shows why it's not a good idea. I hope she and others will stop doing it. User:Carolmooredc 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard and Morwen are to be commended for making sure the article complies with BLP, a non-negotiable policy. It is clearly established that referring to a transgendered female using her former male name is an obvious violation of the BLP policy and related policies (like MOS:IDENTITY) and completely unacceptable. Especially when so many editors think this is a violation of BLP, this policy can absolutely not be ignored. Gerard and Morwen merely followed what is Wikipedia's policy, as pointed out eg. by Sue Gardner on the talk page in question. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You really like to pump up Sue Gardner's authority, don't you? I get the feeling that every 5th comment of yours on any of the discussion pages involved seems to shoehorn in "Sue Gardner" between the other words somehow. Let me make this a bit more clearer, if it isn't already - many contributors here don't care if Sue Gardner is the top person in the Wikimedia Foundation, the President of the United States, or the Pope of the Catholic Church. Her opinion is accepted and taken into account within the discussion, however her opinion is not more equal than the opinions of others. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should get Jimbo involved too? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I might change my opinion if good ole' Jimbo sits down and stares into my soul like those old "pls donate ;_;" banners. For those who don't understand, this is a joke which involves sarcasm. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Several admins blocked

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

---

• Just noting that Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now blocked sysops Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for editing through protection after warnings. I don't have time to form an opinion on this (especially since I think all four of them are great admins and nice people), but it deserves mention. (This reminding anyone else of Reservoir Dogs?) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the blocks are good. All admins are very good admins and editors, but it is important to show that wikipedia is impartial in its enforcement of the rules. (even if the infractions are relitively minor, this is very high visibility atm) The blocks are not unduly long, and sending the signal to the masses is important imo. (As well as setting a standard as to what construes admins editing through protection) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, and I greatly respect Risker, the statement "refrain from editing protected pages in the absence of a clear talk page consensus on the appropriateness of a specific edit request" seems a step too far. We should and so far as I know are normally expected to use our own judgment on edit requests. Obviously there are exceptions and this seems to have been one. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Blocks as a result of admin edits to Chelsea Manning

Today, Risker has decided to block administrators Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for edit warring. She did so after posting a warning on the article's talk page stating that admins were explicitly restricted to edit the page because it was fully-protected. As far as I know: i) there is no edit warring; and ii) these edits were totally uncontroversial and most were done after being requested on the talk page. After being informed of the block, Mark Arsten answered to Risker at his talk page [26], explaining that his edit was made after a clear-cut request. Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 have yet to respond.

Those three sysops were blocked for the duration of the page protection, but as I consider this to be: i) an over-reaction of Risker and ii) an incorrect assessment of what really happened, I have decided to take this matter here and see what the community thinks about this event. For the purposes of clarity, there are the edits that each of the three sysops did, and that were the reason of their block: Mark Arsten [27]; Zzyzx11 [28]; Jimfbleak [29]. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hidden for readability. All three users have been unblocked. For more details, see the discussion below. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The point to protecting an article is to protect it. I'm not sure how the edits made by these three admins were detrimental to the article. I saw them, but maybe someone else is seeing something I am not in these edits. Because I don't see anything block worthy in this. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Although I disagree with Risker on the particular cases, I think the approach is necessary. Strong, concrete and clear lines are needed to stop the editing through protection. Drawing the line so strictly makes it all the more clear. But I wouldn't have taken the same action.--v/r - TP 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) On first glances they appear to be poor, poor blocks indeed. Interested to see how Risker justifies them. GiantSnowman 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) My biggest question is: what is blocking three admins for making these edits over a protected page supposed to accomplish. I am sure that none of them are dumb enough to do controversial edits since they have been sysops long enough to know that. As I see it, this action accomplishes nothing, and that's the problem. — ΛΧΣ21 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Can someone point me to exactly where in the policy it states that NO edits are allowed, even by admins, to fully protected pages unless through an edit request? I think Risker is interpreting policy a bit liberally. Secondly, the block of Arsten was totally unjustified, just because one editor complained about it after the fact does not make this a controversial edit (the addition of a category which clearly applies and which is cited in dozens of news reports). I'm also quite sure if the discussion on talk expands and others join in to support removal of the category, Arsten would follow that consensus but until then, silence = consensus on this and no complaints were made about that category until AFTER the fact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's block-worthy, but I will absolutely say that barring the removal of egrerious BLP violations or copyvios, admins shouldn't edit a fully-protected page even if it's not in the rules that they can't, because that's a good way of feeding the "admins are more equal than others" arguments that we see so often. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Well, the policy that I read is pretty clear - admins can edit fully protected pages. It comes with the mop. The question for me is the content of the edits - obviously if there is edit-warring, tweaking something to conform with your own POV goes too far. But after full page protection, one admin went through and carefully corrected many of the he/she issues - and there may be some lingering - I wouldn't want admins to have to wait for a consensus on the very loud talk page before fixing some of the lingering pronoun issues. If fully protected means no-one should edit the page for any reason, well, thats what the rules should say. Please undo these ridiculous blocks, and ease up - there is a lot of media attention on this page, so I for one am grateful for admins who are still cleaning up bits and pieces, and threats of blocks do nothing to help here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) These are horrible blocks and they ought to be overturned immediately. Nothing in either the protection policy or the admin policy says that admins can't do minor gnomish edits to a protected page that they believe in good faith to be uncontroversial and that are unrelated to the dispute that has caused the protection. The admin policy says you mustn't use admin tools "to gain advantage in a content dispute". Making a gnomish edit like this [30] has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining an unfair advantage in a content dispute. If Risker thinks edits to protected pages can only be done after a formal edit request, she is simply mistaken about the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) That's completely farcical. Zzyzx11 was fixing a date formatting issue, Jimfbleak a MOS issue, and Mark Arsten reinstating a category that had previous been removed by mistake (and had been edit requested). THat's one of the most ridiculous and bone-headed blocking actions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) A date formatting issue that had already been resolved differently a few sections above on the article talk page, BlackKite: and any admin who thinks date formatting changes are uncontroversial needs to rethink, because I have yet to see an article where there isn't at least some steam generated. And why exactly is a MOS change needed in the middle of an article protection? Will the project's reputation fall into disarray if the caption for an image mentions the name of the article subject? Risker (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict × 4) In all honesty, I think these are three horrific blocks. None of the edits, particularly Jimfbleak's, were remotely controversial. Mark's comment on his talk page is correct that people aren't shy about opposing anything on that talk page. I am in favor of accountability for administrators. Administrators should be held to a higher standard. This isn't holding administrators to a higher standard. This is preventing administrators from doing their job, which is to facilitate edits on protected pages. Go Phightins! 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The criterion isn't degree of controversy, it's whether or not there is clearcut consensus for it. Risker (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I notice that it's mainly admins complaining about admins getting blocked for making "uncontroversial" edits. But Mark Arsten's edit was almost immediately embroiled in controversy after it was done, and Zzyzx11's was being appealed as well. There's no reason to make finicky MOS changes during a limited page protection, either. Administrators editing through a limited page protection should always have a clearcut talk page consensus to do so. As is mentioned elsewhere, the talk page is huge, and proposed changes are often discussed in multiple places. Admins need to not act unless they're reading the whole discussion page to make sure there are no conflicting comments. There is little more infuriating to non-administrators than admins continuing to edit a protected page without regard to its status. "Protected" means protected from casual editing from everyone, and any edits made by administrators must be backed by some actual consensus. Let's be realistic: there's hardly an edit that could be made to this article right now that will be completely uncontroversial, and that goes for categories, markup, MOS fixes and typos. Risker (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, well if you hadn't noticed, this is the admin noticeboard. Are you going to undo these? They're completely ridiculous and they make you look ridiculous. If they'd actually been major edits I could have (sort of) understood it, but worthy of blocking rather than a serious trout? No, never. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I am sorry but that's not being realistic. "Protected" means that nobody should be doing content changes to the article, which would mean that they are taking advantage. Doing maintenance edits like correcting typos, fixing categories and such are allowed by policy and any admin can feel free to do them on any protected page. I still don't understand why your vision of this differs from the rest. — ΛΧΣ21 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (ec) As the admin who edit-protected the page, I must say I was disturbed at seeing over 30 edits to that article in the space of a day, since I protected it. It looked as if I hadn't protected it at all, and made me go back and check if I had actually protected it, and check the sysop bit of everyone who simply continued editing after protection. That amount of activity in a protected article boggles my mind. I mean, I could certainly make edits that I could claim as "uncontroversial" too, but I refrained. Some of those edits have generated controversy, such as Zzyzx11's introduction of inconsistent mdy date formats in an article that was already specified as dmy, as appropriate for military-related articles. I see no warring between admins, but I do see reverts of prior edits, basically continuing a war. While I am not convinced that these edits justified blocking, I also I do not believe that the blocks were unambiguously unjustified. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Terrible, terrible blocks. If absolutely zero editing on protected articles were allowed, we wouldn't have an {{editprotected}} template. Those edits were reasonably able to be considered controverisal. Blocking someone for converting a few dates to American style on an American subject, per request on the talk page? Ridiculous. Blocks and preventative, not punitive. If you went to each of those admins and said, hey, [link to discussion], that wasn't as uncontroversial as you thought, I doubt any of them wouldn't have acceded to reverting. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:GOLDLOCK means almost everything must be discussed at the article's talk page before editing. If "almost" is in doubt, then do not edit the page at all. This is the first time I see an admin blocking another admin, and I find it just fair. Admins are not over the rest of the mortals.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) These specific edits weren't horrific, but I sympathize with desire to block: it's apparently the only thing that will get some admins to respect full-protection. When an article is protected for a few days, there's no reason to go in and tweak it. It may not be an abuse of the letter of our protection policy, but protection isn't supposed to be a method to keep the article out of the hands of typical editors, its a method to prevent the article from being changed until some controversial issue is settled.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (Uninvolved, non-admin opinion) Judging by the diffs provided by ΛΧΣ at the top of this section, none of the edits caused any substantive change to the article, nor were they contrary to consensus or controversial in any way whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, the purpose of page protection is to protect and the purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. It would seem that neither of those purposes was served by this block. I have no doubt that Risker's intentions were good, but no admin should be permitted to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and then use her tools to block those whose crossing of that line falls well within policy, but that does appear to be what happened here. Suggestion: unblock, trout, and move on. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC) By the way User:Amatulic has just fixed a typo in the article through protection. Now there's a decision for you Risker. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) ...which was properly done in response to an edit request on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm calling this a consensus to overturn. Will unblock in about ten minutes unless somebody beats me to it, after finishing a glass of white wine and getting those frozen trouts from my fridge for everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I think two of the three blocks by Risker are clearly justified. The transsexual cat was clearly in dispute on the talk page (Mark Arsten's change; mulitple threads with "gender" or "transsex", none showing much consensus; consensus established in 4 minutes??), as was the date format change by Zzyzx11 (1st, 2nd and now a 3rd thread). It's sad to see here so many admins circling the wagons and denying the obvious... As for the edit by Jimfbleak it appears to have been an undiscussed personal preference. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Unblocked. Ched had already unblocked Mark Arsten, and that was the only contentious one. I have therefore unblocked the other two. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I was also alarmed by the number of admins who carried on casually editing the page after amatulic full-protected it. While uncontroversial edits can be made by admins during full protection, I would expect any admin to think long and hard about whether the edit they wish to make is a) truly uncontroversial and b) necessary to make in a period where the article is essentially shut down. Editing through full protection, rather like closing an AFD, should be done in a manner that reflects the consensus of participants on the page, not on the personal preferences of the admin doing it. Those things said, the article and its talk page are both disaster areas and good-faith mistakes appear tohave been the order of the day regarding these edits through protection. I would suggest that the blocks can probably be lifted, with their point made, and we can attempt to move forward with our admin corps now (hopefully?) more aware of their responsibilities regarding protection.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I endorse Risker's action. A fair warning was given and so continuing to edit through protection after that was outrageous. Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, it is Morwen and the other one (I forget the name - Gerard, maybe) who should be blocked, for having caused this entire situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Did Risker have the right to post this warning or was she overstepping her authority? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) WP:PROTECT says that pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial, or absent an edit-request. Two of the edits were the former, and one the latter. So yes, I think you can say Risker should have phrased that better. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Endorse as necessary blocks; admins are not above the rest of the folks, and should not have edited through protection, after warning, in these cases which were controversial as demonstrated by Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Er, Sandy, how is changing a date format from dmy to mdy or changing a caption per MOS controversial? I'll give you the category one, but that? Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Please refer to links already posted here 1st, 2nd and now a 3rd thread, Black Kite. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not collapsing the below, because it relates to the decisions to unblock and not the decisions to block. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is a shame that BlackKite, who had already participated vigorously in this discussion before it ran even an hour, has decided to lift the remaining two blocks. He is obviously not well-informed enough to realise that these were not uncontroversial edits being made, particularly the date format one; I'd expect just about every admin to realise that date formatting remains a highly controversial area in just about every article where it is raised. I've suggested to him that he consider reverting himself. After an appropriate level of discussion (i.e., more than an hour), an uninvolved and unconflicted admin or two who have not participated in this discussion or that about Chelsea Manning may well come to the same conclusion. Risker (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the world gone mad? I wouldn't touch this article with a bargepole, it's an obvious bearpit. I didn't even read the talk page, and I find that I've been blocked for not doing so! I took one look at the article, thought I'd just mos the image captions and move on, and apparently I've committed a major crime. Why is an mos fix to the captions controversial? Looks likes someone's on a power trip to me. And I see that there are complaints about a (temporary) unblock to defend myself. Do I get blocked for 35 years? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jim, why did you feel it was necessary to make an edit to a fully protected article? Keep in mind that absent the fact that you have admin tools, you would not have been able to make that edit. How can you be sure that your edit was uncontroversial, if you hadn't read the talk page? More than half of it involves disputes about the interpretation of MOS, so a reasonable person would think that MOS changes may be controversial and would discuss them first. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, these were bad blocks, just based on your supposed "warning". It was horrible. You can't put a warning on talk page like that and expect anyone to see it. It's not like it was the top or in an edit notice, it's now mixed up somewhere in the middle of the page like any other thread. So, as an admin looking through "edit requests" I now need to scan the entire talk page for a freaking warning that I shouldn't be editing it for your supposed reasoning? Right. Hell, even after reading this ANI thread, I knew the warning was supposedly on the talk page and it still took me a few minutes to find it. If a user who outright vandalizes an article is "warned" like that and then gets reported to AIV, it would get declined in a heartbeat for insuffcient warnings. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. It would probably result in a block. Unless, of course, they were an admin. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For a vandalism-only account? Sure. For an IP or another editor screwing around? Well, then I hope you don't work AIV much. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Risker, Amatulić and Fluffernutter that it's disappointing to see so many admins believe they can edit through protection. There are three sections on the talk page asking admins not to do this: Editing through protection, Note to admins, and Administrators editing through full page protection.

  When an article is protected, admins are all editors in relation to that page, unless there in a purely administrative capacity. Valid admin actions include fixing serious issues such as BLP violations, and responding to edit requests that have consensus if there is good reason to make them. It doesn't mean that admins can act as super-editors so long as their edits aren't controversial in their view. If the protection policy doesn't make that clear, then I think we should fix it.

  As for the blocks, I wasn't keen on the block of Mark, because he was responding to what he saw as a valid edit request. With Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, I can understand that they feel the block was a shock, but I also understand Risker's frustration given that she had issued a warning yesterday. Jim, the point is not that your edit was controversial, it was that there was no administrative reason to make it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse, it's incredibly sad that it had to be done but the number of people continuing to edit that page after full protection is an absolute disgrace. Imo more admins needed blocking as reminders that they should just step back and settle down but it is at least reasonable to only count after the warning was given. It is completely reasonable, and in my opinion expected, for people to pause and sit on their hands. No changes should be made without full consensus on the talk page during full protection, unless it's a massive BLP issue and at that point you damn well be ready to defend it as such. MoS changes are NOT sufficient reasons to break protection. I'm sorry, but the blocks were completely reasonable. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the blocks

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

---

As Risker objects to Black Kite's unblocking of Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, and has suggested that Black Kite reverts those unblocks, I think it would be best to try and establish community consensus in order to prevent possible wheel-warring and desysopping. So, should the blocks be restored? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep unblocked - restoring the blocks would be punitive, not preventative. GiantSnowman 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked per GiantSnowman. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  I feel that I must add a clarification here. I did not open this thread as a proposal that the Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 be reblocked. I was simply trying to measure the consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I have suggested to BlackKite that he revert himself because in pretty much any other situation an administrator would be censured for taking admin actions related to a discussion in which he has been an active participant; we'd expect an admin not to make a deletion decision if he took part in the AFD, or a bureaucrat to abstain from closing RFAs where he's voted. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that these blocks be reinstated by someone else. Risker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• We block people here for doing things they know are wrong. That's why we have the warning system, even for vandals. When that changes, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked and instead Block Morwen and Gerard, who are the direct cause of this entire iasco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked These blocks had a very flawed reasoning and purpose from the start. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Template:CUE Reblock Full protection notice is visible at the top of any page, so nobody can say the protection was unnoticed. When in doubt, all the changes should go through a discussion at the talk page. As I said above, it's just unfair that admins can perform editing while the rest of the editors can not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think the blocks have served their purpose though. If these admins continue to edit through protection in the absence of talk page consensus, ArbCom is the next step for abuse of tools. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) So, what's the point of {{editprotected}} then? Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm moving to an Unblock, as long as the admins involved commit themselves to stop editing fully-protected pages. We cannot be that severe. As said below, the point has been made.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked until further edits are made. I think the point has been made by the blocks. 30+ edits in one day for a protection that lasts ONLY THREE DAYS is just not warranted, especially when some of those edits were controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment For one unsuspecting edit to a page with a warning hidden on a talk page, you are suggesting that I can't do any vandal bashing, spam deleting etc on any article!!!!!!. Nice job Risker, easier than going after the real bad guys. FWIW, I'll more than happily topic ban myself from the Manning article, which I had no intention of editing again anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm, yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, Jimfbleak. If you can't bother reading the talk page of a protected article and getting stuck in to understand why it's protected and what the issues are, you shouldn't be editing that page at all. Risker (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To take this forward, perhaps in future it would be better to put your warnings in an editnotice. That way, no-one can say they didn't know it was there. If you'd done that, I certainly wouldn't have been as quick to unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An editnotice is a good suggestion, Black Kite. I'm not very good at creating those sorts of things, and would propose that one be created that is generic and can be applied to ALL fully protected articles. I have made some notes on your talk page, if you are up to working on its development. Risker (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Edit notices cause visual page pollution and information overload. I never read them. Protected pages already have big boxes at the top of them with the automatic protection notices. Whenever I see two or more big colored framed boxes at the top of a page, with five different levels of highlighted fonts in them and screaming colored highlighting and whatnot, I just mentally shut off and read none of it. (Best example is what I'm seeing right now in the edit notice of this page. Three big boxes, and I have no idea what any of them is saying, because I never read any of them). I'm sure I'm not the only one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we're only talking about a very few contentious articles, here. Try to edit the Manning article now (I've tweaked the editnotice) and see what you think. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see four notice boxes using three different colours and six different types of highlighted text fonts. (Sorry, this is a bit of a general pet peeve of mine and only tangentially related to this issue, but I really think this kind of warning notice overload is one of the big useability issues that Wikipedia really really needs to fix.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the crap formatting, though ... I'm pretty sure that would've prevented the issue here, no? Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, you shouldn't have edited the article not because there was a hidden comment from Risker to the rest of the admins at the talk page, but because the article was fully-protected. Isn't the intention of this to discuss the changes and reach consensus? I find strange that admins are trying to justify themselves in this basic point.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Restore Blocks Admins should know better. It's not up to individual admins to decide what is or is not uncontroversial when it comes to editing fully protected articles, which is always the excuse. Only talk page consensus should decide what edits are made on a fully protected page. JOJ ^Hutton 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Unblocked. I think the timeline is a little screwed up here. I don't think these Admins happened to see the warning that was posted on an overloaded Talk Page. As for Mark, on his Talk Page, an editor came to him asking him to make an edit to the protected page and he became aware of the warning after that edit. I realize this isn't a long block but I think that the Admins were not being defiant and were acting in good faith. With a discussion of this article on a half dozen different Noticeboards and Talk Pages, I can see how they didn't see every message made regarding this article. And if it wasn't such a high profile individual, there'd be no question that it should be edited to adjust to a different gender identity. She's not the first transgender individual on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked - This all seriously needs a drama reduction right about now. Blocking other admins over stuff like this is just not the way to go, so let's just all call "no harm no foul" and drop this particular tangent. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'd personally just say reblock because I think that the unblock was done hastily (considerably more hastily then the block). It seems we have too many admins pissy about their "rights" but not really thinking it through. That said, I'm willing to back off on that and say 'ok', they know they shouldn't edit now and that was the goal'. HOWEVER, if other admins continue to edit through the protection I would fully support any block against them. At this point if you don't know you shouldn't be editing you haven't done the due diligence required to edit through that lock. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, and a trout for Risker. As Mark noted in his unblock request, had Risker gone to the admins and said "What the fuck are you doing, revert your improper edit through full protection", he (at least) would have done so. Or maybe, just maybe, Risker and Mark could have, you know, discussed it. How many times have we answered reports on this very page with "Why didn't you talk to the other editor/admin to see why they did that?" How many times are cases or complaints declined because no one asked the offending party to discuss the matter? How many new editors have been told to go discuss their concerns with the admin in question? Why didn't Risker, here, do that same bloody thing? 5 minutes, two edits, and the problem would have been solved. Instead, Risker blocked. I find that to be an appalling abuse of administrator authority. Risker's been here for a long time, and should know better. Or at least I thought so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• (in response to worries, that admins might be protecting their own in this discussion): I am not an admin, and I do agree that admins in general get blocked less quickly and unblocked more quickly for identical or similar breaches of rules, and I too find this imbalance to be problematic. Yet, keep unblocked mostly per Tarc. One of Tarc's sentences could be modified to "blocking editors over stuff like this is just not the way to go", and I could have added this to most of the posts I've made in favour of unblocking or not-blocking regular editors. Usually the subjects aren't admins, here they happen to be .., or no, it's not random, they are admins, here, because their actions could only have been made by admins. I still don't think they should be punished, and obviously they won't be editing the protected page unless they have a clear mandate to do so (and at least one of them has already indicated they'd be happy not to edit it at all anymore). I really think blocking regulars should remain a last resort, and I wish content-editors who aren't here to push a certain point of view were blocked far more rarely.---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. - If anybody needs to be blocked for misusing the tools, it is Risker. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Don't bother closing the barn door after the horse bolted - which is to say, at this point, there's no point in a reblock. As I said above (in the now-collapsed section), I'm not at all sure this was a block-worthy offence, but it was certainly Something That Should Not Be Done, as with the rest of the editing-through-protection. Even if it's within the letter of the policy, it's way outside the spirit, and very much gives the impression of the article having been protected so that only the few, the proud, the admins could edit it without having to deal with the peons. Full protection means full protection - the encyclopedia won't burn down if some WikiGnoming waits a week. I wouldn't have overturned the block, but given that it has been, it's best to dispense seafood and move on, provided there isn't an encore performance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. Good block, good unblock. Blocks are preventative. They served their purposes (that is, get sufficient attention to get the involved editors to stop), and got lifted. That's how blocks work. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Admins should not be editing fully protected pages, except as the result of clear consensus on the talk page. As others have said, full protection is not about preventing non-admins from editing a page; full protection is to stop any edits on a page to allow discussion to happen and prevent disruption. It should not have got to the point when Risker had to threaten blocks. Now that the blocks have been undone, I don't think there is any benefit in reinstating them, though I would support blocking any admins who continue to edit inappropriately through full protection. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see this going to ArbCom VERY quickly if punative blocks like the above are handed out like candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Risker is a member of ArbCom, at least for the time being. It would create a very ticklish situation if a standing Arb was taken to ArbCom for possible sanctions. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have not looked into the situation enough to have a strong opinion. This point doesn't matter. Their being a standing Arb shouldn't provide any hesitation for the community to ask for an Arbcom decision. --Onorem (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whether I personally would have blocked anyone or not, I can see why Risker did so and I am disappointed that so many of my fellow admins have been editing through the protection and undoing one another's actions. This situation needs cool heads and a willingness to proceed exceedingly carefully, and that is the exact opposite of what we have been seeing the past 48 hours. I have no doubt this will end up in arbitration, probably fairly soon, and discretionary sanctions will be imposed to stop this foolishness. Luckily for Risker she now has a reason to recuse from any such proceeding and can be done with this shameful situation. All that being said I don't see any point to restoring the blocks right now but if anyone else admins make any further such edits through the protection without a very firm consensus on their side they can and should be blocked. Being able to edit through protection doesn't make it automatically ok to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, more or less word for word per Martijn Hoekstra. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry I was away during this wikidrama, but now I have time to respond: I feel that these blocks were punitive not preventive. I was in good faith responding to a request on the talk page about the date format.[31] As per previous consensus, and as written on {{edit protected}}, an admin is permitted to make edits that are either uncontroversial or unrelated to the content dispute. Because the talk page was long, and the target of rapid recent editing, I was not able to clearly see what the consensus was, and thus thought it was uncontroversial, and boldly made the change. In my edit summary, I stated that I thought it was uncontroversial.[32]. If I actually knew that this was controversial, I would not have made the change. The sensible thing that should have been done was to revert my edit and kindly point to me the discussion where consensus was established that the dmy format should be used on that article. Otherwise, if the community feels like that NO admin should make uncontroversial edits through protection, or that admins should be automatically blocked when they make a simple mistake like I did (instead of doing courtesy revert and discuss), consensus should be made to change WP:PPOL accordingly. -- knowing that admins like me will less likely respond to {{edit protected}} or any other similar admin assistance requests for fear of getting blocked by other admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And my response to anybody who still supports restoring the blocks: I will quote Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals: "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early.". I affirm to desist from editing that article any further until the protection expires, and I have learned from the matter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • By now, I would have definitely reverted my edits on the page, but because of this incident, it has successfully scared me away until the protection expires. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, per UltraExactZZ and Carrite. I don't see this as a good block, way to quick on the trigger. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Block Risker for an hour because justice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• If someone instantly blocked me because I made a single moot edit to a fully-protected page, I'd find that pointlessly draconian. If this was my first block ever, as it appears to have been the case for Mark Arsten, I would actually find such a block to be an explicitly insensitive act of destroying a previously clean block log. Yes, a topic area can be very sensitive and inflammatory, but if we don't axe single-edit anonymous vandals, we shouldn't do the same to other editors, either. Restraint is a quality both Risker and others should have displayed here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. Editing through full protection is an offense which is, in my opinion, just barely not serious enough to warrant blocking without a warning that is guaranteed to be seen. The editnotice should have been utilized much earlier. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 'Keep unblocked - The blocks were an enormous misjudgement. Blocking someone for correcting a spelling error in the non-controversial surname of a BLP subject is utterly, utterly outrageous. WP:IAR applies, WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and Risker showed an alarming lack of the latter, and a disregard for the former. And Risker has also destroyed a previously clean block log of one admin, which is never good. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy, so why try and turn it into one? Note that I'm not accusing Risker of acting in bad faith, because I don't believe that they were, but that they need to be more sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Protection policy discussions

A couple of points about protection policy:

• WP:GOLDLOCK is the relevant section of policy.
• This was discussed back in May 2013 at an RfC, see here. What I can't make out is whether that RfC actually came to any conclusions or resulted in any changes (or lack of changes) to the policy.

It looks like a new discussion at WT:PROTECT is needed to sort out some of the issues raised above (with a note left at WT:ADMIN as well). Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, having fallen foul of this new policy, it needs clarification.

• It can't be a blanket ban on editing all protected articles. I've tweaked my own FAs when they are protected as TFA. Obviously innocuous, but as I understand it, the wrath of Risker could have fallen on me
• There needs to be some WP:AGF. If I'd been pointed to the threat on the talk page before being blocked, of course I would have reverted my uncontroversial edit rather than face the unexpected shitstorm that followed.
• Is it suggested that we extend this principle to non-admins, and just block rather than warning?
• On the AGF note, I saw some people objecting to the lifting of the block so that we could defend ourselves at ANI! Did they really think we were about to rush back to the Manning article? In the interests of natural justice, there should be a means to contest a block where the cause is clearly not malicious or deliberate controversial editing

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a new policy as far as I can tell. I've always been aware of the need to be careful around fully protected articles. Anyway, the point I was making is that discussion should take place at WT:PROTECT (with a note left at WT:ADMIN), rather than being discussed here. Discussion here won't actually result in any clarification of policy. That discussion needs to happen on the policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand

• Josh Gorand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chelsea Manning (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Good evening ya'all. During this whole Chelesa Manning article move debacle, supporters of a return to the previous title have suffered a repeated assault by several users. One of the more severe is Josh Gorand whom has accused those supports of transphobia, sexual harassment, and a few other things with little or no evidence or support. Diffs:

• you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley"
• this is probably the most common form of transphobia
• because of all the transphobic commentary on this talk page
• multiple users have posted comments that constitute harassment
• Calling a transgendered person by their birth name if they no longer identify with it, is more than insensitive, it's pure harassment.
• Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple.
• it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people. I say we end this discussion now, because we are not moving it anywhere because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia
• Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate,
• "Support" comments riddled with transphobic commentary (Contains a legitimate example of hateful commentary)
• Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harassment of the subject.

Also includes threats of off-wiki humiliation

• anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity

He's also treated the issue like a battleground and has been very hostile to others:

• Nope, that's out of the question. We are not going to move the article back
• There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy
• No, because I said no
• The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV

I warned Josh that continuing to behave in this way would lead to a report here, and I was further accused of heckling in an edit summary.

While Josh has been very careful not to name a specific user in their name calling, their conduct has been inflammatory, chilling, and disruptive. The only result of their conduct has been increased tension and emotions. I request a topic ban for the duration of the move request.--v/r - TP 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless we also topic-ban everyone who has made statements comparing Manning's gender identity to a three-year-old child, a dog or other hopelessly offensive, transphobic nonsense. Pointing out the fact that there is a virulent undercurrent of transphobic ridicule and distaste in not all, but many of the !votes to move the article back to Manning's birth name is neither disruptive nor particularly wrong in any sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm all for that, list each one here with diffs and let's do it.--v/r - TP 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if you scroll up, you can see a proposed topic ban of User:Baseball_Bugs currently failing, despite that user's incredibly heated transphobic rhetoric and statements that baselessly and absurdly attack Manning, claiming that gender identity is a question of "political correctness" and asserting without a single shred of evidence that Manning is fabricating her gender identity for political and legal purposes. If Baseball Bugs isn't going to be topic-banned, Josh Gorand certainly shouldn't be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of the position being argued against and regardless of the motivation behind that position, making comments like this in any Wikipedia discussion is wholly unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd back up the Bushranger here - just because there are a lot of kettles doesn't mean all of them aren't black. I'm hardly blameless, I'll report myself for edits like this which are probably not entirely within the lines. I'd welcome being blocked if it means that an aggressive approach is taken to some of the actively detrimental behavior that runs unchecked during disputes like this. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support The bits quoted are clear attacks on lots of other people with hateful language; I'm surprised that he wasn't already blocked for blatant NPA violations. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The comments in the diffs are clearly designed to chill the discussion of the matter, violate at a minimum WP:CIVILITY, and in some cases, clearly incorrect (i.e., the "convicted felon" comment, since as a matter of law, Manning is a convicted felon). I also don't have a problem with TP's suggestion - if there are other diffs, list 'em. Bushranger is also dead on with his comments. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Editors objecting to changing a person's name or gender pronouns are not automatically 'transphobic'. If I wanted to become an American citizen, I could take steps to that effect, but I wouldn't be an American until it was official, regardless of how much I might identify as a US citizen. A person would not be discriminating against me for saying I'm not an American. I'm not saying the situation is as simple. What I am saying is that editors should not be so quickly labelled as 'transphobic' when their objections may be purely semantic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tease out the logic without knowing more, but it is apparently quite important to some people and it goes beyond mere "truth" or "fact". A comparison with Muhammad and the images is quite apt - this isn't something you'll understand from your perspective, it's just a question of whether Wikipedia is required to kowtow to unusual perspectives, especially at the expense of utility. Folks like the editor in question are (as far as I can tell) not factually wrong when they identify this as offensive, but the editor in question is being rather intolerant of other viewpoints and being extremely aggressive and belligerent towards anyone that disagrees. The problem with Wikipedia is that this is a winning strategy in most disputes - make the debate toxic enough and people will leave. WP:CIVIL is supposed to prevent the "shouting match victory" debating strategy. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment - And what you are displaying is not transphobia, but trans-ignorance. It is not now and has never been required that a transsexual person undergo sexual reassignment surgery to be considered their preferred gender. In fact, SRS is the very last step in the transition process, and a transgender person wishing to undergo that surgery must first live as their gender for a minimum of one year. Gender identity is self-declared and the mere fact that Manning has declared her gender identity to be female is sufficient to make it so. Her biological sex is irrelevant - you cannot, and no one can, rebut or reject her self-declared identity. There is no way for you to prove that Manning's gender identity is not female. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not 'displaying' trans-anything. I simply pointed out that other editors have other perspectives that do not necessarily make them 'transphobic'. I did not say that those other perspectives are necessarily correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, you are. You're asserting that it's OK to deny that a person's self-declared gender identity is sufficient to make them that gender (as opposed to biological sex). Anyone who makes that argument, at best, is trans-ignorant. It's the same as claiming that a man who asserts a gay sexual orientation isn't really gay unless they have sex with men, or that maybe they are just confused. Those positions are today completely morally indefensible. If they continue to adhere to those arguments after they have been educated, it is perfectly fair game to consider them transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I didn't. I didn't actually express my own view at all. I stated that other editors may have different perspectives, and that those perspectives don't automatically make them 'transphobic' (a label you're forcing onto others). And that's all. I didn't say the only alterntative to being 'transphobic' is that the editors are otherwise 'correct'. Please stop your rhetoric.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone holds a " different perspective" doesn't mean that perspective is entitled to any respect whatsoever. There are a great many people who believe that the World Trade Center was a controlled detonation, or who believe that HIV is a government conspiracy, or who believe that Jews control the world economy. I am not required to give any of those ideas the time of day, nor am I required to refrain from expressing my opinion about those ideas. Those ideas are, respectively: insane, disproven, and anti-Semitic. It is not in any way prohibited for me to describe those ideas as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that any particular perspective is correct (or 'entitled to respect'). I said that other perspectives are not automatically 'transphobic' or 'trans-ignorant'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm hearing this as "WP:CIVIL only applies to people I agree with" which is troubling. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please direct me to the place where WP:CIVIL has ever been interpreted to prohibit someone from calling an edit "homophobic," "anti-Semitic," "racist," "biased," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to point out that those are comments about editors, not comments about edits, and violate the fundamental rule of WP:NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) That argument is irrelevant here anyway. Even if Josh is right, his attitude and behavior are in question, not his facts. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Dealing with this joker today has been mot trying on the patience, reminiscent of how Ludwigs2 acted during the Muhammad images debate. Users don't get to belligerently declare that their invokation of WP:BLP is some sort of divine right, nor do they get to slur every editor with whom they disagree as a bigoted phobic. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This sort of series of personal attack shouldn't be allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support And this is the tip of the iceberg. I'd also like to point out that Josh took his attacks to the German Wikipedia, saying there that supporting the name Bradley Manning "is grossly insensitive and sexually degrading, if not bigoted" (in English, not German, rudely enough). Someone even came from the German Wikipedia to complain about English Wikipedians encroaching, likely as a consequence of those remarks and ones like them. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually sort of amused at Latin. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been moved in a few of the other less-used Wikipedias as well. Looking around, though, it appears that most of the others are moving it on their own choices. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

He is now blocked at Latin Wikipedia for move-warring la:Bradley Manning to la:Chelsea Manning. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this person is focusing on editors, not content. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: (Note that I am an involved person) This user has repeatedly thrown names at various editors that do not have the same opinion as him, including myself and others, both unprovoked and unreciprocated. Having a glance throughout the entire discussion, I've yet to see disparaging names being thrown at "pro-she" supporters, however phrases like "transphobic" used to describe certain editors with a certain viewpoint have been thrown around too liberally within this discussion, by this user and others, without any reprimand at all. This user has been warned numerous times that such terms shouldn't be thrown at other editors, good faith or bad, due to the negative connotations associated with said term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: After spending the past few days reading the talk page of the article in question, the only conclusion that I've reached is that Josh Gorand is seeking to chill the discussion by labeling anyone that disagrees with his perception of gender identity as ignorant and hateful. While I'm on the fence about the RM, it's crystal clear that Josh is actively derailing any possibility of consensus (no matter how remote that possibility is) with personal attacks against anyone who dares disagree with him. Chillllls (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - calling out personal attacks and odious behaviour is not somehow worse than the behaviour itself. Compare the extreme provocation of Baseball Bugs, which is apparently being given a pass by the supporters here - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Josh's fortitude and restraint are to be commended. Paris has misrepresented his evidence. For example, this dif which Paris claims show "threats of off-wiki humiliation" only show Josh restoring another editors comment. It seems to have been the pro Bradley side who first threatened the move would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The difference is, their repeated threats are blatantly counter factual, as all the flagged media coverage has so far been positive. Right wing advocates really need to take some chill pills, and avoid misrepresenting the facts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support The editor's behaviour is inappropriate irrespective of whether his position accords with Wikipedia policies. There are various possible 'benchmarks' for defining 'gender', from the superficial to the specific: self-identification (with or without behaviour or appearance traditionally ascribed to a particular gender), legal recognition of changed self-identification (with or without a name change), possession (at birth or by surgical re-assignment) of sexual organs for the production of egg or sperm cells (irrespective of functionality), XX or XY chromosomes (or variations). All of those factors can—in isolation or in combinations—be used for determining 'gender' in certain contexts, and none automatically identify a person as 'transphobic', which also depends on the context. As it happens, Wikipedia has very clear policies for biographies about living people, and that policy indicates that a person's self-identification is sufficient for gender identification, but that in no way justifies the editor's comments about other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• support Inappropriate attacks on other editors and throwing around of the word transphobic with abandon which frankly has done nothing to advance the situation. I do think there is some "transphobia" exhibited on that page, but the way this editor has painted everyone who opposed him with a transphobic brush is not helpful to the discussion. we've heard enough from him, so support topic ban until the move request is finished.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The editor in question needs to take a break from the page, and since he won't do so voluntarily, a topic ban is appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. While some of the comments show indeed varying degrees of bigotry against trans people (perhaps not necessarily a phobia, but whatever), playing the "x-phobic!" card in such a sweeping way is a political personal attack, not very different from calling other editors "fascists!" or "racists!". While the editor is entitled to the opinion that some other editors' statement indicate a transphobia, she would be best avoiding it. --cyclopia^speak! 11:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that TParis's proposal leaves a great deal to be desired. The section heading is implies an inability to distinguish between criticism, which is allowed (up to a point), and personal attack, which is not. The accusation of "threats of off-wiki humiliation" is unsupported by the diff provided: for one thing, it is quite possible to use the phrase "minor celebrity" to refer to on-wiki notoriety, and for another, the "threat" can very reasonably be taken to be not a threat at all but a practical warning of inevitable consequences. I also have to say that the proposal seems more than a little strange in the context of the larger controversy, which a little ways up the page found TParis !voting against a separate topic ban on another editor whose conduct was hugely disruptive but who was on the other side of the fence when it came to the content dispute. Nevertheless, I do agree that Josh Gorand has displayed hostile, disruptive battleground behavior, and I imagine that a topic ban for the duration of the move request (i.e., per the proposal) might well help lower the tension and thus be of benefit to the project and the community. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a relatively mild and restrained response to purposefully inflammatory behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support As a person who has lost their temper over perceived or obvious sexism, I have to be a bit tolerant of some of the comments, though they are 10x more than I've ever shared in one discussion. But this threat linked above really is going too far: anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity Especially considering that at least one Wikipedian who supports "Chelsea Manning" name has been talking to the media about this and who knows how many contacted the media to make sure they saw her comments in other media or on her blog. There could be quite an organized campaign going on here. More worrisome, implicit is the threat of outing since making anonymous editors minor celebrities might be laughed off, but having one's real name bandied about could possible be humiliating and even lead to job loss. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to report you for personal attacks on me if you don't retract your false claim that I have made any threat. I have never written what you claim, this is an outright lie and a personal attack on me. 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND nor the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The repeated personal attacks are simply not acceptable and this editor is helping to contribute to a hostile editing environment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support and noting that my opinion would apply to any topic at all, and is unrelated to transgender issues -- the level of vitriol vented was excessive. Collect (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Tariqabjotu. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose topic ban as first sanction: I suggest instead, talking to the editor as a human being, which I have found is an effective means of collaboration. Otherwise, based on the above Support comments, impose first block (see: block log) as a 24-hour block if User:Josh_Gorand has declared refusal to listen to complaints. After that block expires, then I suggest talking to the editor as a human being, which I have found is an effective means of collaboration. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. As one who has been both blocked and topic banned, a topic ban is much less restrictive and more apt to correct the behavior. A topic ban allows one to work on other areas, a block shuts down all editing. JMO. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry Wikid77, but Josh is not a little puppy who needs to be gently reminded of what is acceptable and what is not. He's been around long enough to know that this behaviour is not helpful, and as far as sanctions go, a topic ban that lasts only as long as the move request is open is extremely lenient given other available options. Resolute 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If Bugs stays, so does Josh. Crisis.EXE 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for repeatedly casting severe aspersions, per ArbCom ruling [33]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Josh Gorand's behaviour, as decribed here, has been totally unacceptable. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose With all of the uncivil words being spoken over the past two days, why single out one user? There is misconduct on both sides of this dispute. Banning or blocking one editor will have no effect on this heated discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support As much as it pains me to support anything proposed by TParis, it's obviously necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zealotry like this brings out the worst in everybody. Stamp on it hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support' I have seen this user make several unhelpful edits, if a user is more of a problem then someone there to engage in discussion they should be topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not attacked any editor at all and there are no personal attacks on my part. I, and a fair amount of other users, have explained what is commonly regarded as being transphobia in the world at large in general terms, namely referring to a self-identified female using a male name she has asked not to be used. Numerous sources for this are available. I, as well as several other users, have also pointed out that the talk page includes vast amounts of clearly transphobic comments, which is merely a fact, eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs, outright mocking of trans people and the subject of the article in particular, and gross BLP violations that degrade the subject of the article. All of these users should be blocked for BLP violation. Attacking a user who points out these BLP violations instead of doing something with the actual problem, would be a scandalous act, and contribute greatly to highlight what has been going on on the talk page of Manning and cast Wikipedia in an extremely dubious light in other media. This talk page is the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia in regard to clear harrassment of the living subject of a biography, in violation of non-negotiable rules here at Wikipedia (BLP).

I request at topic ban for User:TParis, who appears to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, who has made this false request in retalitation for me disagreeing with him on the question, in an attempt to silence me, and who, judging from his comments, appears to have a very non-neutral stance towards the issue, responding to one of my comments that cited Sue Gardner with a link List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters#Mary_Cooper.

I also request an immediate ban of users who compare trans people to dogs or make other similar comments violating BLP.

I would also note that other users have already, long before this attempt to silence those who oppose degrading trans people, have already point out that the only unacceptable comments to be made on Talk:Chelsea Manning are the clearly transphobic comments, eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs. As User:Bearcat wrote,

"there has absolutely been offensive anti-trans hate speech being spouted on this page in the past 24 hours — and people who let that stuff slide without comment, but then get their noses out of joint about the word "bigot" being thrown around as if that were somehow more offensive than the original hate speech is, don't exactly get to claim the moral high road".

Josh Gorand (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I also take note of the fact that User:TParis clearly misrepresents almost all my comments citing them completely out of context, often in a misleading way, and makes a false claim that I made a comment that I never made. So much for this alleged evidence. All of this amounts to a personal attack on me by User:TParis. I also take note of the fact that he ignored the incredibly much worse BLP violating comments that I responded to. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been no "anti-trans hate speech" that I have been aware of in the past few days; this "Bearcat" should have been blocked for a such a statement. Being opposed to changing the article title of a transgendered person does not mean that the opposition is rooted in hatred or bigotry. This is the same sort of well-poisoning speech that infests the Israeli-Palestine topic area, where critics of Israeli policies become antisemites, and critics of Palestinian causes become Islamophobes. Nip this in the bud now, please; "Josh Gorand" here is far and away the primary mover in the denigration of editors who hold opposing points-of-view. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I wouldn't say there has been zero anti-trans hate speech. There has been some and it should be dealt with. However, Josh has gone to the extreme and several times accused all supporters of returning to the old name of transphobic and hateful behaviors.

Josh, threatening to go to the media does not help your case and is treated quite harshly on Wikipedia. It has a chilling effect on editorial judgement. I'd suggest you either strike that or carry it out and accept the consequences.--v/r - TP 23:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to threaten me in regard to what I might possibly say about the Chelsea Manning case and the treatment of transgendered people in the media. You are the only one making threats, right here. Wikipedians are indeed already being interviewed about the case. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify...yes, there have been some puerile comments liek this one, but those are redacted and dealt with appropriately. But the "transphobe" shit is being slung at regular editors, such as myself, expressing opinions in a non-insulting manner. Being of the opinion that Manning should be referred to as "he" and by his given name is not hate speech. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, nobody compared transgender people to dogs. You keep bringing that up, but if I remember the quote correctly an editor found Manning's statement "I'm a woman" while being (in that editor's opinion) so obviously a man, as strange as saying "I'm a dog" when you're obviously not. I agree it's not the nicest of comparisons, but nobody said anything like "Transgenders are as [whatever] as dogs" or something remotely similar. Yintan  15:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, making that analogy is in fact a direct comparison - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Tarc, the comments of "You are a transphobe" to other editors for no reason in addition to the threat being made I do not see why at the very least this user should not be topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has openly threatened Wikipedia as a whole. How is he not blocked? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOMEDIATHREATS appears to be a redlink. But see my comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Josh, I don't think consensus exists to block you. But it's a narrow thing. What you need to do right now is calm down. "Leave me alone or I'll say mean things when interviewed" is not the comment of someone with the moral high ground. It is indeed a threat - and one that makes editors far less likely to take your position seriously, on its merits. You need to stop right now and climb down off the Reichstag. There are a lot of editors on that talk page who deserve blocks, and who aren't blocked - but getting yourself blocked will serve no one's interests. Stop it now. Calm down and start being more civil, or You may be blocked from editing. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the same reasons I opposed banning Bugs. Bugs has said some tremendously offensive things about our BLP subject, as have many others on that page. I take that much more seriously than Josh calling your ignorance of gender issues transphobia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Josh Gerand actually has a point. As someone who has been going through the archives and has read most posts there there are definitely some transphobic commments there. I dont see why we should sanction somebody for pointing that out. Although I would not have used that language, i nonetheless believe that we should not single this editor out. I checked all the links and they are pretty mild in my humble opinion. If everyone gets santioned for using confrontational styles, then i would support. Otherwise it would be pure hypocrisy. I hate inconsistency. Pass a Method talk 08:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Manning story is a touchstone for so many of the faultlines in both American and international politics that it was always going to be the locus of difficult editorial discussions. Despite that, there have been commendably few outbreaks of editors spouting their views on whether Manning is a hero or traitor, whether the issue is security or liberty etc.
  Many editors have calmly and civilly expressed divergent views on how to handle the article naming issue. However, throughout these discussions there has been a disgraceful strain of transphobia, as evidenced by (for example) the comments of BaseballBugs. Only a minority of editors have been transphobic, only a minority of those has been virulent. I like to avoid ascribing to malice that which can be explained by ignorance, and this topic has shown that many editors are evidently very ill-informed about transgender issues, but that has not deterred a number of them from spouting off without doing their background reading. (WP itself has quite good coverage of the trans stuff, so there would be no need for a google marathon).
  The community has repeatedly come down hard on editors who have used editorial discussions as a venue for spouting racist views, but so far I see no sign at all of sanction on editors who have taken a transphobic stance. That vacuum is a disgrace. Our discussions on Manning are being widely watched, and the tolerance shown to transphobia shames us all; and it also has a dangerous chilling effect both on trans people who are already editors and on those who might consider contributing. Some editors have tried to fill that vacuum by directly challenging the transphobia, with varying degrees of skill; some have been measured in their responses, while others have been far more forceful than is helpful. However, we should not be surprised that ppl have tried to fill the gap, and we should not victimise the individual editors who have tried to enforce the community standards which the rest of us should be enforcing for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question- could someone direct me to where diffs of transphobic hate-filled comments have been posted? There is far too much on this issue now to try to read through it all to find them. I see comments on here saying that there were comments calling trans people "dogs" but I do not see the diffs. I do see various comments along the lines of "it is transphobic to call Manning "Bradley" when he has asked to be called "Chelsea" and I do not agree with that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • One could make this distinction in that regard: It is commonly considered, in the outside world, extremely offensive to refer to a person who identifies as female using a male name she has requested not to be used. Explaining that this is the case is not an attack on anyone, but an explanation of what is the common perception in society at large. I have seen comments like "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog...", comments claiming the article subject is psychotic (one of the few comments subsequently removed by another editor citing BLP), and a ton of similar comments. They are all there if one reads the page, and I've seen a dozen or so editors pointing this out. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support the evidence presented by Tparis and Tariq says enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with what BrownHairedGirl has laid out. Many of the comments do come of as transphobic and arguably those posters are not doing so on purpose. The case with Bugs and a few other frequent commenters is that they are pushing buttons and making hurtful comments testing the lines of common sense on purpose. It's unfortunate that anyone has to still point out how their comments can be seen as transphobic and even leads to further harm to transgender people. The comparisons to animals and other species are particularly telling. Once you see someone as less than human it's much easier to disrespect them altogether and excuse away poor behavior of all kinds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan5000 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for the simple reason that the cause of this entire brouhaha is a couple of admins who used a desire to push a personal agenda to grossly override Wikipedia policies, thus making Wikipedia even more of a laughingstock than it already is. Those two are to blame for all of this. They, and they alone, are the ones who should be banished from that article's page. (Right after they've reverted to the previous version, to partially correct for their malfeasance.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Propose closure

If an uninvolved admin would look at this, it would be appreciated. It appears to me that there is about a 3:1 consensus by the community to topic ban Josh Gorand from discussing the move of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning (and vice versa) until the discussion on the requested move is completed and closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps 3:1 misunderstanding but not consensus: Over 9 people clearly opposed the topic ban, certainly as a first sanction to a user with a clean block log (hello: no blocks in 3.2 years). If anything, an admin would issue a warning or set a short, several-hour block and see if actions changed afterward. Plus User:Josh_Gorand only recently clarified, above, how his descriptive remarks of "transphobic" were definitions of the term, and in no instances was there a wp:NPA attack, which I had already concluded when tediously, carefully, fully, totally reading all the linked "evidence diffs" at the start, which merely showed definitions about "transphobia" and at one point, he asserted, "No means no" when he declined (a 2nd time) to rehash a lengthy debate logged elsewhere. Everyone has the right to say, "no" to someone pushing, barking edit-orders, which itself is a major problem: wrong to coerce an editor into editing/writing something they do not want to state or debate. However, I thank everyone for expressing their opinions, about the general dislike of the word "transphobic" and I suspect people know, now, to perhaps use the word less often in discussions when other phrases might be better. Otherwise, I concur for closure on this subthread, as "no consensus" or else a warning to the user. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There is clear consensus that the behavior is not acceptable, and it is not because all 27 or 28 editors are "misunderstanding" him. The comments and arguments in support are very clear that his behavior is not acceptable and is causing a disruption. Nor is it a call for a block, but a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how a Topic Ban would work when we are talking about a Protected Article. It sounds like some editors just want this user to not discuss this case on the Article Talk Page, is that the case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it appears that they are tired of being labelled as "transphobic" or worse if they don't agree with him. It deals more with WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND than anything else. There are plenty of editors on both sides that are discussing the matter in a more restrained manner. GregJackP Boomer! 19:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted the !votes here, but if GregJackP is right about a 3:1 preference for a topic ban, then we have an interesting situation.
The discussion on BaseballBugs reached no conclusion on restricting him, even though there was very clear evidence that he was using the article's talk page as a soapbox and a battleground. Many of his commnets are deeply offensive to trans people. Yet, we find much stronger support for sanctions on an editor who tried to explain why that sort of behaviour would be seen by many as transphobic. Sure, Josh Gorand has been crude and unsubtle in how he has gone about it; but the substance of his position is very close to that advocated by Sue Gardner, who of course contributed with her customary diplomacy. Her point is simply that accept a transperson's choice of identity is "fundamentally respectful of that person" ... and the corollary of that observation is a that a failure to accept their identity is a fundamental lack of respect. Sue's language is much less provocative, and gets the point across much better, but both Sue and Josh have on their side a wealth of material from reliable sources (such as peer-reviewed journals), if they chose to throw it into the debate.
So here we have an editor who is vocally and unsbtly taking a position similar to that of WMF's director, and facing sanction; while BaseBallBugs's aggressive repetition of scientifically-rejected stances gets praised as "truth". (WP:THETRUTH, anyone)?
Please folks, stop and think about this. In a few year's time, after all the exposure to Manning's case, more ppl will be familiar with trans issues and with the often surprising facts in reliable sources: that gender is not binary, that it many societies have long accepted that is not always congruent with physical sex, and that physical sex itself is neither binary nor determined by one indicator. (As a simple point of illustration, not everyone has an XX or XY chromosome, and some of those with XY have been regarded since birth as female). The uninformed ranting which has marred the article's talk page was bound to produce some heated responses such as those by Josh.
At some point in the future, the response to Josh will be seen more clearly as victimisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would take it very differently. Sue has established that one does not need to be combative and crude in establishing a reasonable argument. Whether Josh is right is <underline>irrelevant</underline>, it is how he has approached it that is worthy of action. To give a contrast conservatives are appalled by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and Josh is being the WBC-equivalent: crude, nasty, and combative. I happen to agree with some of the things he says, but his behavior is indefensible. WP:WAX aside, Bugs bugs me, and that he's still an editor here after his years of abusive behavior surprises and amazes, but that doesn't make Josh innocent. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has this exactly right, let's try to understand the motive of the messenger was not to disrupt but to stop the disrespect running rampant. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I quite agree with the IP on one point: Sue has established that one does not need to be combative and crude in making those arguments.

Others have similarly demonstrated that they can make case for naming the article "Bradley Manning", without being as combative and crude as BaseballBugs.

Yet Josh still faces possible sanction, while BB doesn't. Whatever the intention of any individual editor contributing to this discussion on JG, the fact remains that the community has already established that crude, nasty, and combative behaviour is fine from an anti-trans voice. It's only the pro-trans voice which still faces sanction.

These debates are apparently being widely watched. Is this lop-sided justice really what we want the world to see? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

General sanction: "transphobia"

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

---

Passions are quite high on that article. I don't think Josh's exchanges are very much worse than many other participants. An exchange Josh had with me is cited as being evidence of misbehavior. To be honest, I feel it could have come from anyone on that talk page.

A problem I would identify is the wide accusations of "transphobia" (both on the Manning talk and related discussions elsewhere). These accusations (which Josh is also guilty of making) are incivil and do not assume good faith.

I propose a two-week general sanction against accusing others of "transphobia" on Manning-related discussions. During that period, trans issues and the importance of recognising the chosen gender of trans people can of course be discussed - but it must be done without accusing others of "transphobia" or similar accusation.

--RA (✍) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as written -- singling out one disruptive behavior among many. I'd support general sanctions against all disruptive behavior on Manning-related article and talk pages. NE Ent 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Punishing the calling-out of bad behavior and sanctioning the bad behavior itself is not a good idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per Roscelese's argument. Calling someone "transphobic" is the bad behavior, a personal attack, and not civil. Additionally, it chills free and open discussion. I also support sanctions against bad behavior on the other side, where it is appropriate. Everyone needs to chill on this. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support sanctions for the name-calling if and only if the behavior prompting it - ludicrous comments saying that to be transgender is to be mentally ill, comparisons intended to mock the idea of transgender, declarations that Manning will always be a man no matter what happens - were also sanctioned. This isn't a horse-trade, but simply a request that policy be enforced evenly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify. If someone states that they believe that someone (as a subject of the article) who is transgender is mentally ill, that is not a personal attack, nor is it a violation of civility. It may well be WP:FRINGE (I'm not really up on the science, etc.), but it is not an attack. If that same individual states that any editor who supports the transgender position is mentally ill, that is a personal attack and sanctionable. Someone who believes that the earth is flat is an idiot, but calling an editor an idiot for saying the earth is flat violates WP:CIVIL. There are other acceptable ways to address the argument without shutting down conversation, none of which involve name-calling (on either side). I agree that the policy should be enforced evenly. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that bigoted remarks create a hostile editing environment even if they're not directly targeted at a particular user. If someone writes on a talkpage about kikes who control the media, are they perfectly okay because they didn't call a specific user a kike? Of course not. People get blocked for this sort of thing all the time; what you're arguing is that transphobic remarks should be an exception. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support In fact all such neologistic name calling should be sanctionable. Collect (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Either accusations are sanctionable or they are not, but "transphobia is reasonable so it shouldn't be called a phobia" is not policy-based. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If Josh or yourself want to point out specific issues of transphobia, they can be discussed and sanctioned appropriately. However, the broad namecalling is not appropriate. If you'd like help, we can compile a list together.--v/r - TP 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See my response to GregJackP. I'm not terribly involved in this article, but if your suggestion is serious, I'd be happy to help with the list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm serious, I want it all to stop. I read what you just said to GregJackP and I think we're along the same mind here. I think a cross-!vote effort might be beneficial overall if you want to team up. We can meet on IRC, compile a list on a subpage of one of our userspaces, and then propose specific sanctions for individual editors. As Black Kite expressed below, this subject area would be harmed by general sanctions, but targeting specific editors would be a good idea.--v/r - TP 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on IRC, but maybe I can e-mail you some things. I would also suggest, in either event, drawing a distinction between describing users as transphobic and describing remarks as transphobic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are proposing 'targeting specific editors', I would suggest that you do so only on the general basis of breaches of WP:CIVIL, regardless of the position they were taking on the Manning issue - any list based solely on usage of the term 'transphobic' could only ever be seen as partisan, and thus would only inflame the situation further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree which is why I am suggesting a bi-partisan effort to clean up the discussion.--v/r - TP 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'd misunderstood. I'm not sure how a 'bi-partisan effort' could realistically be organised though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't do IRC, but I'm willing to help. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support See my comments in previous subsection.[34]--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose A grossly offensive and inflammatory suggestion in itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Imagine if editors at the variouus homosexuality-related articles (which attract a large number of editors who are clearly homophobic) were barred from pointing that fact out. That would be ridiculous. If people are throwing the term around with little or no justification, then that is clearly sanctionable anyway; we don't need yet more wikilawyering over it. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion is for a temporary avoidance of the term about a specific issue. Imagine if editors at a specific homosexuality-related article were using it as a soapbox—in such a situation it may also be appropriate to avoid using inflammatory terms at such a discussion, particularly when it is very simple to just cite the Wikipedia policy involved instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. We might just as well consider a blanket ban of calling users "activists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per GregJackP. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support if on case by case basis: People get blocked for calling others "antisemites" since it often has been used to shut down discussion of valid policy issues on articles, including BLPs. Similarly someone using "transphobic" in the same way should be liable for sanctions, unless as in both cases the statement is obviously abusive and insulting, as opposed to a policy based comment or an ambiguous or innocuous comment that someone reacts to in an overly sensitive manner. I personally don't say "sexist" but do point out when a specific comment is a stereotype of women or could be seen as an insult by women; education better than insults. And obviously if a person is being subtly or openly harassed repeatedly by a couple editors in a pattern than looks antisemitic or sexist or transphobic, it might be reasonable to discuss that possibility. User:Carolmooredc 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Absurd. For the next two weeks, transphobic behavior cannot be called out for it is? Absolutely ridiculous. Msnicki (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling out other editors is not the purpose of the project. If someone is factually wrong, it should be easy to explain that they are wrong without resorting to name calling and labeling. Transphobic is an intentionally incendiary term (it's an accusation that the person is not only wrong but insane) and it has no place in a civil discussion. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Make it a two-week ban on transphobic behavior, then get back to me. The term is not "intentionally incendiary" except to transphobes. Unlike calling someone insane, which everyone understands as a vague, judgmental, dismissive and disrespectful insult, transphobe has a pretty specific testable meaning. It either applies or it doesn't. But no matter. If we can't use the word transphobe, no matter how technically correct, what word do you suggest? Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "fellow editor that I strongly disagree with?" Name-calling does not help us write an encyclopedia, and the insistence that people must be able to label their opponents (especially with labels that are intentionally denigrating) indicates a problematic approach to editing. See my discussion with NorthbySouthBaranof above on this weird idea that WP:CIVIL applies to people that you disagree with. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been no "transphobic behavior" on that talk page or within this discussion. What there has been are the opinions of people who do not agree that just because a man says "I'm a woman now" that an encyclopedia article on the man should flip the title and the pronouns within before the proverbial ink is even dry on the news of this name-change in the first place. People who disagree with the editorial decisions regarding this article can do so for non-hate/bigoted reaosns, y'know. Be an adult and accept that. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that calling other editors transphobic, bigoted, prejudiced, and the like is not allowed AT ANY TIME, the idea that it just needs a two-week timeout is ridiculous. They call this "playing the race card" when it comes to discussing African-American issues, e.g. "oh, you oppose affirmative action? well, you must be racist." This needs to be squashed completely. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as a completely misguided idea. While there are people like Bugs who are just being willfully offensive, I have a feeling that some people saying "But he's still a man" don't know that they're offending. This proposal forbids people from saying "that's not OK" Crisis.EXE 15:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Sigh. Being unoffended is not a right, I'm afraid. I am completely justified in voicing an opinion that Bradley Manning should still be considered a man in his article without having the "you're a bigot!" hounds sicced upon me by the Manning proponents. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  But you are saying I should lose my right to tell you that you're offending me? Crisis.EXE 16:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  You can say you're offended, you can say it's not right. What you cannot do is call people names. It's offensive.--v/r - TP 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Telling someone that they're being offensive is not name calling. Someone told me yesterday that I shouldn't be allowed to get married, is it name calling if I say that person was being homophobic? Crisis.EXE 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Telling someone they are being offensive is not name calling; we agree. Calling someone a name (transphobic) is name calling. You can treat people however you want on the street, you cannot call people names on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Half support - Blatant transphobia: there is no reason not to call it for what it is. It may happen and it doesn't need to be stopped. However, supporting a sanction on whoever calls someone "transphobic" just because they happen to have read WP:COMMONNAME or similar. --cyclopia^speak! 16:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as bigoted restriction of trans phrases: It is just not helpful to have such a narrow restriction, as censorship of one side in a debate, but allow the word "heterophobic" as being an obvious slant toward bigoted treatment of one group of editors. I am thinking, "transphobic about transphobia" as a transphobic fear of actions being judged as transphobic. It appears the whole thread, #General sanction: "transphobia", might be a transphobic reaction to talking with trans editors. -Wikid77 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  No. It was intended as a general sanction against incivility. Asking editors not to call others "transphobic" is not transphobic, any more than asking folk not to call others "anti-semitic" is aniti-semitic, or restricting people from calling others "anti-Irish" is anti-Irish. --RA (✍) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't even believe this conversation is happening. Do you want to frighten away every transgender Wikipedian who might take an interest in this topic? --April Arcus (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is actually sort of offensive in itself. I'm reading this as "Transgender wikipedians can only interact with others if they are allowed to insult them when they disagree." Yeah, they're a group that struggles with recognition, yeah, they're a group that is used to unpleasant conversations, but claiming that they can't hold a civil discussion is pretty repulsive. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread of my own accord so as to avoid generating any ill feeling. I will ask however that people do refrain from name calling. Just as bigoted remarks about trans people is not welcome, neither is name calling of good faith contributors. As pointed out during the course of the discussion, name calling is already sanctionable under policy. See Wikipedia:Civility. --RA (✍) 17:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Oppose all wikibloodletting

At this point I'm in opposition to all banning, blocking, bitching at Risker, et. al. The problem lies not in ourselves but in our language: historically English supposes temporally constant binary gender assignment, whereas "gender and sexuality are far from clear cut and that gender may really be a spectrum of grays, not the black and white we tend to see." Since the real world language lags far behind the emerging science it's unrealistic Wikipedia can come up with a truly satisfying solution as to how to properly respect both the Manning as an individual and the readership at large: there are compelling arguments for both given names and various pronoun usages. While as Wikipedia editors we don't have to agree with each other we should respect each other per the quintessential comment on content not on contributors standard. The best way is for everyone one of us to first scrutinize our own behavior and address our own beams before worrying about other's motes. Yes it possible to start dishing out sanctions but that's go to continue down a long acrimonious road and I think the cost will outweigh the benefit. Wikipedia has succeeded not because of admins and arbitrators and wp-this and wp-that pillars / policies /guidelines / essays/kitchen-sinks but rather that most editors most of the time are generous individuals working towards the greater goal of the best encyclopedia, ever. Let's precede forward remembering that and accepting that there is no solution to the Manning article that won't, in some sense, be inadequate and work towards crafting the best possible compromise. NE Ent 13:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

References

An alternate proposal to deal with incivility regarding the Manning topic

Instead of targeting "transphobic" as proposed above we could put some additional expectations on assumptions of good faith which would cover both "activism" allegations and "transphobic" allegations. It's clear that topic-banning a single word is not going to have the desired effect. Give admins the authority, usually with one warning but with no requirement for warning, to topic-ban an editor for a short period (e.g. an hour) if the editor in question is demonstrably incapable of assuming good faith, with the intent of having a chilling effect on any attempt to bring up any editor's motivation for their position as part of the discussion. If an editor returns after the hour and persists with similar behavior, any admin may topic ban the editor in question for the remainder of the move discussion; this remedy will be applied regardless of context and may be modified based on consensus on a case by case basis. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support micro blocks (1hr, etc.) for allegations of "activism" and "tranphobia" on Manning-related discussions after a warning, escalating for repeat offences thereafter. Like above, I think would only need this general sanction for 2 weeks. --RA (✍) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support The Manning case should not be used as a soapbox about the rights of transgendered people in general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is not censored and neither should be political opinion. This entire mess was created because WP decided to be more Righteous than the Associated Press, who today ran articles referring to "Bradley Manning" as a "he." You wanna fix the problem? Fix the title and the running gender uses. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Carrite, Wikipedia should not be making political statements, we are an encyclopedia not a news source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The situation is caused by lack of civility, due in no small part to deliberately intemperate language used by some parties. This is an easy situation to manage. Warn them to tone it down, and if they don't, apply blocks of escalating length. Contentious biographies and rhetorical exuberance do not mix. Some people are behaving like McCarthyites, others like OutRage. Neither is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. The IP is right that there has been too little AGF here. However, AGF does not require editors to tolerate the use of editorial discussions as a venue for editors to spout off their own personal and political views, and the proposed sanction appears to require editors to accept the misuse of these discussions for those purposes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe add a similar optional warn/microblock/escalation for editors that are getting off topic? To be honest, at this point I don't care either way where the page ends up, but this type of behavior and the utter failure of Wikipedia as an institution to deal with those that have openly turned it into a battleground is a serious, potentially fatal flaw in the project. If Wikipedia becomes nothing more than just another Web 2.0 location for people to spout their opinions, it will cease to be useful as a resource and will fail. Unless, of course, it's really a plan to take over the universe and not actually an encyclopedia. I'm guessing not, but the Manning incident was easily predictable through what the novel calls psychohistory.71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand

Throughout the last few days, we've had fights on 2 pages, name calling, hate crimes, accusations of name calling, random blocks with no warning, and some wheel warring. I've lost track of what's going on,and I think everyone else has, too. I woldn't be surprised if this ends up going to ArbCom. Can we all relax please? Crisis.EXE 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think it needs to be locked down and go to ArbCom, because it's gone beyond the realms of insanity now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the fact that an ArbCom member is involved in all of this? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And ArbCom User:Salvio_giuliano proposed the current Manning topic ban againt self-identified trans editor User:Sceptre, allowing an indef topic ban by a vote of only 3 editors. -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What I want to know is why no action has been taken on the person or persons who started this mess. The proper move process was not done and as a result we have made the news for taking a POV stance as well as a divided community when it comes to this issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors of the Manning page knew about trans issue/name year ago, so rename was expected. -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I support Morwen and David Gerard etc etc, action does need to be taken towards them, instead of this being a proxy thread for idiotic topic ban proposals that are unproductive and end in nothing. The requested move should've been the first thing. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, wp:MOSIDENTITY is very clear about direct renaming in this case, and major media sources say "Chelsea". Already 8 other-language wikipedias have renamed page on 22/23 August with Chelsea (Swedish WP, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Danish, Catalan, Finnish, plus redirects for Chelsea in French, German, Italian, Norwegian, etc.). -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOS is intended to produce professional-looking articles and not as an authoritative rule to settle disputes about content, though it is intended to quell trivial discussions like pronoun usage. WP:COMMONNAME specifically controls how we name our articles (the subject at hand). It is obvious to me that the two disagree, and both are relevant. Whatever this is, it is not "obvious" from pre-existing documents what we should do in this case. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that Morwen did not back down when there was opposition to the change. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

When I say action I do not refer to a ban like I saw what happened above but something I feel should be done to let them know that what they did was not okay. What they did by not following policy had a ripple effect and as I have said before Wikipedia should be known for being neutral whenever possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, see wp:MOSIDENTITY about renaming, when a person signs their legal notice announcement as "Chelsea E. Manning". -Wikid77 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything about banning them - I was just making a point. I don't even know if desysopping would also be a good idea. A block may be appropriate though. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Morwen's move/s was/were hasty, but that's about all she's guilty of (at least on Wikipedia). Performing a move without discussion happens all the time, and there's nothing inappropriate about it. She, of course, should have known the move was controversial though, and I gather she did, judging by the fact that she posted a notice about the impending move and waited fifteen minutes before actually doing it. It also would have been a good gesture if she had returned the article to Bradley Manning once she saw all the objections, but she was not compelled to do that. -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

But, she did discuss it beforehand. You should stop asserting that she did not - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hate crimes? What the heck did I miss? --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little OTT... Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

When everything is a hate crime, nothing will be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping three days after the announcement, things would have died down a bit. It's still so recent, I think it's too soon to take a case to ARBCOM. Looking at the cases they take on, this would still have to be a divisive article in a month or two before they'd consider. They typically examine disagreements and warring that has been going on for years, not less than a week. The correct route would be to go to Dispute Resolution first. ARBCOM is where irresolvable cases go that have failed to be settled through other DR processes. Just an observer's opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppets?

Now bear in mind that I'm the author of WP:HUMAN so I have not beef with IPs, but take a look at this section of !votes from a poll on MOS:IDENTITY (related to the Manning issue):

• ...
• For --209.179.28.175 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Because it's best to respect other people's choices about what they want to be called (and because people will more readily correct the pronouns they use for pets than for trans* people. Don't be jerks, dudes)
• For --66.25.60.220 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --154.20.4.32 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 
• For --65.118.91.205 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --24.24.229.107 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --70.251.131.104 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --172.250.75.11 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --89.139.14.177 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For Because the fact that 'hey, should we respect someone's identity?' is even a QUESTION is appalling. --Igpykin (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --24.136.121.231 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For We are not 'meat puppets'; some of us have simply had to play defense in these lengthy, slogging journeys toward LGBT rights so many times that we hardly have anything more to say. The common refrains of 'but they haven't REALLY transitioned yet' and 'what if I wanted to identify as beige, would you still respect that?' are so played out, you have no idea. --75.132.1.7 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For as a trans* person, I go through a ton of hardship every day trying to convince people to adhere to my pronouns and agree with my gender. Just because I hadn't come to any self-realization, or come out yet, that doesn't mean that my gender was any less valid before I came out. People are arguing that it lacks integrity if we don't out trans people as being originally assigned a different gender, or that it'll be too confusing, but the fact is that the only gender that matters is the one that person chooses to go by. You're not being confusing because you're actually referring to the person by the correct gender, rather than a confusing false one. Treating trans* people anyway else is nothing short of arrogance and transphobia. --98.203.224.199 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For --75.18.188.140 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• ...

User:Betty Logan is removing swathes of !votes like this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=570172033&oldid=570171804
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=570171540&oldid=570171231
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=570170941&oldid=570170730

Do we have a meat puppet problem, I wonder? --RA (✍) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the circumstances an involved editor in a discussion should not be removing comments for any reason whatsoever, especially not comments that support a different position to them. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

False accusations of 'edit warring' from User:Me_and

Whether through malice, or sheer incompetence, I don't know, but User:Me_and recently reported me for alleged 'edit warring' in the contentious Chelsea/Bradley Manning article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Me and (Result: ) The diffs were as follows:

17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [35] Where I reverted (once) an edit which changed (amongst other things) the name in the infobox from that in the title - I wasn't the first to revert this change, nor the last, and it was clearly inappropriate for the article to be inconsistent, regardless of the eventual decision as to the way we name Manning.

15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [36], 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [37] - Reverts of two malformed edits by the same person. One misspelled a person's name, and the other attempted to insert a redirect into the body of the article text.

21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [38] A revert (from almost a day ago) where I removed unsourced POV text added to the lede without discussion.

20:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [39] A revert of a poorly-worded 'proofreading' that contained multiple grammatical and stylistic errors.

15:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [40] Removal of text which duplicated material already added earlier.

As can be seen, the edits in question spanned a period of well over 24 hours, and were by no stretch of the imagination intended to enforce a particular point of view, or even confined to the same section of the article. Several merely corrected mistakes. Others were simple edits made in the normal course of editing. I have asked User:Me_and to apologise for accusing me of edit warring, but although the user has half-heartedly 'withdrawn' the complaint, this has been done so in a manner that implies that he/she still thinks that I was edit warring. Which I self-evidently wasn't. I ask that at minimum User:Me_and be admonished for posting this malicious and ill-founded complaint, and be formally warned that any future such behaviour is liable to result in sanctions. I can see no legitimate reason why such behaviour should be tolerated - it amounts to little more than harrasment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I reported AndyTheGrump for a 3RR breach after reporting IFreedom1212 for the same. Although I think AndyTheGrump's edits were far more reasonable, 3RR is a clear line, and it seemed to me that he breached it.

I'd spotted he'd made a number of reverts, and used Twinkle to check if he had crossed the line. Admittedly I didn't properly check the edits Twinkle listed, else I'd have skipped one for being obviously non-contentious (which I've already noted at WP:AN3), and the 15:25 edit for being clearly outside the 24h limit (although I didn't spot that until seeing AndyTheGrump's report at ANI pointing out the timespan). That's my fault for not checking what the tool told me properly (and I'll be sure to be more paranoid about using it in future), but that still leaves four reverts within a 24 hour period.

I've explained this to AndyTheGrump on my talk page, and I've pointed out on WP:AN3 that the block is no longer useful since the page in question has been fully protected.

Had I checked the logs from Twinkle properly, I probably wouldn't have made the 3RR report. However I stand by it – while it's now considerably more borderline, I think it's still over the border.

—me_and 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meant to say that part of my reason for checking for other editors breaching WP:3RR was my fear of my report of IFreedom1212 being seen as malicious, since their edits were largely reverts of changes I'd made. —me_and 19:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, where does WP:3RR say that the reverts must be in furtherance of a particular point of view, or confined to a single section of the article? From what I can tell the rule prohibits any four or more reverts on a single page, whether or not each revert changes the same material, and whether or not it's to the same section of the page. I don't see anything about pushing a point of view. It seems that you've technically violated the policy, and me_and was within his or her rights to report you for it. I don't think you made these reverts with the intention of edit warring, and I don't think you should be blocked for them; however, I do think you're wrong that me_and's report was baseless. Why don't you just withdraw this report, the same way that me_and withdrew theirs, and then we can all just get back to editing? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? You are suggesting that removing a spelling mistake is a 'revert'? Removing an attempt to insert a redirect into the middle of an article is a 'revert? That is ridiculous. And if that is the policy, Wikipedia can stick it where the sun don't shine - I edited in the best interests of the encyclopaedia and its readers, and if Wikilayering shits don't like it, they can do without me. I'm not interested in playing games with arseholes who are more concerned with bureaucratic bullshit than with producing an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A revert is a revert, whether it's removing (or restoring) an entire section or just a tiny typographical error:

A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

But WP:3RR doesn't say that more than three reverts automatically leads to a block. What you were doing didn't seem disruptive, and I doubt any administrator would have blocked or even warned you for it. Especially since it was withdrawn, you could have simply ignored the report. Surely that would have been a better way of avoiding "bureaucratic bullshit" than stirring up more of it on WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got a better idea - I should probably ignore Wikipedia altogether, and leave it to the amateur-bureaucratic trolls that run the place. Only a complete imbecile would think that revering spelling errors constitutes edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Having had a mug of tea and a sit down: AndyTheGrump, I'm sorry for putting in that report. While I maintain you were in breach of the policy, the breach was a technicality and I've never thought your behaviour was war-like. My motivation for the report was partly covering myself against being seen as biased in my report of IFreedom1212, but that should have been for me to deal with and shouldn't have impacted on you.

I object to being accused of being malicious, and as Psychonaut noted, I don't believe my report was ill-founded. Incompetence I'll agree with, though, and have already admitted to; I'll make sure not to blindly trust Twinkle in that way again.

In the interest of getting back to editing, I'd like to draw a line under this now, although I understand that's no longer a decision solely for me to make.

—me_and 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd stop digging, your behaviour, whilst only mildly upsetting to a user like Andy, could be seriously off putting and upsetting to a new, inexperienced user. If you're unable to properly interpret data from TWINKLE, please stop using it rather than running around apologising, by which point the damage could be done. Nick (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, something for the rule-mongers to contemplate. One of the exceptions to WP:3RR is as follows: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons..." One of my edits [41] removed an unsourced assertion (in Wikipedia's voice) that Manning is a "human rights activist and political prisoner". Would anyone like to Wikilawyer an argument to the effect that the statement isn't 'contentious'? No, I don't think so.... That leaves, five 'reverts' - more than 24 hours apart. So even by the deranged Wikilayers rules that are being argued for, I've not broken WP:3RR here, unless one counts reverting a spelling mistake and/or an attempt to insert a redirect slap bang in the middle of the article... Of course, if anyone wishes to look through my edit history, I'm sure they will find WP:3RR 'violations', since, as I've pointed out several times on this noticeboard (amongst other places), with big 'breaking news' stories, WP:3RR often has to be ignored, to avoid articles being swamped by misinformation, vandalism, and just plain incompetence. In such circumstances, what actually matters is maintaining standards, not maintaining rules - and anyone unwilling to accept that WP:IAR trumps WP:3RR when for instance making this sort of edit [42] should seriously think whether they should be editing Wikipedia at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless the 3RR complainant has additional diffs to cite, I don't see any 3RR violation here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump that an overly strict interpretation of what a revert is is not helpful to the project, and that the correction of simple errors such as misspellings and formatting mistakes should not count as a revert for the purposes of determining edit-warring. Editors should, however, make those kinds of changes separate from content-dispute reverts, so that it's clear that they are not part of the dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sanity check: reverses the actions of other editors seems clearly to not cover typos, spelling errors, or the like. An "action" consisting of errant spelling is not conceivably covered by the revert rules. Collect (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you've never witnessed an edit war over typos. Believe me, they have happened. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And worse. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Insane stuff. Punctuation, diacritical marks, capitalization, etc. - all manner of stuff that matters to no one except the ones arguing about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And whitespace. Edit wars over blank spaces. The horror, the horror... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That might be the craziest one of all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Except for people who habitually read between the lines. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ba-dum TISH - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfC on Tammy Duckworth

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – not an "incident" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Could I please have an admin or other experienced user review the RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth? The RfC bot has removed the RfC notice, indicating that the recommended time limit has passed. Edge3 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edge3, you might want to list this article here to get it closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! I have posted on that noticeboard. My apologies for the inconvenience. Edge3 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Edge3! I'm glad I could answer your question. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[43][44][45][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[46] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.

Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.

Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Either you're misreading what Hijiri is saying, or you're deliberately making things up. Claiming that Hijiri is asking for administrative action because they're editing from their phone is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Finkellium

• Finkellium (talk · contribs)
• Alice Crimmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first came across this article, and editor, following a request from Randykitty (talk · contribs) at WP:BLPN. This editor has an extremely poor grasp of WP:BLP policy, and an even worse attitude. They insist on adding unreferenced, or poorly referenced, and contentious material to an BLP, example diff, despite numerous editors raising concerns on both the article talk page and the user talk page. They have removed valid maintenance templates here and here. They have told me to "go away" and advised me "do not edit it again". They have used faux-complimentary nicknames and comments to insult both myself ("your Giantness" and "GeniusSnowman") as well as Randykitty ("genius editor"). Basically, I feel that they do not have the correct attitude or grasp of policy to edit constructively - I am bringing it here for the community to decide what, if any, action needs taking. GiantSnowman 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. This editor has clear problems with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:I didn't hear that, etc. The attitude problem is obvious, but I start to think that WP:COMPETENT is an issue, too: I originally came to the Crimmins article (not usually an area I edit) because I checked this users edit history, after seeing the badly-researched AfD nomination of Doug Bremner and the inane arguments presented in that AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bremner AFD nomination is not over and insulting the valid arguments is not appreciated. GiantSnowman is hurt because I was able to provide accurate support of material he insisted on trying to create a revert war over. He then started the insults. I do not see any reason to escalate this with the complaints to daddy but he does. Sigh. I am scarcely incompetent when in fact I was right. Finkellium (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • GiantSnowman did at no point insult you, although he did make a comment about your incompetent editing. Apart from that, you have up till now been wrong on all counts. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • While there are problems with this article, they are ones that I've seen frequently on BLP. Yes, there are issues, but, unfortunately, they frequently appear in individuals notable at an earlier time. Can't these be fixed without filing an ANI? I thought editors were supposed to come here after they've tried to work things out. Why not take this to the BLPN or RSN? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you Liz. I feel that their personal animus is coloring the decision. I am not ashamed to admit that I was reverting the edit NOT intending to remove templates- I literally just reverted them. I have learned better now but it was not to intimidate them and make them cry like happened. Thank you. Finkellium (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Finkellium, please read WP:BURDEN. It is entirely appropriate that unsourced or poorly sourced content is removed, and should an editor wish to re-add this content, then the burden for providing acceptable sourcing lies with them. Also note that it is entirely appropriate to revert a controversial change, after which time the correct course of action for you would have been to discuss the issue on the talk page (see diagram), instead of engaging in an edit war. It is inappropriate to remove maintenance tags without discussing the concerns on the talk page. It is grossly inappropriate to tell another editor not to edit a page again. This could be interpreted as merely discourteous or threatening. I draw attention to the fact that you do not "own" any wikipedia page, have no right whatsoever to tell other editors if they can work on the page or not. As soon as you make any contribution to an article, it is no longer intellectually your work. Read the Terms of use. It's just under the save page button every time you make an edit. You are clearly not sorry about your behavior, by using words like "cry" above. What do you think this is, some internet forum or online game where you think you can be impolite for no reason? I always think it's pretty funny when people are pointlessly aggressive to people they don't even know, it says so much more about them than the other person. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with guidelines and policies that you are clearly not aware of instead of being pointlessly aggressive when people call you on your disruptive behavior. Be polite and respectful and that is how other editors will treat you, it's very simple. Continue as you are an your editing will be a loosing battle that most likely will end in you being banned.

TLDR summary: Editor unfamiliar with editing policies and guidelines, being pointlessly aggressive to editors who are trying to advise them and clean up after him/her.

See also: Online disinhibition effect ; Sea of Cowards. Lesion (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I will thank you for telling me how I feel, I obviously am unable to determine my emotions myself. I do know very well what this is. I told the user to READ the sources before saying something was not sourced next time. I stand by that. I have apologized and admitted that the templates were not removed on purpose but were removed. I would hate to be involved in a "loosing battle" since I think tightness is a virtue. I have just today learned that legal documents detailing the facts in a case are not considered valid. I learn so much here it is amazing. And again, the controversial change apparently is trying to be factual and correct. I am sorry I am so controversialFinkellium (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• This is a good example. I have dyslexia, and I consider myself generally a courteous editor because, e.g. when other editors have to clean up after my typos and errors, I do not start being rude to them. Lesion (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • an example of what? I have "Sillus Syndrome and sometimes stub my toe. Finkellium (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was drawing contrast between my not attacking people who have to clean my typos and people who are pointlessly aggressive to others who have to clean up them for other reasons, such as not being familiar with how to edit. And for the record, I did actually spot that after I clicked save, but it's only a talk page and it didn't seem that important =D Lesion (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Sillus Syndrome and sometimes stub my toe" seems to merit a block, grossly inappropriate. And such a PA after having been warned multiple times (and on ANI at that) is nothing less than a provocation. --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they've made it obvious they are not going to stop being discourteous. Attention seeking. Ban might help. Although, it could be argued that Finkellium's deeply unhappy life is punishment enough for anyone =D Lesion (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lesion, comments like that are not helping the situation, please retract them. GiantSnowman 10:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... sorry ... =D Lesion (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay I get it now, I make a self deprecating remark about being silly, and then the "better" editors get to attack me for having a loser life. Randykitty twists it into a provocation and Lesion says my life is a unhappy. And all of this nonsense started, for anyone who is following, because I did not understand (still don't) why putting the actual date, locations and facts of a crime was such a mistake. I still don't because many other such entries have these details. But hey, my life sucks apparently and I am in a loosing battle so there's that. Finkellium (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lesion apologized, apparently something you're unable to do. And why your additions were inappropriate has been explained to you ad nauseam and if you don't want to listen, that's not my problem. Obviously you're not here to build a serious encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Lesion did apologize for letting his personal animus show through. Actually if you read better and didn't let YOUR personal animus color your videogame style attack on me you would see that I DID apologize almost immediately. And if you read better you would see that no one has actually explained why the additions were wrong, just that they were because the great Randykitty has saysid so. But to make it easier on your eyes, yes I apologize. I am sorry. I certainly never thought in a million years that people would be upset. Sorry. Finkellium (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You were poking fun of Lesion's dyslexia and I did not see any "immediate apology" anywhere. And your above apology if I may say so, does not really seem sincere either. As for why your additions were inappropriate, you have been directed multiple times to the policy on the use of primary sources in BLPs, which quite explicitly says that court transcripts are not admissible sources. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Still so much animus? Emails and Wikipedia are tonally neutral. I was poking fun at myself for being Silly, hence saying that I have Sillius Syndrome and often stub my toe, which is make a mistake. I apologized very early on on the talk page. The Great Randykitty doesn't get to determine my sincerity. It is sincere. I am sorry. I never intended any offense to you most of all. I understand that court transcripts are not allowed now. I get that. It makes less than zero sense, is actually dumb, but I understand that. I am rewriting the article with footnotes from two major books on the subject, similar to the format used on articles about other killers. I have learned very much here through these attacks. Thank you. And sincere apologies againFinkellium (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is a warning. Referring to another editor as "The Great so-and-so" is not civil behavior, please stop doing that sort of thing; regardless of your intent with the "Sillius" comment, it still came across as a personal attack on Lesion. These comments directed at you aren't "attacks", these are pointing out that your behavior is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment - when multiple editors are pointing out that your conduct has issues, it might be worth stepping back and considering that maybe the issue might really be your conduct, not theirs. Your continued comments about "animus", "The Great Randykitty", "these attacks", indicate that you are not getting it despite the repeated apologies. Please just step back, have a cup of tea, and consider - regardless of anything that you consider having been a provocation - how you would react if you read somebody else saying these things this way, and how you should change your behavior to be part of the community. If, however, you keep referring to other editors with belittling put-downs and consider constructive criticisms and warnings as attacks, I'm afraid your editing career here will be brief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And, Finkellium, you are still showing a pattern of belittling other editors. If you were talking to people in real life, would you be conversing in this matter? Don't fall prey to the G.I.F.T., and you might want to take a look at WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I rarely encounter people in real life who tell me that court documents are not reliable and that my life is sad. But I will read these entries to which you link and learn from my ways. Finkellium (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice Please

Hello, I've recently registered an account having edited previously with my ip address. With my background I thought I'd be of some help with citations and referencing of information. I picked a new and relatively small [47] article on which to cut my teeth, and have found the experience less than satisfactory. Having offered what I thought was helpful advice, and requested information from a specialized group [48] I seem to have raised the heckles of another person who has being acting in a less than inviting manner. They appear to me to be making peculiar and irrational demands of me [49] and I'm finding the experience less than comfortable. The editing on the encyclopedia is extremely easy, and having edited in the past I've never come across any person like this. I hope I have come to the right place, and if not could someone be good enough to point me in the right direction. --Dr Daly (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have left the template on the persons page. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Daly, I hope you do not get discouraged and stop volunteering. There are always frustrating editors, differences of opinion, all that happy primate nonsense. It's much more common for people to cooperate, so don't lose heart. :) Damotclese (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mabuska should be admonished for biting a newbie by calling Dr Daly a sock without providing solid evidence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So what IP did you edit under Dr Daly? This is contrary to what your user page states- that you are a new user who has just studied Wiki policies and only now confident to make edits, now you edited as an IP previously?

Dr Daly to be honest may have just been a new editor to arrive at the wrong time in the middle of an ongoing problem wth a certain editor involving SonofSetantas edits and the latest isue in question: copyvio at Wolfe Tone Societies.

Whilst we should always assume good faith, Dr Dalys recent appearance on Wikipedia and involvement in this very newly created article that has hardly any linked too pages and been very little viewed raised suspicions that they are a sockpuppet of another editor who has been following user SonofSetantas edits and filing AN/I and AE reports on them. Dr Daly has only contributed to this one and only article.

SonofSetanta created the Wolfe Tone Societies article 15:50, 12 August, just after 2 hours it is copyvio tagged. At 22:27 that night Dr Dalys account is created. Dr Dalys first article edit is on the 19th on the Wolfe Tone Societies article - the only artcle they have so far ever edited. Their only issue seems to be in regards to sources, which ironically is what SonofSetenta gets reported for at AE on the 20th, though this is in regards to the copyvio that was tagged on the 12th. Seems too coincidental, and possibly an attempt (by a certain editor who has been stated by several at SonofSetenta quite recent AN/I of being vindicive towards SonofSetenta) to make SoS's usage of sources a sign of troublesome behaviour.and no doubt hoping to get them riled up on the articles talk page which didn't happen.

Problem was, I was the one that added some of the main sources Dr Daly queried, and other stuff was copy and pasted from the older article by SonofSetanta. After taken action in regards to the issue, with my suspicions made known, the initial issues are sorted. Daly then raises a new one and I tell them to be bold and make an edit. They haven't since.

At Dr Dalys talk page I made a reasonable request for them to prove they aren't a sock by making a cntribution to an article on Roy Johnston, a person mentioned in the Wolfe Tone Societies that Dr Daly had a problem with the wording cited. It has similar source issues however despite making a big deal out of the sources on the WST, point blank refused to contribute to an article with similar problems that me, him, and SonofSetanta had not edited before (until I put a tag on the page).

This editors curious behaviour and quickness to file an AN/I report only further fuels my suspicions that Dr Daly is a sockpuppet. Maybe I'm wrong and as stated it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf, but only Dr Dalys actions in the next few days and months such as editing articles that SonofSetanta hasn't edited before and highlighting similar issues as at the WTS article will convince me otherwise..So far they haven't edited any other article and my behaviour is hardly that 'biting' to put them off.

Dr Daly can go about editing as he pleases, I've no beef with that and will make no further issue of them unless it becomes apparent they are following SonofSetantas edits. If he is genuinely a new user to this site, then I apologise wholeheartedly to him, however the coincidental arrival of him is what got me miffed.

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Many people chose to contribute through IP because they weren't sure of their commitments to the project. And IPs can't create articles, something you should be very well aware. To create an article, they must register. I fail to see how a new user creating a new article is instantly considered as socking. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote and try to fully understand the situation. Most of your comment is based on something I never said and what I laid out makes it clear there is the potential that Daly is a sock. Take time to read what I actully wrote please. Just to clarify, though it should be obvious in what I wrote above - I'm not claiming Dr Daly as a sock of SonofSetanta. I never said an IP or Dr Daly created anything other than their own account. Also should I notify this potential sock issue at the AE concerning SonofSetanta seeing as it possibly relates to an editor currently at odds with them? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having spent some time going through edit history of the two editors I believe Dr Daly to possibly have been a sock of and comparing it alongside Dr Daly's, I have to say that unless they where logging in an out every minute to make edits under both accounts, the first suspect is extremely unlikely. The second hasn't made enough edits to substantiate a comparison, thus I have most likely made a serious error in judgement and am quite mistaken by the coincidental nature of events as they unfolded.

In that case, I fully apologise to Dr Daly for any distress I may have wrongly caused them, and will issue such an apology on their talk page. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would consider extending your apology to the falsely accused sockpuppeteers as well, whom you all but named in this thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I found at least 4 policy violations by Mabuska: biting Dr Daly, not assuming good faith, falsely suggesting that User:SonofSetanta was socking with Dr Daly, trying to blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio (and blaming the victim when you said "it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf"). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right on some counts. Mabuska says in his opening post above that the Dr Daly account is actually operated by "another editor who has been following user SonofSetantas edits and filing AN/I and AE reports on them". The links he goes on to post in the subsequent paragraph leave no doubt as to whom he means. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Daly, the two editors you had differences with have withdrawn from editing that particular article. But, being Wikipedia, you can expect conflict and debate in the future, it's how we reach consensus. You took the right route, discussing it on the article Talk Page then going to RS noticeboard. I'm not sure that filing an AN/I was required as the situation worked itself out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FLASH: BRAND NEW EDITOR FINDS RSN ON 16TH EDIT AND AN/I ON 28TH EDIT WITH NO ONE POINTING THEM THERE: FILM AT 11 Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page ->Help Desk->FAQ->Contributing FAQ->Dispute resolution boards. It's almost as if we want new folks to be able to find things. NE Ent 12:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, I think? Like I've said, I've edited before as an IP. You would hardly need two PHD's and a BA to edit here or find something, its pretty basic. It has been resolved on the talk page. Dr Daly (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re NE Ent: I have a even faster path (Welcome template + 2 pages vs. your path of 5 pages). {{Welcome}}->Questions->Editor assistance request->RS/ANI. It is precisely the mentality demonstrated by the community like Beyond My Ken that the foundation is spending lots of money on recruiting but failing to retain new editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's the main reason there's a recruitment "problem", I have some bad news for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many main reasons. This is one of them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FLASH: PROLIFIC CONTRIBUTOR SUPPRESSES COMMUNITY GROWTH WITH ACERBIC JOCULARITIES: FILM AT 11 Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish to make it clear that User:Mabuska has made no accusations against me. He is in fact my mentor. I have conversed with Dr Daly only once here because I found some of his reverts to be out of step with WP:MOS and to give him advice on the naming convention concerning Derry/Londonderry. I noted that several of his concerns were what I would consider pedantic however as a new user he may well have high standards regarding sources, which really we all should have. One of his concerns however was a quote from a newspaper where I wrote, and Mabuska confirmed, that the Wolfe Tone Societies gave support to "Sinn Fein policies". In fact the quote said the the society gave "support to Sinn Fein". Dr Daly deleted the sentence without apparently noting what the source said. I felt, and Mabuska seemed to agree, that the sentence was better kept in but modified, which is what I did. Dr Daly went on to take issue with the "Protestant faith" of the subject Roy Johnston which was referred to in the article. Mabuska invited him to take WP:BOLD and rewrite but also pointed out that the correct policy as per WP:MOS would be to insert a "citation needed" tag and invite others to participate and add more information. Mabuska also pointed out the existence of the Roy Johnston article and invited Dr Daly to scrutinise it. At this point I decided I had no need to further edit the article and made a statement to that effect on the talk page here. My opinion is that I certainly gave good advice to a new (if confident) user and Mabuska, whilst being cautious, was also civil and invited further participation by Dr Daly and pointed him in the right direction to learn more in accordance with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Both of us extended WP:GOODFAITH. It would appear correct to me to assume, for the moment, that Dr Daly should read up on the Five Pillars to find out more about how to engage with other editors in a collegiate discussion, especially when he doesn't agree with the opinions put forward. It does seem odd that someone who can so quickly find out how to lodge a case here and find a forum for sources, that he didn't read the guidance for new editors first. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't really think you needed to make a comment here SoS, though thanks anyway, however my initial attitude should have been more good faith rather than getting caught up in the paranoia surrounding you recent AE's. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of my own current position Mabuska I felt I should comment here. I found Dr Daly's position to be one of confidence but inexperience and have pondered why he has spent so much time learning how to make a complaint when really he should have been reading up on the Five Pillars. It's unfortunate he decided to edit that particular article but perhaps he will take heart from the fact that, although you and I were wary, we treated him with respect and civility. I hope he extends the same to other editors whom he finds to be in the same position in the future. Thanks aren't needed. You've done more to support me than I deserve, so it is I who should be thanking you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"I found at least 4 policy violations by Mabuska: biting Dr Daly, not assuming good faith, falsely suggesting that User:SonofSetanta was socking with Dr Daly, trying to blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio (and blaming the victim when you said "it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf"). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)" - did you read what I posted? Where do I suggest that SonofSetanta is socking with Dr Daly? Even SonofSetanta made it clear above I never did. As Psychonaut was suggesting, I implying him however, I just didn't want to name names as it was a uncertain allegation and may have been wrong. I accept that it most likely appears to be wrong so I apologised to Dr Daly, and will likewise do so now to Psychonaut. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact OhanaUnited - of those four charges: Where did I accuse SonofSetanta of socking? Where did I blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio? And how does stating that maybe it's a case of bad timing on Dr Daly's behalf count as blaming them? The only things I did wrong was not be as good faith assuming as I should of been and questioning them as to whether they where a sockpuppet, which I suppose is biting them, but in light of the situation it was a possibility - however I have made a full apology to them. I am finding your comments in relation to this discussion incredibly bizarre, almost as if you haven't read my comments accurately or looked at the situation fully. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case: the rubric at the top says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It's really a last resort to be used when other avenues have failed and only admin tools such as page protection or blocking, or community decisions such as bans are in order. Coming here prematurely (which I think Dr Daly has done) is not a good idea when other options are available - seeking the advice of an admin you trust, or raising the issue on a project page for example. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to accept Mabuska's fulsome apology and let it go at that, and as a result of the Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies I've picked up some more editing tools such as the "outdent" function. I do however have a concern with SonofSetanta who despite Mabuska's full and frank apology would suggest that I was extended WP:GOODFAITH. Having read the WP:MOS linked above by the same user, there are none of the issues I raised contained in WP:MOS. The text was incorrectly cited, poorly sourced and remains so because I backed away from it when I got the reaction that I did. The group at Reliable sources/Noticeboard [50] agreed with myself on the two sources I took issue with, yet they remain on the article. The construction of a sentence based on a hodge podge of separate unrelated sentences still remains regardless of having illustrated the concern with direct quotes. This concern is being disingenuously presented above by the user i.e. "Protestant faith," likewise the very misleading suggestion that per WP:MOS the correct thing would be to insert a "citation needed" tag. WP:MOS does not mention anything about "citation needed" tags. Mabuska's advice was useful despite how it is presented here, and I did actually use them. That Mabuska was gracious enough to remove and I appreciated what I considered to be a challenge [51] being presented as an invitation appears to be indicative of the user. That they are reserving judgment on me 'for the moment' in light of the above and Mabuska's genuine WP:GOODFAITH I will obviously treat in a like manner. Having reviewed this editors contributions, I have found countless occasions of disingenuously and blatantly misleading the readers of this encyclopedia. I do not make baseless accusations or assumptions, however I feel confident that this user in no way reflects the vast number of volunteers on the encyclopedia. I do not what to give the impression that I'm unsuited to robust discussion, but civility and reason will always win out in my experience. Dr Daly (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

While there is clearly still a dispute going on here over sources, it seems appropriate that this discussion return the article Talk Page as I don't see that an Admin is required to weigh in over what is a disagreement over content, IMHO. I think the Talk Page, RSN and DRN are better forums for resolving this disagreement than AN/I which typically involves editor misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Threat to contact Interpol by IP User 82.166.140.117

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

---

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

---

The ip user made a threat to contact Interpol at User talk:82.166.140.117, specifically "I kindly ask you to remove it, otherwise i will contact the Interpol." Not sure if this falls under WP:LEGAL or not, but it's close enough to me to err on the side of reporting it. Transcendence (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Guys, the "threat" was against me. I do not think it is a credible threat anyway. The IP user (a new a user) asks for a reproduction of a painting to be removed from an article of Aristarkh Lentulov as a forgery. Apparently there is an article in Haaretz that alleges that the painting is somehow related to criminal rings and forgery. Getting the relevant part of the article requires a paid account that I do not have, but the user seems to have. Obviously if there is a controversy around the painting I would either remove it from the article or write a couple of sentences about the controversy. In the middle of the conversation the new editor got an idea that I might be connected to the criminal ring and threaten to report me to Interpol. Honestly, I do not mind to help police but the only knowledge I have about the painting is the source of the commons image, a reasonably respectful site of a Russian museum. They seem to think the painting is genuine. I am sure that as a new user the IP was not aware of WP:NLT and I would rather work with him or her on the article then see him or her blocked. Is it OK if I unblock the IP? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Please be sure to re-block them if they do more of the same. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you know Interpol has a team dedicated solely to finding Wikipedia editors and bringing them to justice? ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not know either although many years ago I was contacted by a German police regarding me uploading an image to commons. Apparently the painting was stolen by Nazis and they though I might know the real location of it. Unfortunately the only help I could provide was a link to the web site I have downloaded the image from (the info was already on the commons page). Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That was a joke. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked the guy Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. I was about to. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User Mmay2

• Mmay2 (talk · contribs)
• 67.171.217.5 (talk · contribs)
• Tigger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piglet (Winnie-the-Pooh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rabbit (Winnie-the-Pooh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Winnie-the-Pooh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bambi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bambi (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...and perhaps more. Messing with the infoboxes without explanation. Who knew these characters had occupations? JNW (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) ‎ ‎

• I've added an IP account that looks related, and has been warned multiple times for copyright violations. I suspect this is someone who jumps accounts and plows ahead. JNW (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I first encountered the user Mmay2 yesterday when I reverted several edits and left a note on their talk page. They declined to respond to my note and have continued their editing, changing infobox colors seemingly at random (sometimes with illegible results), saddling various notable fictional characters with non-notable (in some cases, made-up) nicknames, and making various other changes that are unconstructive. I've just been reverting a few more—and finding it awkward since in some cases there have been subsequent edits from someone else. I suspect we're dealing with a competency issue here, not vandalism, but whatever it is it is disruptive and needs to stop. I'm off to issue a sterner warning now, but if the user proves redeemable I'm guessing a shot across their bows is going to be needed first to get their attention. I'll cough up some diffs if they're really needed, but honestly the history of the above-linked articles tells it pretty well. Add Eeyore to the list. Rivertorch (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC) If anyone would like to help sift through the user's contributions, please be my guest. There seem to be some constructive edits mixed in there, including at least one new article: the mistitled but apparently legitimate Disney's DTV MONSTER HITS (1987 film). Rivertorch (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The sole prose sentence in the Monster Hits article (which is all that the article originally consisted of) appears to be a copy/paste from elsewhere, so that the article is foundationally a copyvio. I don't know what the procedure is to get rid of the copyvio in such cases. Delete the article and then restore it with the sentence rewritten? Deor (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That dovetails with what I was about to add: I've also found and deleted copyright violation passages of movie plots in several articles he/she created. You can tag the articles as copyvios, remove the offending passages, or if the whole thing is rotten request speedy. JNW (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at Wikipedia:Banning policy

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

---

Multiple users, most making only one revert, in a manner not unlike the unsolvable ArbCom case on the Tea Party movement... Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't really see an edit war there. I see several reverts, yes, but then I see discussion moving to the talk page. This is not an AN/I matter, suggest closing forwith. And although with reccomended closure it's a bit of a moot point, I don't see you having notified any of the participants in this putative edit-war that you opened this AN/I thread, so I have done so, and here's a {{minnow}} for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Plip!

Saves me from fishing tomorrow. Point taken though. I had only looked at the history of the WP-space page. Although an edit war did take place, the matter has been apparently resolved on the talk (WT) page, in the aptly named "BRRRD" thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Soccer in Australia - chemical weapons deployed

Just taking a quick look at Talk:Soccer in Australia, and (without highlighting anyone in particular) there seems to be a lot of personal abuse going on there. Perhaps some sort of official chill could be dropped on it? --Pete (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless something has been redacted recently, I don't see anything needing attention. There is one "BULLSHIT", but a very quick skim (and believing the more plausible statements) makes me think it is understandable that such a comment was used because (apparently), "That claim is simply incorrect. It has been explained several times earlier in the thread." I'm not supporting use of "BS", I'm just saying that its use seems understandable when claims that are incorrect are repeatedly made, and one such usage doesn't really rate as personal abuse. If there is something more, please quote a few words to make finding it easier. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I said "BULLSHIT" because, as you noted, it was "BULLSHIT". I later withdrew from that thread because it was obvious that rational conversation had ceased from those pushing the line I had called "BULLSHIT". And now, while I perhaps shouldn't have used such language, I think it did have the desired effect and made those posting the bullshit think a little, but only a little, more deeply. What I'd like to know now is, what are the consequences for those who posted the bullshit? Do they get off scot free despite repeatedly posting absolute nonsense here? Incivility comes in many forms. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that whole thread was based on a false assertion, quickly clarified as such, but the proponents of the change (now correctly ruled out by the closing Admin) continued to post falsehoods for days on end. This wasn't the first thread of its kind about that article, and really the whole issue of the naming of the game in Australia on Wikipedia, and it won't be the last. Future threads are almost guaranteed to be equally volatile because of the beliefs and ideology rather than knowledge of those pushing the soccer=football line. Can we stop it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, I agree with your position on this content, but not your way of expressing it. There's a fairly liberal spread of abuse there, but can't we use facts and logic rather than rudeness to make a point? When we lose our temper, it raises the temperature of discussion and things are said that shouldn't be. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, many of us tried using facts and logic, repeatedly, over several days, and it didn't work. Next suggestion? HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And more importantly, what is Wikipedia going to do about the small group of editors who continued to spout bullshit in response to our facts and logic. That's where the real problem lies. They need to experience some consequences, otherwise it will all just happen again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

One man's bullshit is another's facts and logic - as we see from the discussion in question. Tolerance for other editors is something we could all be aware of when discussion becomes quick and tempered. And, Wikipedia is a collaboration. If we feel we are a lone voice against the tide of idiots, our perception may be faulty. Facts and logic will always appeal to the true Wikinerd - go find some support from fellow editors. Me, for instance - I share your position on this question. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to make it public here that Pete (Skyring) and I go back a long way. He cannot stand my approach to editing here, which involves, at times, tackling his conservative, right wing approach to editing. He has been asked to avoid interacting with me and, although he claimed in his original post to be writing "without highlighting anyone in particular", it's obvious that I was at least part of his target. In parallel with this action by him he has chosen to edit war with me at Australia Day, repeatedly removing content the conservatives don't like, without using Edit summaries. He has been here for years, and knows ALL about Edit summaries. (He finally used one, and has been reverted by another editor.) I keenly seek input here from other editors (who don't already hold a grudge against me and want to make this personal) about what can be done about the editing approach I described at least in part as bullshit. (I won't try to engage with Pete's comments. I rarely find anything in them that goes anywhere near my world view, and thus cannot have coherent discussions with him.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Two-way interaction ban seems like the best fix for this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the Soccer in Australia discussion. It was getting into personal abuse - playing the man and not the ball, as one editor noted. HiLo, I don't mind you having a political - or religious or gender or any other - opinion. We all differ. What I mind is attacking other editors over their honest views, and if we look back over your contributions, we see the same old pattern. Claims that those with differing opinions are ignorant, stupid, dishonest and so on, followed by intemperate language and the inevitable complaints here and on other behaviour pages, on topics such as ITN, China, Pregnancy, Trayvon Martin, and others. All of those instigated by different editors, none of them me.

There's a pattern of disruptive behaviour here, stretching back years. It's not two editors having an ongoing spat, it's the same behaviour on a variety of topics with a variety of editors. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Otto Placik editing plastic surgery articles

Otto Placik (talk · contribs), whose user page identifies him as a Chicago-based plastic surgeon, fails to follow WP:BRD and insists on edit-warring a major re-write into labiaplasty. He has now been reverted by three different editors: User:SlimVirgin, User:‎Christopher Connor and myself. His large-scale changes have been reinserted five times this month:

• 20:51, 8 August 2013, by a Chicago-based IP,
• 04:23, 19 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 06:01, 22 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 03:03, 24 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 04:33, 24 August 2013 by Otto Placik

All of us feel that the changes turn the page into an advertisement for the procedure (which is, after all, one Mr Placik performs in his day job as a plastic surgeon in order to earn a living).

Also note this earlier revert by a similar Chicago-based single-purpose IP. (Note: Casliber has now fully protected the article.)

As SlimVirgin has pointed out on Talk:Labiaplasty, there is a significant and recurrent history of COI and neutrality concerns expressed about Otto Placik at WikiProject Medicine, over a period of years. The most recent discussions were [52] and [53] – note for example comment by Jmh649: "I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising." Also note the list of single-purpose accounts and IPs editing Wikipedia solely to come to Otto Placik's aid, provided by Paravis in this discussion. They were all blocked by PeterSymonds in 2009:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emilymiller123
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarahjjohnson123
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.63.221.230 (yet another single-purpose Chicago IP)
• Sockpuppet investigation

In my opinion, there is a consistent pattern of abuse, incl. edit-warring with the aid of meat- or sockpuppets, across multiple articles, spanning at least four years, and Dr Placik should be banned from editing articles on plastic surgery, broadly defined, if not community-banned.

Speaking to the broader point, we have had problems with plastic surgeons in this topic area before (e.g. WP:COI issues re plastic surgery articles; Plastic surgeon using Wikipedia as an advertisement for his services; etc.). Vigilance should be exercised, as almost any woman or man contemplating plastic surgery is likely to consult Wikipedia as a supposedly neutral reference source before making the decision to spend several thousand dollars on plastic surgery. They trust Wikipedia not to be written and illustrated by the same people who author and illustrate plastic surgeons' commercial websites and brochures (example: [54], [55], [56], [57]). Andreas JN466 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also note the discussion section below on the apparent relationship between User:Otto Placik and User:Mhazard9. Andreas JN466 01:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Support ban

• Support both topic and community ban, given the above history, especially the recurrent pattern of single-purpose meatpuppets or sockpuppets. Andreas JN466 06:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support with proviso that if he can be more WP:CIVIL than the comments I saw on the article, I would not have a problem with him proposing changes on the talkpage. He definitely needs to stay away from the article space in that area. Clearly both WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Are the other accounts tied to him? I wasn't sure if you are also questioning the use of sock- or meat-puppets for action here. I mean besides the ones that are already blocked. If so, that needs to be addressed at WP:SPI, not here. GregJackP Boomer! 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• CommentSupport topic ban (would be willing to reconsider if the user in question agree to not continue the issues in question). It is unlikely that the user in question is going to edit anything other than plastic surgery and therefore a topic ban is more or less a block. While some of his images are concerning others are good as discussed below. Concerns however include the "other new accounts" that have appear to help him and the use of some primary rather than secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above users, Oppose community ban. Community bans should be a last resort, so we ought to see if topic banning will solve the problem first. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. There's already evidence of a concerted effort to spam WP, which may include socking. It is not uncommon for bans to be handed out for socking itself, so in conjunction with the spammy behavior, etc, a community ban is a no-brainer, at least from my perspective. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I also support a community ban given the protracted nature of the problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least a topic ban. Well-documented problems voiced by many editors over several threads. User seems intent on having his version of the article, and other editors' concerns are simply dismissed and their edits repeatedly reverted with edit summaries such as "Corrections to the text; reverting vandalism by Slim Virgin Adminstrator", "Corrections to the text; factual agreement with the cited medical sources, for NPOV. Please discuss before reverting", "Corrections to the text; facts and source citations, as agreed with Flyer 22", "Corrections to the text; clarifications and source citations", "Undid pov-pushing revision 569950714 by Jayen466". Clearly he believes only his edits are 'correct' and sees other editors as obstacles he has to overcome. Not interested in helping to write a neutral encyclopedia and not interested in working with others. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban (edited based on evidence of sockpuppetry) broad topic ban, which will be functionally equivalent to a community ban. Disease mongering is a terrible, terrible thing; as a widely used resource perceived to be unbiased, Wikipedia has a vital role in countering it. Between this user's article edits and their perceptions of other users (accurately summarised by Christopher Connor above), this user's edits are a net negative, and I can't see that changing. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban.--Taylornate (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban and an indefinite block - this hasn't reached WP:CBAN territory yet, but this is blatantly an editor who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. The indef would continue until clue improves; the topic ban could then be discussed by the community if the editor is willing to demonstrate a good-faith constructive effort. If, on the other hand, disruption continues after tban+indef, it'll be time to suggest a cban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: I am not opposed to a CBAN if that is the consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a community ban per WP:COI and WP:SPAM he has been warned, and the proper messages placed on this Talk page, I don't see what else can be done to let him know what he is doing is wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. This is a single-purpose, POV-pushing, sock/meat puppeteer with a personal commercial interest diametrically opposed to this project's mission. If Wikipedia had a press office, I'd be recommending a press release about this behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose ban

I, the Editor Mhazard9, strongly oppose any ban of User:Otto Placik from Wikipedia, because no one has presented factual contradictions of his Labiaplasty contribution [[58], which is the editorial business matter discussed in the Discussion Page of the Labiaplasty article. Instead, you have used this Edit Conflict to concentrate upon the politics of personality conflict, character assassination, in effort to ban User: Otto Placik from Wikipedia, because you dislike his branch of medicine.

With this very hurried ANI, you are acting in bad faith; despite his rules-and-regulations violations, no one here has bothered to counter, with facts, any of the claims, made against Dr. Placik and his contributions. In fact, Dr. Placik asked Slimvirgin to provide factual evidence of his editorial mistakes:

So, let us meet half-way, and you begin the dialogue, by showing the specific sections, subsections, and sentences that are factually untrue. Playing games is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia Administrator, the ethical onus is upon you, because it is you, Slimvirgin and cohort, who disagree with the medical facts of a medical article. The sources are listed, please explain where the article does not correspond to the facts cited."

Slimvirgin ignored him, and did not practice BRD, the very violation of which Dr. Placik is accused; that the accused, Dr. Placik, abided the BRD, and that the accuser, Slimvirgin, did not abide the BRD, which she requested, confirms the witch-hunt nature of this ANI. So far, no one here has abided and practiced the BRD formula, instead, you have unwisely reached for the truncheon, the pitchfork, and the torch, to storm Castle Placik.

By flouting the Wikipedia rules, and attacking the man rather than the the plastic-surgery-text, you are acting unwisely and emotionally, more from philosophic opposition than from factual dispute. After all, if Dr. Placik lied, can Slimvirgin and her cohort not SHOW it with evidence (from the Placik text) rather than with wiki-lawyering chicanery? Manipulating "the rules" to kill the messenger.

Character assassination by spurious accusation

Habeas corpus? Do you have the body of evidence, of bad faith malfeasance, from the Placik Labiaplasty text? Especially indicative of the witch-hunt nature of this ANI, convened with suspicion-inducing swiftness, are:

• the Labiaplasty Discussion Page comment "I would rather use an educational image that is untainted by a commercial conflict of interest", by Andreas JN466 (19:25, 24 August 2013 UTC) is an illogical and emotional opinion meant to inflame the anti–Placik and anti–plastic-surgery passion . . . because only surgeons perform labiaplasty, therefore, from where might the opponent's of Dr. Placik find a politically correct labiaplasty image?

In this matter, even Doc James recognises his limitations (medical, professional, and intellectual) about the subject, because he is an ER surgeon, so his opinion is just an opinion, not fact; likewise Slimvirgin's opinion and those of the other lay editors wrestling with medical matters beyond their ken; here intrudes unpleasant reality about medical articles, cf. Wikipedia: anti-elitism and Wikipedia:Competence is required.

• Andreas JN466 said that Dr. Placik is pushing his numerical definition of labiaplasty. That is factually untrue, because he has chosen to ignore the supplied medical-source citations, specifically: Labiaplasty and Labia Minora Reduction, by Davison SP, West JE, Caputy G, Talavera Fco., Stadelmann WK, Slenkovich NG. (23 June 2008), at eMedicine.com; Clinical Techniques: Evaluation and Result of Reduction Labioplasty, by Rezzai A. and Jansson P., in The American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery. Volume 24, No. 2, 2007; Hypertrophy of Labia Minora — Pathomorphology and Surgical Treatment, by Kruk–Jeromin J, Zieliński T. in Ginekologia Polska. 2010 April;81 (4):298302. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20476604]; and Labiaplasty of the Labia minora: Patients’ Indications for Pursuing Surgery, by Miklos JR, Moore RD, in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2008 June;5(6):1492–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00813.x. E-pub 19 March 2008.

These real-life doctors provided the clinical numbers, and the hypertrophy medical terms, that Dr. Placik published to substantiate "his version" of the Labiaplasty article; the data and the terms are factual realities, which exist outside of Wikipedia.

• "Indeed. Disease-mongering is a terrible thing", said Adrian J. Hunter (01:32, 25 August 2013 UTC). Yes, but where in the Labiaplasty article does Dr. Placik do that?

That I, User: Mhazard9, am mentioned here is flattering, but I am a Wikipedia Editor separate and apart from User: Otto Placik. That I have edited some of his pages means . . . that I have edited some of his pages, nothing more. Timing is irrelevant, because how soon I edit, after another editor, does not mean I am in cahoots with him or her; the same can be said and argued about the coincidental edits of the editors who proviked this ANI. After all, freedom to edit is the point of the publishing enterprise that is Wikipedia; or is that now contingent upon ideological interpretation?

To speak of a subject is not to advocate it, merely to discuss it; yet, that once was the case with homosexuality, Communism, and the civil rights of coloured folk. To defend User: Otto Placik is not to agree with him, or to be him, or to be inherently evil, but, the open nature of Wikipedia, does allow me to edit any article, or is that not so?

Recommendation

Instead of banning User: Otto Placik, I recommend dropping this ANI, and that Slimvirgin and Prof. Dr. Placik workout her claims of factual dispute about the Labiaplasty article. After all, it is only a Wikipedia article.

I shall provide more examples.

Mhazard9 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The key is a willingness to work with other editors and not to use additional accounts. None promotional images can be created and he has created some. Would be good to have a response from the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation concerning Mhazard9 and Otto Placik; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhazard9. Andreas JN466 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

GregJackP, as for the various single-purpose accounts, all of whose edits were related to Otto Placik, Sarahjjohnson123 (talk · contribs) and Emilymiller123 (talk · contribs) were indefinitely blocked; 75.63.221.230 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week in 2009. As for the other Chicago-based IPs that have been active recently,

• 64.107.183.186 (talk · contribs) has only one contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Reverted POV version by Slimvirgin, restored NPOV version by User Otto Placik."
• 64.107.183.115 (talk · contribs) has only one article space contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Restored factual version by User:Otto Placik, Because Wikipedia is not censored, will the 'majority' of four editors please explain their bogus COI-censorship of Dr. Placik's contribution?" (plus one edit to Talk:Labiaplasty).

The pattern, focus and geographical proximity are clear enough without troubling SPI. Andreas JN466 06:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the potential use of sockpuppets or others closely tied to him to help him edit is of concern. Also the edit warring here [59] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• While many of his images are professional looking they are also a little spammy. Take a look at this before and afters [60] no makeup on the before, wearing on the after, [61] no suntan on the before suntan on the after, [62] no suntan on the before however suntan on the after, and same here [63] and [64]. There appears to be efforts to improve the after images in ways other than the surgery which makes them look like an infomercial. Other images however are not so bad [65] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • • Well spotted on the images. It seems to me images like that (lipstick on "after", no lipstick on "before" etc.) are incompatible with Wikipedia's educational purpose, and should be nominated for deletion. Andreas JN466 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jmh649, beyond the question of images and primary sourcing, there are subtle and not-so-subtle POV problems with the text. To give just one example, his version of the labiaplasty article makes dozens of references to "hypertrophy of the labia" and seeks to present labia that are entirely within the normal anatomical range as a "morphological condition" or "deformity", as "congenital defects" and "congenital abnormalities" ("caused by endocrine disease").
  • Phrases like "The clinical indications for labial hypertrophy" (2nd para of the lead) are bordering on mumbo-jumbo. In fact, there is no generally accepted definition for "hypertrophy of the labia minora", and it is certainly no "congenital defect" – it's simply normal anatomical variation of women's bodies, just like there are 5-inch and 8-inch penises in men.
  • To summarise, Dr. Placik's texts seem apt to make girls and women with entirely normal bodies feel that they have medical conditions requiring an investment of several thousand dollars in plastic surgery paid to someone like Dr Placik to "correct" their "congenital defect". Dr Placik's name and location are helpfully linked on the image pages in Commons, and there is his smiling face on his user page.
  • It should be obvious that Wikipedia is at great risk of being used here in a rather cynical way to drum up business for various types of plastic surgery (which is not without its health risks) in general, and plastic surgeons' private practices in particular, at the expense of providing our readers with neutral information. It's a recurring situation that has gone on literally for years, over many articles. Last year we had another plastic surgeon who created a Wikipedia article on the "mommy makeover" that mirrored his commercial website, and then put out an actual press release (!) about it: "Mommy Makeover Presented by San Francisco Plastic Surgeon Miguel Delgado, is a New and Exciting Addition to Wikipedia". The people intended to benefit from this are not the readers of these articles, who will include many young and impressionable teenagers, but the plastic surgery business. The labiaplasty article alone gets well over 300,000 page views per year. Wikipedia allows this at its peril. Andreas JN466 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree with this analysis. Yes remember the mommy makeover issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an unusual unanimity on this incident. As long as notices have been placed on these editors Talk Pages (I haven't checked) is there any reason action on this issue can't be taken this weekend? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed this problem in June 2009 after a spam report. Wikipedia is a sitting duck for the rather clever adverts that plastic surgeons can insert since many people contemplating surgery would come here seeking information. Some quality photos are helpful, but the pictures in question are often promotional, and the editing is disruptive. I'm not expressing a view on how the matter should be handled atm; I guess I'm not sure it can be handled. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible relationship with User:Mhazard9

• Note that Otto Placik was also implicated in the sockpuppet investigation on Mhazard9 (talk · contribs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhazard9/Archive

• In that regard I note that 99.148.69.27 (talk · contribs), yet another Chicaco-based IP, made this edit reverting to an article version by Mhazard9, and eight minutes later made this edit to Labiaplasty, reverting SlimVirgin to reinsert an image by Otto Placik. Intersect contribs. Andreas JN466 00:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• 173.161.79.242 (talk · contribs) is another Chicago-based IP, which continued an edit war between Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mhazard9 (edit summary: "Undid revision of edit-war vandalism 558916912 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)", in the process re-inserting clear violations of the non-free content criteria.

• This was reverted by Black Kite, edit summary, "rv - obvious sock and NFCC violation". Note that 173.161.79.242 (talk · contribs) has also edited Free flap breast reconstruction, an article whose main contributor is Otto Placik. In one case, the IP and Otto Placik edited the article within eight minutes of each other. Andreas JN466 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Labiaplasty/Archive_1#COI ? and following sections contains various defences of Otto Placik's edits by Mhazard9. Andreas JN466 01:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See sockpuppet investigation. Note that both accounts, Mhazard9 and Otto Placik, have edited the same plastic surgery articles, in an alternating manner. Andreas JN466 03:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added one piece of evidence to the SPI that I feel is particularly damning. If you are of the opinion that a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to a community ban, please consider this alleged relationship.--Taylornate (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is more and more evidence that a topic ban is warranted. As long as the editor has been notified, is there anything preventing a topic ban? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism & Edit Block Circumvention by User: 66.87.83.24

The User:66.87.83.24 is persistently vandalizing the WWOR-TV and WNYW Wikipedia articles, further they have circumvented a recent 31 hour edit ban as User:12.53.250.13 by forcing their ISP to change their IP address. The user insists on adding bogus information i.e. added channel 5.3 to the WWOR article and 9.2 to the WNYW article. Channel 5.3 is operated by WNYW as part of their Channel 5 signal and 9.2 is operated by WWOR as part of their Channel 9 signal not the reverse. See here, here, here and here for examples of their vandalism. I would like to recommend that this user have a longer ban instituted and that a temporary IP edit lock be added to the WNYW and WWOR-TV pages so that if they circumvent their ban again they cannot proceed to vandalize this pages again. IMHO these were NOT good faith edits but simply someone trying to take control of the article and its edits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think there is enough vandalism to justify semi-protecttion of the articles at this point. Lets wait if the user would settle. Thanks for the good work, [User:TheGoofyGolfer|TheGoofyGolfer]]] and please report the user if vandalism continue Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What about banning this user for their persistent vandalism, It's just gotten ridiculous because I revert their bad edits and they change it right back and after having their editing privileges temporarily suspended they circumvent it by changing their IP address and go back to making bad vandalizing edits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The same problem, no edits after the last warning. Even assuming he is the same person as User:12.53.250.13 his prior last edit was on August 16. He is editing lass frequently than changes his IP. Quite possible he would start editing next week from a new IP and we would just inconvenience an innocent person who would get his old IP. Lets wait a little bit longer to see if there is enough vandalism to justify more drastic administrative actions Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I am extremely confident that User:12.53.250.13 and User: 66.87.83.24 are one and the same because look at the pattern of their edits, I mean the edits by User: 66.87.83.24 on WWOR-TV are the done in the same exact way that User:12.53.250.13 has done their edits removing the sub-digital channel 9.2 and replacing it with 5.3 so in this case IMHO we're not dealing with any innocents here. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, one more disruption from this user and either semiprotection of the articles or blocking the IP or both. Meanwhile.may be it is worth to talk with this user? Is any possibility that his edits are of good faith? Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
          • No I would say that is it not a good faith edit because in my edit summaries I stated that channels 5.3 did not belong in the WWOR-TV article and 9.2 did not belong in the WNYW article and yet they continued to revert and add the incorrect information purposely. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

cleanup of poorly sourced articles about skyscrapers/construction projects

There is a user, Nabil rais2008 (now banned for socking) who during his tenure as an editor appears to have created a great many poorly sourced articles about construction projects or skyscrapers. Many of them are based primarily or entirely upon forum postings from skyscrapercity.com. I started an RfC after noting that this was a widely used source for these types of articles.

After enough commentary was in for me to convince myself that this really is a poor source and I wasn't just misinterpreting things, I started going through and AfDing shorter articles that use skyscrapercity as a source. (after googling them, of course) and I go via AfD because I was told by someone a few weeks ago at WT:CSD that buildings or construction projects cannot be CSDd, there is no appropriate CSD reason for them. But thats another story...

After five or six nominations in a row via Twinkle showed that the same user (Nabil rais2008) was the creator, I figured it was time to ask admins for help. I don't know what mechanisms there are for review or bulk nomination or whatever, but it seems like doing this manually is a fool's errand.

Open to other suggestions. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, my strategy for homing in on these articles was to use "skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php -list" as a search term, and look for articles under 5KB in length or so, review, google, etc. it just so happens that most of the first few were created by this same editor. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a manual mechanism for bulk nominations, at WP:BUNDLE, but I strongly suggest you do it manually as these projects may have completely different levels of notability, and different technical aspects which may require detailed looks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, as someone who closes a lot of Afds, over-bundling can be a real frustration since it makes things much more complicated. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Esoglou

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([66] [67] [68]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([69] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [70] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [71]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [72], [73], [74]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proceeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

I warned the user yesterday that this had gone on for far too long and that with the next disruptive edit he made, I would report him to ANI. (I had previously warned him in March. What can I say, I'm nice.) He then restored his statement about homosexuality posing a "widespread threat to life and health." The user is clearly not interested in following policy where to do so conflicts with his desire to push his personal agenda, and a topic ban to end this disruption is long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Wikipedia's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh okay, I understand now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.

If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Wikipedia's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.

Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.

Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [75] [76] [77]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?

It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."

Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Wikipedia should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view. The only way the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Wikipedia needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Roscelese's objection to my changing Contaldo's "The Catholic Church also sets out a number of minor arguments against homosexuality ... is detrimental to health" to something closer to what is in the source (here) and finally to a quotation of the exact words used in the source (here). Nor do I understand her objection to this well-sourced edit, which replaced her POV text that presented the Holy See as "claiming" that a proposed resolution would lead to "discrimination against heterosexuals" (in reality against states that upheld the view that marriage by definition is between a woman and a man) and that the Holy See's representative "compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" (it took a consultation at RSN to get her to accept that this last phrase was POV). Nor could I understand fully her objection to my changing from her deprecated expression "he points out" because, as is her custom, instead of removing whatever part of my edit she found objectionable, she immediately reverted the whole of it, including other material that is undoubtedly well sourced. I do not understand her objection above to my saying that a journalist's attribution to a document of the Holy See of an expression not in fact found in the document should be reported as the journalist's account, not as plain fact, a question that I also brought to RSN, where agreement has been expressed with my view. Nor do I understand why she sees as mere original research an edit that attributed to its author the idea (which Roscelese insists should be presented as plain fact) that the word παῖς "almost always had a sexual connotation", an idea contradicted by the account given by all dictionaries of ancient Greek, including the one that Roscelese allowed to stay in the article, but only in a footnote. Nor do I understand why she called frivolous my request for a citation in support of the idea that historically the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was not used to refer to homosexuality: this too had to be brought to RSN, where there was consensus that the source that Roscelese claimed as the basis for this statement did not in fact support it. With regard to her habitual use of "frivolous" as a pretext for not responding to such requests, I must add that, a few hours before she brought her complaint against me here, I sincerely thanked her for implicitly admitting, by actually attending to the matter I raised, that "frivolous" was not a fair description of one such request. However, she attended to it only after another editor had intervened in support of my questioning of her text.

It is not worth while raising here questions about Roscelese's own edits, such as her removal of a surely relevant statement by the Holy See's New York representative that: "The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them", followed immediately by her insertion of the claim that "The church hierarchy campaigns against the decriminalization of homosexuality", her presentation of the Holy See's representative in Geneva in 2011 as "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation", when in fact he did not oppose adoption of the draft resolution and, even if he did, this was scarcely an NPOV way of presenting such opposition, and her insistence that, although the Irish bishops clearly wrote that, if the definition of "marriage" were changed in a certain way, they "could not" carry out certain functions, they really stated in that document, according to Roscelese, that they "would not" carry them out - until yet another consultation at RSN settled that. To her credit I must say that, after I challenged her interpretation of a Reuters account of hostile comments on Italian media concerning a statement by the Holy See's New York representative, she did not insist when presented with the full text of what the representative said.

I recognize that Roscelese is annoyed at my poor attempts to ensure balance in Wikipedia articles. Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance, I in no way question her good faith in describing me as incompetent, unable to read or write English, and so on. Instead of annoying me, these descriptions now amuse me, although I suppose I reacted differently before I got used to them. I have suggested to another editor who was annoyed by the epithets she threw at him that he should take the same attitude, but this he found too difficult. As I confessed to him, too often I fail to hide my amusement. It is hard to hide it in cases like this. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone over this thread two or three times now, and, honestly, I see no clear and obvious reason for a proposed ban. On that basis, I would have to say that I cannot support one, and that, honestly, without such evidence being presented, there would be and is little reason for any additional commentary from Roscelese or others. If you have good, solid evidence to support the call for a ban, please present it. Otherwise, if it is not presented, I think the thread should probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether you mean that you would like more diffs or explanation of the existing diffs (as I said, this is merely a selection, and sometimes the fact that Esoglou is eg. outright fabricating things isn't obvious if you haven't read the sources), or that you disagree that this behavior is disruptive? In your opinion, would an RFC/U be a better format? (Not that ANI is an improper venue for topic ban proposals, see elsewhere on the page, but RFC/U better lends itself to explanations of why edits are bad, perhaps.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

IP making large quantities of bad edits

An IP user 64.6.124.31 has made large quantities of poorly assessed articles. IP user has made frequent pleas for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and has appeared to resort to copy, pasting of assessments. User is also possibly operatiing under different IPs 76.7.238.93 and 65.64.177.48. His abrasive, drop everything and help me attitude is creating a distraction and has had previous problems with following the guidelines in the assessment department. Attempts to coach and help user appear unwanted and ignored.--Molestash (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Molestash. It appears that you have not discussed your concerns on the IP editor's talk page. Why is that? You placed a notice of this discussion on their talk page, but didn't sign the notice. Did you forget to sign? Do you consider asking for help a blockable offense? If someone rates an article as "B" that you consider as "C" or "start", do you consider that a blockable offense? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign the notice just getting back in the swing of Wikipedia here. I have not discussed the concerns on the IP editor's talk page because it appears he switches between IPs making it difficult to communicate on one talk page. I selceted the 64.6.124.31 for the notice because it seemed a more frequently used account. Other users have communicated with the IP on the MILHIST talk page about his poor editing but has not stopped him from continuing his edits. I don't believe asking for help is the blockable offense but he is ignoring other editors concerns and becoming offended by the comments. The blockable offense in my eyes comes from ignoring other Wikipedians, who are trying to help, for the sake of clearing a backlog. By blindly assessing all articles as B-Class, and just running through a backlog to clear it, he negates what the point of the backlog is. He also makes the assessment system arbitrary by not taking the time to proper assessments. I am willing to help the IP User with any questions on Wikipedia but previous history has shows little sign of collaboration. --Molestash (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the IP is able to make detailed assessments at the rate of 2 per minute. More than just dubious. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Since these can't possibly be proper assessments, and are thus actively counterproductive to improving the encyclopedia, I think it would be reasonable to perform a mass rollback of their recent edits. -- The Anome (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with this; this looks to be a case of either an inability to understand how the assessments actually work, an expression of frustration at nobody else rushing to help empty the 'unassessed articles' category, or an attempt to "win Wikipedia" by emptying the 'unassessed articles' category. In any of those cases these are not constructive and should be rolled back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh Airport Vandal

The Bangladesh Airport Vandal, who had been inactive for months, has suddenly become very active performing massive vandalism on airport articles, this time mainly Prague Václav Havel Airport and Heydar Aliyev International Airport, and many other related airports as well. One of the few IP airport vandals, they add fake airlines and fake destinations to airport articles, usually so massive that it can't be right. This guy from Bangladesh is always from 180.149 and 58.97 IP ranges, but has been inactive for a while because key Bangladesh and India airports have been protected.

I think it's time to consider a range block in the order of one to three months.

I won't bother to notify anyone because the hopping IP vandal will not receive any message. Short-term activity is being dealt with by AIV. HkCaGu (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a case for blocking the IP ranges in question. Since the range block is only really required on articles related to airports, and a wide range block might affect other IP editors, this might be a good case for using the edit filter instead of a simple range block.

I've now created Special:AbuseFilter/580 to deal with this. For those with appropriate privileges: can you please check the filter's code, to check that I'm targeting both the correct ranges and the correct articles? -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to include Category:Airfields and its subcategories. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin User:Bbb23's actions on Asaram Bapu

The admin has reverted to his own version of the article and fully protected the article, which conflicts with WP:INVOLVED. The admin has twice removing reliable references to Indian news agencies reports [78][79]. I am also told "Don't unredact that again, or you risk being blocked. If you can't find a way to discuss the BLP issues here without repeating the allegations for which the article was locked, then don't discuss them at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)." How can the discussion continue if the sections should be removed or not? If allegations and their current status is not discussed on the talk? The raison d'etre of Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections discussion is should the allegations be included and their coverage in WP:RS. IMO, WP:BLPCRIME has Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN exception where there is coverage in RS, accusations can be included. But since, RS are removed on the talk, I can't prove the RS coverage in Indian media about these scandals and controversies. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I opened a topic at WP:AN on this issue a couple of day ago and gave notice at the article talk page. Despite that, everyone seems to want to attack me in other forums. I don't mind the attacks, but it would make sense for them to be in just one place. I'm not going to move this, but it would make sense to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. In that article, his edit was challenged and reverted, which, I think makes him WP:INVOLVED. But, he fully protected his own version.
2. An IP made an edit request here and posted a draft of what he wanted to see in the article. I totally agree it was unsourced, the prose style was very poor. He could reject the edit request with some details on WP:RS,WP:NPOV etc. But, he completely reverted the edit request.
3. Redtigerxyz's reliable references were required to establish his points. When I told similar things without sources, I was told, I didn't suggest what could be done and why. And when Redtigerxyz suggested those with references, they were redacted and he was warned when he re-inserted those.

@ Bbb23, which other forums and who are attacking you? You have been mentioned in NPOV forum only (and that was only after when another editor discussed it). And I have told the same thing at your talk page and here in "this" ANI thread too. Frankly, it is a completely unexpected dispute which should solved as soon as possible. I think you are aware that I am more worried with other editors' edits, not you. --Tito☸Dutta 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Amanbir Singh Grewal

Amanbir Singh Grewal Vandalism only. Vandalized articles with IPs, then made a user and was blocked quickly for 3 days, came today off his block and continued with the exact same pattern [80]. A few days back a discussion here at ANI uncovered that his disruptive actions stretch back to September 2007 and that he already used socks. As he will just come back from his one week block and go straight at vandalizing articles again, I suggest an indef block. noclador (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Claims to be the fastest growing religion

There's once again a religiously motivated edit war on Claims to be the fastest growing religion between Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) on one side and NarSakSasLee (talk · contribs) on the other side, with each of them having made multiple reverts today. I've given both of them a {{uw-3rr}}-warning but that's as much as I can do, so now it's IMHO time for a firm hand and some tough talk from one or more admins. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit war between us, I just shortened sources and reworded some sentences. You can compare our edits. Thank you.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous Thomas, after I've replied to you twice, we're not edit warring. We're just editing and reviewing each others edits. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Talk pages are for discussing disputed content or other such issues. Also how can you claim it's "religiously motivated"? A peer review of someone elses work isn't a "religiously motivated" edit war. Further your assertion that this has happened before is spurious - me and Angelo haven't edit warred in the past. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And isn't this what WP:ANEW is for? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You guys, please calm down. Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, I found there is no hostile between me and NarSakSasLee. He is at least keeping my information, a non-Muslim point of view. I think everything is just OK.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that WP:3RR is a bright-line rule, no matter how "right" either or both of you are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of right or wrong. The article has had a massive issue with both Muslim and non-Muslim editors each inserting their own version of history. I've been looking after the article since to avoid conflicts with both parties. That's about it. None of them however, have ever edit warred with me since I fixed the issue. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, please help

This innocuous edit has triggered this mess User_talk:NeilN#A_Good_Editor_edits_and_publishes_not_put_tags.21_Thanks. (read down, and down, and down...) I stopped posting on User:Sou Boyy's talk page a while ago (after three pointers and three talkback templates I think) but he won't stop posting on mine. Can someone else notify him as he seems to take offence to my postings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore the editor or report an admin to have him blocked for harassment. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NarSakSasLee. I just spent my Sunday writing an article. I should ignore him. Thanks.

User:NeilN is scaring me and not allowing me to edit! Please Help!

'User:NeilN' is scaring me and not allowing me to edit! Please Help! I just started donating articles today, and he is wasting my time, by touching my page every now and then, I am getting an email, saying he did something to the page. I am scared, that he might harm me. Tell this harmful person, not to mention my name anywhere. He is scaring me and not allowing me to contribute to Wikipedia. he has "Bitten" me! I am not technologically advanced like him and I fear, he can hack my computer and harm me someway with his technical knowledge. Please tell him not to contact me. I am really scared that he can be a hacker. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sou Boyy (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like you're harassing the above person. Please stop sending him messages. Your clearly making him distraught.

NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NarSakSasLee. I covered Wikimania HK and I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and improve the Indian fashion content, but I am really scared now, as my email is flooded with messages. Thanks for interviewing and helping. Thank You!

Hello Soy. Please sign your posts with either tildes (~~~~) or using the pen icon, signature function in the editing window.

I note that the editor you are accusing of "not allowing you to edit" is actually attempting to help you understand the mistakes you are making. Perhaps you are just reacting negatively and misunderstanding the editors intent.--Mark 20:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I am really scared because the user page does not have a face photo and previously my social networking site was hacked. I am a writer, and not a technical person. I did spend time in it. Thanks now I know how to sign. Thank You! --Sou Boyy (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Note the user's page User:Sou_Boyy and website [81] is strangely at odds with his claims not being technically proficient. Something weird is going on here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear NarSakSasLee, This guy [--NeilN] is stalking me. Tell him not to write my name anywhere. Please help. Thank You!

I can't do much. I'm not an administrator. But if you approach an admin individually it should work. Raising it here won't do much I think. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is the best place to raise a question to administrators in general when you have an incident. Many administrators watch this board and answer here. GB fan 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Still at it. And NarSakSasLee do you seriously think I'm stalking this editor? Why give him the advice you did? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)