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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackash have a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Wikipedia articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Wikipedia. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one [1] in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one proposing mediation, I have just said that I am happy to participate. If you start the process stating what issues you wish to be mediated, any editor is free to add their own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I'll list on Friday as I don't have the time until then. Feel free to list for mediation if you want or if you have the time. Blackash have a chat 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you may be banned from this topic. It might be better to see how you feel about the article after that ban (if it happens) expires. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I’m ready to list, but you seem unsure. Are you still willing to go ahead with formal meditation. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking me this question? I have made clear that I am willing to participate in any dispute resolution process. You are proposing formal mediation and it is up to you to decide what issues you want mediated the propose this formally. If it is accepted then the mediators will ask all editors if the wish to be involved. As you may be getting a topic ban I suggest that it would be better for you to wait but it is entirely up to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban again

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Slowart and Blackash have a known commercial interest in this subject. That is what this is all about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not planing on contributing any more unless Blackash goes unchecked in describing my work, removing, redefining or watering down the word arborsculpture. Check my edit history please, I proposed topic ban for myself and Blackash as I don't need these endless battles, and to be honest, the subject deserves better. Yes the title issue should be revisited but keep me out of it please. Slowart (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There is no established name yet [2] the discussion that lead to this wording [3]. Wikipedia describes not prescribes. Me and my life partner at Pooktre don't care what the name of the article is as long the title not linked to a method or leads to one artist. So Pooktre and Arborsculpture are both out as the title. Google Pooktre it leads to us google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. If you are interested here is a link to a page with the alternative names suggested for the title with references and quotes. Blackash have a chat 09:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another COI edit

Blackash has just made this [4]. Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How about full page protection

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Wikipedia's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.

I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant Blackash have a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I have already explained, the reason that I reverted was that the edit was made by an editor with a potential COI. You do not seem to understand what this means. Both you and Slowart have a commercial interest in this subject that potentially conflicts with your editing here. You should both refrain from making edits that involve the name of the art or current practitioners of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No you said, you reverted an IP,comment diff of Martin's revert. Going by your reasoning above you should have also reverted the 3 IPs who had mirrored Slowart's edits removing cite content, but you didn't.Blackash have a chat 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
5. Are willing to support removal of cited content [5] and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. [6] This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title [7] and this is good example of their style of argument [8]. Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Wikipedia has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is extremely likely that the battle about "arborsculpture" has been waged on the Internet since 2008 or earlier—see northey reams pooktre arborsculpture for examples; Blackash has declared "I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI" a number of times (example). Wikipedia cannot allow those with an external agenda to decide what terminology is used in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note I didn't suggest or ask for the arborsculpture article be moved or what the new name should be. [9]. This is where there was more discussion after the move [10] As to the google link Johnuniq put up, Bluerasberry addressed this when Colincbn brought this same issue up at the NPOV noticeboard. "[11] Bluerasberry quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone." reply link

As to listing for meditation Colincbn was going to list on the 23rd of Sep 2010 as there had been a consensus to on the talk page link but by 28th he hadn't so I ask him on his talk page and then I listed on the 6 Oct 2010 Blackash have a chat 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest there is anything wrong with promoting your work. Nor am I suggesting a canvassing problem. What I am saying is the bleeding obvious: you have a COI and have used many Internet forums to promote your work and your POV. And now you are using articles on Wikipedia to do the same, and that has to stop—you should no longer be permitted to make edits that concern your clear COI. The Google search link shows you have conducted a campaign since at least 2008, and you will never be convinced by discussion or mediation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I was trying to get the title change to Pooktre I would have a clear COI. But a practitioner discussing the overall name of a art form is only a potential COI if that. I'll state again, I don't care what the overall name of the art form is as long as it neutral. I would be willing to believe that I'm a tree trainer but like all other artists (with the exception of Richard Reames) in this field I don't believe I'm a arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Full Protection - Not only is it not within the guideline of WP:FULL to protect a page because it gets vandalized, but if wikipedia fully protected pages because of vandalism or COI editing, then there wouldn't be too many unlocked pages to edit, now would there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, but that is not the issue. The person suggesting page protection has no experience with Wikipedia other than with Tree shaping, and naturally the page is not going to be protected, as I explained above. The issue concerns the fact that Blackash in particular has a long-term interest in suppressing use of the term "arborsculpture", both off wiki (see my Google search link above at timestamp 03:20, 14 March), and on wiki. There is another frustrated editor with a COI (Slowart) who occasionally (over a long period) attempts to restore "arborsculpture" to the lead of the article, but Blackash spends more time dominating the article. The question raised at ANI is whether any editors should be topic banned (yes, of course at least the two editors with an acknowledged COI concerning the terminology should be topic banned). Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. Pointing out online that arborsculpture is not the overall name or that it leads to Richard Reames is not suppressing. (Both points can be verified) Asking other editor's opinions on wiki how much weight Arborsculpture should be given in the article compared to it's references is also not suppressing. Johnuniq just what do you think my long term interest is? I haven't ever said that I have a COI about the overall name. As a practitioner discussing the overall name I only have a potential COI if that. Blackash have a chat 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google search shows you have been arguing the case off-wiki since 2008, and it is not acceptable to continue the argument on-wiki. Your edits always end up by removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article, which coincidentally matches your off-wiki promotions of your business which uses different terminology. Eventually sufficient editors will choose to get involved in order to support the very reasonable request for a topic ban for at least the two editors with clear COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Your understanding of COI is faulty like your claim that my edits always end up removing "arborsculpture" from the lead.

• My suggested compromise when arborsculpture wasn't in the lead diff Please note arborsculpture is one of the words in the compromise. My edit on the article putting the suggested compromise in place. [12] Please note arborsculpture is still in the lead.
• WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
  • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [13]
  • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [14]
  • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [15]
    • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This listing is now showing the pro arborsculpture editors tactics and its starting to look like anywhere I've gone and requested for outside editors opinion on content for Tree shaping. They come in and fill the pages with rhetoric. Mostly these editors don't answer content related questions and they throw mud. I rebut with diffs because if I don't most editors would logically believe them. Blackash have a chat 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not pro, nor anti, arborsculpture. Nor am I pro/anti pooktre. I am simply pro Wikipedia. Colincbn (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Subject Ban-including all editors porting ongoing partisan arguments into this forum, as all appear to be part of the problem. Allow TalkPage ad lib. .These are good editors facing our times as best they can- but this is a group who are apparently using the article to try to change the English language. Here in NoCalifornia there is neither "Arborsculpture" nor "Treeshaping". Disneyland has informed visitors for 60 years- the park's history is filled with magical topiaries- from promenades of Mickey Mouse ficus, to societies of anthropomorphic cacti, to gant electrified tree houses, &theyre all referred to as topiary. Not "Imagineered Sculptured Plants". With appreciation for WhatamIdoing's high-minded position elsewhere, and with respect to the volumes already written- this business offers high instruction about our resolution process- IE., it really doesnt work so well, does it? Barring "changes of heart", any *mutual* subject-banning is probly far more efficient- and ultimately most fair where any editor evidences intransigence.
B/c WP process inevitably gives 'first-strike' users a break. This has long been established within WP policy. This is exactly how WP:Edit wars are won according to the article: It pays to initiate an edit war. We've seen it pay well. Today we're seeing Israel admitting to training teams of paid WP article-seeders who'll cunningly insert pro-Zionist political content wherever possible. Why? Because it works. Because our policies give that "activism" a break. Dont look for "fair" in "resolution". It pays to start an edit war. And that's what this is, in effect.
But WP is a human system with other human faults. Our mediation process does not work. It relies on

1. Two open-minded, open- hearted adversaries and
2. a mediator able to make cogent contributions via some overall understanding of human nature as well as important technical, and any ancillary 'market' issues at stake, and then decide an authoritative yet non-binding resolution-

&How likely is that synergy? You can say "Good editors resolve disputes". Well, but not quite. I see "Good editors" who have no effect at all when there's more at stake than good editing. Apparently "good editors" also quick-delete spam and promotion.

Provided no cliques &/or puppets are involved- I suspect *mutual* WP:Topic bans of intransigents eventually results in fair articles [and Titles] overall, with less time spent re-hashing events. I'm usually for more gentleness, but WP articles should nOT become a primary resource for politics and gain. I do suggest all editors consider using mutual banning more frequently wherever intransigence is apparent. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Well said, although I'm innocent and therefor unworthy of your suspicions. Topiary at Disneyland really is topiary. Proceed with topic ban IMHO. Slowart (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that we are not discussing who is "innocent" or otherwise. Discussions like this arise when normal talk page debate cannot resolve an issue (for example, there is a discussion below about whether "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles"). No one is suggesting that an editor has done anything "wrong" in this case, other than it is totally impossible to achieve stability in the Tree shaping article because of the entrenched interests involved. If a topic ban were placed, it is likely that more arguments will occur, but they will be resolved in due course because they will be between experienced editors who only want what is right for Wikipedia, with no outside influence that may affect their judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilarleo, I think it's important to remember that topiary is not the same thing as tree shaping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, neither does your link refer to what most arborists call tree shaping. The term 'tree shaping' does not occur in that article at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but I linked it because of its pictures, not because of the text. It shows the trees by Axel Erlandson, whose important contributions to the art form you will find described in the article at Tree shaping#Chronology_of_notable_practitioners.

The fact is that a welded metal frame stuffed with sphagnum moss and covered by little houseplants—which is modern topiary, shown at the Disney link—is simply not the same thing as weaving living tree trunks into a basket shape (the first image in the Gilroy Gardens link). If you actually look at the pictures, it's obvious that they are different things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, hello. I see I have may have engaged you- unlike others. Thank you.

btw, all- the topic here is a mutual editor Subject Ban. Revisiting previous disputes is essentially off-topic to this page. Please let's return any re-naming argument to where it is well-supported. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling this is going to end up burning out just like the three CoIs (one brought by Blackash herself). Where are the admins at ANI? Colincbn (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Colincbn I can only remember 2 COI: this 1, the 2nd that lead to here, I’ve searched and can’t find the 3th one. Please give a link. Blackash have a chat 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

nudity on userpages

What is the current community feeling regarding gratuitous nudity on userpages? I know this is a recurring issue, but given the many many recent discussions about why Wikipedia has trouble attracting female editors, I am not clear where the community stands presently. I ask because I came across the userpage of User:LustyRoars, who is an obvious yet unblocked troll, and User:RandomGuy202 who appears to have done no editing other than putting up a gallery of topless women as their userpage. (And, yes, I did purposely entitle this thread "Show me your tits" because it amuses me when people are offended by such things as mildly risque titles of threads but not bothered by the actual issues being raised.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted both userpages, per Wikipedia:UP#Images - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion for images in mainspace that incorporated unnecessary attention-grabbing elements. [16], with consensus saying that such images are not appropriate, and modifying the Rules of Thumb #9 at WP:IUP to now read: Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article. Since we are not a webhost, I would argue that while there may be an exceptional reason to allow an editor to include a nude picture (perhaps they are a professional nude model?), the average editor never needs to include these, and such images should be removed from userpages. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of those recent changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree w/ the nuking of userspace nudes, but as a participant to that IUP discussion I can definitely say none of us even considered images outside of the mainspace when discussing the change. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is ANI the right place for the general question - is there something that admins can do, by application of policy? In the case of LustyRoars, possibly; we can discuss whether they are trolling, and if so whether they should be banned (in which case their userpage will be replaced with a template, thus eliminating the nudey pics, should the decision be in the affirmative.) RandomGuy202? Not really, but then there was nothing to stop you from blanking the page per IAR as it is serving no encyclopedic purpose. Any person other than the account holder reverting would need to show why it it needed for those images to be shown - and if the account holder re-activates after being moribund for so long they can also provide a rationale. It is a case by case situation, I suggest. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but it is WP:NOTWEBHOST either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have anchored the needlessly titillating header and given a reflective title. Delicious carbuncle, please don't disrupt the wikipedia to make a point or, because as you say, it amuses you when people are offended. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not amuse me when people are offended. You have misinterpreted what I wrote, but exactly fulfilled my prediction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't? Then why did you write "it amuses me when people are offended"? maybe you'd like to strike that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is part of what I wrote, so I will admit to being amused when people are offended under certain specified conditions with attached clauses. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed the last dozen of so edits of Lusty Roars (such gems as [17] [18] [19] trying to get Gonville Bromhead's name to rhyme with a rude word, [20] accusing park staff of murdering ducks, [21] [22] [23] preventing the removal of improperly sourced BLP material, while adding false info himself, [24] and just general vandalism) I've indeffed him. Can't see this chap is a net asset to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would you folks react to a nude picture of the user hirself? Plenty of Wikipedians have photos of themselves on their user pages, and if the user were a nudist or some variety of skyclad pagan, it might even be a religion or (legally parallel) creed issue. Given that anti-nudism is itself a religious taboo, and that the law in many places protects nudity (here in Ontario, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to bare their breasts in public), you'd have a hard time arguing that someone should be censored for it. SmashTheState (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess my first thought is I'd be highly dubious that any revealing photo was indeed of the user in question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And mine would be "Can I have a revealing photo of User:Casliber on my page?" Bishonen | talk 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

While it may be perfectly lawful and socially acceptable for women to go topless in public in many jurisdictions, Wikipedia is a collection of privately owned servers associated with a privately "owned" domain name. Although NOTCENSORED is frequently trotted out here as some kind of excuse for anything that people object to, it is nonsense. Wikipedia is censored, and that censorship is the right of its owners, who set the rules. Of course I mean the community sets the rules, but only inasmuch as the rules do not conflict with the aims of the owners. All of which is to say that a "constitutional right" has very little relevance here or on any website. So, I guess the answer to your question is, per WP:UP, no, a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here (although Commons would welcome it with open arms). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per NOTWEBHOST it's not appropriate for the site to let users keep any disruptive personality displays in userspace or elsewhere else. We're traditionally pretty flexible about userspace content, but if something draws significant controversy, the burden is on the user to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose if it's not to be deleted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the conservative, would be censors here need to step back and check the rules. Nudity is not prohibited by WP:UP. Sexually provocative images are. Without making any comment on the images in question, statements like "a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here" are simply not in keeping with the rules. Take your conservatism over to Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As a rule, I'm in favor of gratuitous nudity. However there is a time and a place for everything, and user pages of an encyclopedia project intended for all ages and genders might not the be best place to expose one's genitalia to anyone who wishes to leave a note. Wikipedia articles should not be censored. But user pages should show a level of maturity consistent with encyclopedia editors.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult area for a global encyclopaedia. Community standards on nudity vary widely across the globe. Should the encyclopaedia be forced to conform to the most conservative of those standards because some people are offended by any nudity, or should we aim for some middle-of-the-road approach? It's very possible to have some nudity with being sexually provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, you will notice I started out by asking what the current community feeling is on this, since it has changed over time. While your characterization of this as a right vs left issue is just silly, you make a good point. The guideline does not prohibit nudity, it prohibits images "clearly intended as sexually provocative" (as well as saying some other things about which are open to interpretation). Here are archived versions of the now-deleted userpages ([25] & [26]). Taking into consideration the contributions of those editors, do you think they should have been retained? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing about it being a right vs left issue. What are you talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Take your conservatism over to Conservapedia." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. That is a sensitive response. Sorry. I certainly mean nothing about political positions in what I'm saying here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on, did you look at the archived userpages in question? Do you think they should have been deleted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilo48, user pages are not "the encyclopedia"; they exist to facilitate development of the encyclopedia, which is different. Users looking for Myspace know where it is. See also NOTMYSPACE, which says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." If someone has an encyclopedic reason for a nude image in a user page, e.g. if they are drafting an art-related article that includes some nude Rubens paintings, no problem. If they have a small, unprovocative photo of themselves as a part of their user info, that's generally accepted though I'm not a supporter of the practice myself. But in all cases, they should not turn user space into a personal photo gallery whether nude or not. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. That was the point of my earlier comment that it's very possible to have some nudity without being sexually provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I might add a comment as an uninvolved user. Short of shouting "Won't somebody please think of the children?" I am of the opinion that although Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED I think that gratuitous nudity on user pages is wrong because it serves no encyclopedic value and people hardly come on here and expect to see pictures that should be in a gentlemen's special interest magazine on someone's userpage. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with children? Have you ever heard a child complain about nudity? And how can you possibly know what people expect to see when they come here? If people are relaxed about nudity in their own society, and many are, they will have no problem with it here. I suggest that you restrict your comments to what YOU think of nudity, rather than telling us what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask the question (perhaps rhetorically), the last time I heard a child complain about nudity on Wikipedia, was less than 24 hours ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the specific nature of the complaint? That there was too much? Or not enough? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I plan to boldly defy this rule once I can find a painting referenced in a certain classic animation series. The painting was about a character named Newton Figley, and was called: "Newt Descending a Staircase". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gahhh. Now I have a mental image of a more famous Newt that I can't get out of my head. That's just wrong. Horologium (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if those who don't approve of much nudity at all can see the philosophical problem here? I actually enjoy seeing a little bit of nudity. (And no, I haven't been described as a pervert recently by anyone who knows me well.) If there is nudity here, the more conservative folks will be offended. Obviously if there is no nudity here, I won't be offended. (Just a little annoyed maybe.) Should the more conservative view prevail because of that situation? Why does the view of the more open minded not count for anything once someone with a more conservative view states their case? It seems a very one sided decision making process. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think many people, myself included, share your appreciation of nudity. There is no shortage of nudity here if that's what you are after, but this discussion is about nudity on user pages. MySpace doesn't let you put images of nudity on your user page. Facebook doesn't let you put nudity on your user page. Why should Wikipedia allow nudity on user pages? Are MySpace and Facebook any less global than Wikipedia? Incidentally, HiLo48, have yo had a chance to look at those archives of the now-deleted user pages? Do you think they should have been kept? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Haven't looked at those pics. Don't need to (I said that right from the start), because I can agree with people that some nudity is unacceptable. My issue here is the general position. It was apparent early on from expressions like "changing community attitudes" from those not wanting nudity here that some were claiming and pushing a POV that nudity was becoming less acceptable. No evidence was presented. That's obviously only ever going to be a local POV among certain parts of the global readership here. And I really don't understand the concern about user pages. On MySpace and Facebook, the user pages are the primary focus. They're not here. The encyclopaedia pages are. Novice users don't accidentally look at user pages here. It's not a valid comparison. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need to be seeing nudes of other editors. If they were that good looking, they'd be otherwise occupied and wouldn't have time for wikipedia. Now, if someone were to post photos of, say, the Kardashians, that could have significant encyclopedic value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view, all free images should be allowed on userpages, except in a few circumstances:

• The images (or the page) is not for the purposes of disrupting Wikipedia (simply containing nudity and/or sexually explicit images is not disruptive in and of itself)
• The page is not a WP:FAKEARTICLE or similar
• Per WP:IUP, the page is not primarily a gallery of images (these should be on Commons), unless it is a non-stale draft of a section of an article that is entirely or primarily a gallery.

Whether the images contain nudity or not should be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Novice users don't accidentally look at user pages here. Is there evidence that this is true? User pages are linked in most discussion threads: mine is, yours is. When new users receive messages on their talk pages or first engage in discussion at article talk, why would they not click those links as they do others? Beyond that, why are we focused on accidents? Don't the same concerns apply if they view them intentionally? My user page seems to average about 1,500 views a month. I presume these aren't all regular Wikipedians checking in to see if I've changed. :) My userpage is pretty static. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably a middle of the road solution (in addition to the current policy) is that given that it is somewhat controversial, it should be there only when such has a valid Wikipedia purpose. This seems mild indeed; we ban all types of things from user pages such as advertisements. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be an IP, but I've been browsing Wikipedia and related discussions for ages - I remember Jimbo Wales himself requesting for a photo shoving a shaved pubic area (not actual genitalia but close) titled "Hooray, no more Bush" be removed. It might take ages to find the pic/thread though, it was back in summer 2009 if I recall correctly. In any case, Jimbo's word's the law here, right? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Found it [27] although Jimbo's response wasn't as strong as I remembered. My bad, but check out the conversation anyway in case it provides healthy insights. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a combination of several factors here work: WP:NOT#WEBHOST for one (as compared to a image of the editor themselves, a nude picture serves no purpose to help improve the work), and that while we're not censored we don't stick pictures of questionable moral value in places that people don't expect to find them: eg I expect to see nude pictures on Nudity but not on, say, celebrity pages, and certainly much less so on user pages. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Questionable moral value"? There are cultures where showing a woman's face is a "questionable moral value." Should we bar women from revealing their shameless hussy faces out of caution of offending the lowest common denominator? If someone had a picture of themselves barefoot (say, at the beach or with hir feet on a desk), would that be okay? Would it still be okay if the only article they edited was foot fetish? I am particularly astounded that there's any argument at all about the visibility of bare chests. If a picture of a male Wikipedian bare-chested is acceptable, then that of a female (or other) should also be acceptable. This entire argument reeks to high heaven of cultural bias. SmashTheState (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that, yes, there is a cultural bias. Given what has been reported about the makeup of Wikipedia's community, it is to be expected. Your observation neglects to take into account that as Wikipedia's community becomes more diverse, it is also likely to become less open to certain things as more cultural taboos are added to the mix. Bearing in mind that the phrase "questionable moral value" wasn't mine, your position on bare chests is wholly logical but ignores the evidence that no other top ten website allows such displays from its members. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Is anyone aware of a significant "global" website that allows such displays in public areas? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my question as to why Wikipedia would allow women to bare their faces in their photographs here. Such behaviour would get them prosecuted or even physically assaulted in some parts of the world. If you're going to profess that this is an attempt to placate the lowest common denominator, then you need to explain why women baring breasts is bad, but women baring faces is not. Otherwise, Wikipedia needs to 'fess up and admit that it caters solely and exclusively to the bourgeois morality of middle-class, white, European-descended Presbyterians. SmashTheState (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that was a question. I thought it was just ridiculous rhetorical hyperbole. I would suggest that there may be more than the two options you have offered, but why argue? Wikipedia caters solely and exclusively to the bourgeois morality of middle-class, white, European-descended Presbyterians. I'm glad we were able to find some common ground here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia which we're all supposedly editing collegially, and as such, I don't see any clear purpose to any user photos of a sort that one wouldn't find in (say) the staff directory of a university. That's what I meant by "small unprovocative photo" further up—I certainly wasn't thinking of a nude photo. So, no topless pictures of either gender. There are plenty of other sites for that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What if you are one of the main editors of the Wikiproject:Nudism or somesuch? Wouldn't a nude or semi-nude picture of yourself be perfectly appropriate on your userpage? As for the larger question of allowing nudity (or even sexually explicit pictures, which is a totally different thing) on userpages: many userpages include things like a "section of pictures I uploaded": if these include some pictures with nudity, why wouldn't they be allowed? This doesn't mean that everything should be allowed on userpages, pictures included with the sole purpose of shocking or provocating the vast majority of other editors are usually a bad idea, but a blanket prohibition or even discouragement of nudity on userpages shouldn't happen. Whatever other major websites do in this regard is meaningless, e.g. Facebook often gets criticized for being much too strict in its "no-nudity" policy, removing e.g. breast-feeding pictures from the pages of proud new mothers (or closing down the page for that reason). Fram (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even believe in user names, so you're talking to the wrong person about justifying ego displays such as user photos on the site. We can get rid of user pages altogether as far as I'm concerned. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fram, I didn't find a Wikiproject for nudism. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography does exist. If a Wikipedia editor who is (or was) a pornographic performer joined that project, would they be able to post images of themselves in action, as it were? You seem to be arguing that nudity on userpages is the wrong place to draw the line, and I an interested in where you think that line should be drawn, or are you, like fellow admin Thryduulf, saying that any image on Commons is allowed? Wikiproject Pornography should perhaps consider removing globally banned user Tyciol from their member list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I REALLY don't want this to be taken the wrong way, and I mean no offence at all, but a bit of nudity has never upset me, never, and it wouldn't upset any women I've known either, whereas the very thought of a "delicious carbuncle" gives me a green pallour and the heaves. Isn't that ironic? Myles325a (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't beholden to any State's laws concerning religion or cultural coolness. Of course the laws in, say, Mars, or Ontario are meaningless. Therefore it's proper that what flies in user space--assuming it does not violate any applicable laws (Florida, or the United States, for example)--be determined by the general feeling of the community. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And given that Wikipedia is run by and for young, white, over-privileged, European-descended males on the autism spectrum living in the basements of suburban bungalows in the United States, this means the default moral position will always be theirs. Which is why a woman demanding the same civil liberties as a man will be treated with moral indignation, but lolicon and Family Guy references on every page on Wikipedia will not. SmashTheState (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User Slrubenstein

Please consider yet another evolutionary action for this novice editor This users typical communication style is denigrating by way of unspecified negativity:

• "nothing you have" written is valid; everything you have written is "[completely] worthless".
• After deleting an entire day of my editing effort, without discussion they said "I really do not see how it is a worthwhile use of my time to give you any more feedback". Does this violate WP:Editing policy by removing without discussion?
• following me around, undoing my edits
• demanding expertise (Please consider the WP:experts are scum essay in this reguard.)
• psychobabble where serious discussion with me is warranted: "Wikipedia is not about temptation, and I am not your tutor."

See the discussions hear, here, and here. Slrubenstein lacks knowledge of the Wikipedia culture, is bold, and yet too defensive for communication, remaining silent on issues they might better apologize for. I give it up to you to judge my own hypocritical judgment. I have tried, and so have others. — CpiralCpiral 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset at having your work reverted, in the future you can avooid that by proposing large changes and rewrites on the talkpage before adding them to the article. In this case most of your edits were clearly not based in a sufficient level of knowledge about the topic and in fact completely misrepresented while also not being based in sources. It is a strong word to call your contribution worthless, but in terms of our mission of improving the wikipedia by using the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR to add and expand our article content it was not strictly speaking an wrong evaluation. You are not being quite truthful that Slrubenstein has refused to give you feedback, he has in fact argued at length trying to explain to you why your edits were not an improvement to the article. He said that he would give no more feedback when after extended discussion you still did not appear to understand. He did undid your correction of grammar, but you do not show that he then immediately after proceded to undo his reversal and let your correction stand. Slrubenstein does have an abrasive tone in discussions, that is trur and I have asked him to tone it down sometimes, but he not really being incivil here. But actuallt I do understand his frustration when users undertake major rewrites of articles without doing the basic research necessary for understanding what the actual topic of the article. I don't think there is basis for sanctions here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand me wrongly. I am happy about the reversion, and hope the best afterword, as is evidenced by my repeated efforts to make progress. It seems to me you swerved off early on, and landed at a destination not tied to the original investigative request. Your narrative of events is commendable, but vacant concerning my unmet need, as asserted. My fault and my subjective frame of reference here is not lost to me, and I don't understand why my fault needs to be questioned or pointed out here. Slrubensteins faults are what seems lost here. You have said Slrubenstein is "strong" and "not incivil", but you give no proof, as I have, that there is a problem letting Slrubenstein run rampant. An objective, factual, and specific inquiry into the charges I have laid out here, should be considered.

To answer your other charge against me: per Slrubenstein's talk page, I requested he explain his edit, and his response was relevent: silence. Yes, he did revert (irrelevent), but there was no apology, or effort on his part to acknowledge his errant (and suspicious) behavior and subsequent uncivil remarks to me ("I am not your tutor." he said!)— CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think the problem is that you've been adding original research. You removed sourced material from Cultural relativism, and replaced it with unsourced material such as: "Cultural relativism is the cultural aspect of relativism. Like any science cultural relativism has a philosophy that attempts to justify its structural aspects," and "What is really right philosophically, for being moral, is a question that asks how we know what we know to be morally true in the largest conceivable structure of an absolute, objective reality." [28]

Again, the problem is as the original assertion stated. If there is a serious problem with me, please let it be made a different subject. Thank you. Currently, I am the patient one with the unmet need for recognition of stalking and repeated incivility.— CpiralCpiral 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That kind of edit will always be removed if spotted, because our articles have to comply with the three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. That means you should include reliable sources for any edit likely to be challenged, which is practically everything in an area like this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I don't feel like the focus should be on me or my work. Here I am being accused of lying and misbehaving as if I did not already know I was wrong for my action. If one does research on my style, history, and level of quality, they will find differently than to conceive of my portrayal here. Respectfully, perhaps I expect too much from this administrative body, and I can only applaud the good reminders (that I need occasionally) that I need to prove by citing, (such things as that "cultural relativism" relates culture and relativism), and go on, happily patted and advised on a matter differently than I ever expected could be seriously taken up by more than one councilor.

Nothing to see here. Cpiral, you may wish to request input from additional editors if Slrubenstein's explanations do not satisfy you; this is the first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I being clear? What can I do to be actually heard rather than spoken to? Can I get some acknowledgment here, please? — CpiralCpiral 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but referring to an admin, who has had an account since 2001, as a "novice" is not likely to lead to winning your argument. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Think again, for the linked-to page from the term "novice" shows, indeed that Slrubenstein is a novice editor. Furthermore, I'm not so desparate that I need to flatter my way into the good graces of some lordship's judgement. Who were you referring to? I have limited patience for this so-called "hearing". Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing#The_assumption_of_limitless_patience

• "Novice editor" is a joke.
• SLR's earliest contrib page
• SLR's edit count
• It should have been quite clear from what SLR wrote that he isn't a novice, and is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies.
• You have been answered already more than once, it's simply that the answer isn't one you want to hear: You are wrong. SLR is right. Move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most radical claim of Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is that a set of random processes (including genetic mutation and natural disasters) can produce order."

SLR's first edit! Doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy? Natural selection of course is explicitly non-random, but hey, knowing what you are talking about was never a reason to edit wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elipses, I understand you to say that natural selection is non-randomly "random", and that the future possibilities of life's warmth of mitochondria and fuzziness of mental existence is a strengthening challenge. And in my own way, I similarly agree. But mammalian life will be as narrow in the physics as it is now in the universe. In the metaphysical mystery of "randomness", things exist objectively because societies like Wikipedia believe them to exist. Knowing what one we are ilucidating here, me, or Wikipedia, is speculating as metaphysicians. Any steadfast beliefs I may have may not be, as you say, a reason for me to edit Wikipedia. Your thesis also implies that in the end, the best Darwinian, physically adapted societies and "planettes", accordingly, will survive in existence, and this in turn means we as individuals in a society make metaphysical decisions that risk physical outcomes. Now it seems to me that in the longest surviving societies, knowledge will be widespread in harmonious knowing what to program. We risk as we must...taking care... — CpiralCpiral 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrate the point exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.25.166 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to explain your point, not demonstrate it. Now, reconsidering the original statement I was trying to understand and reflect here, with the additional clue from an IP who claims to know what I only try, I will reconsider, because I care very much. Please advise. The meaning of "random processes (like natural disasters and genetic mutation)" is that it relates to "knowing what you are talking about was never a reason to edit Wikipedia" in the following way: my writing is a disastrous mutation, and it's incomprehensibility, although I may feel comfortable with it, (and carefully select it for posting here) is never a reason to think others should try, because it is a priori wrong, unless cited. Right? Have I got it??

Seriously, I am sorry for being such a dupe for SLR's "novice editor" joke. I have respect for contributors of such magnitude. I would of course not have so quickly grieved or formed an opinion, had I investigated the image of what I now see as the rather large arch hive on the same page as the "barnstar". I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time. I hope SLR stayed busy doing something other than bothering with my whispered pontification.

Honestly, try to understand. I do not like having to summon the ANI, but I only sought a fulfillment of (an illusory and futile) labor. I am wrung-out. — CpiralCpiral 04:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cpiral, Maunus gave you good advice and Slim Virgin explained the problem pretty well. 2/0's comment is a bit misplaced since you're already receiving feedback from other editors, as Beyond My Ken explained. You mention that "I do not have a mastery of the subject, but I am a four-year degree in electrical engineering, and am well read in many disciplines"[29] If you are well-read about cultural relativism then the cure for this dispute is obvious: just cite your edits to reliable sources about that subject. Otherwise, you should probably study the subject a bit before making those types of edits to the article (you don't have to become an expert). Discussing proposed changes on the talk page is also a good practice in these situations. Right now, you are editing like WP:RANDY, which is not a good thing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will laugh, and move on pretending SLrubenstein is a genius politico, feigning a polite silence to set me up because he loves Wikipedia's side-effects. Ha Ha Ha Ha. In all sincerity, without joking, so do I.— CpiralCpiral 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag for the moment. Cpiral, consider this a formal warning: do not make personal attacks against other editors as you did here. Doing so, on an admin board no less, is not conducive to a cooperative environment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I await, but for what? A threat I made?! (I don't think so.) 2over0 and Beyond My Ken said to "move on", and I decided to do so by adding the resolved tag. Please, if the moment is not deemed past, open another case, as this one is too vague so far. Who, pray tell, except a surf or addict will bow down to general denigration or a negation of self, when it is well known that each of us must love and approve of ourself excepting for specific errors? — CpiralCpiral 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've added the "ProveIt" gadget to my editing palette if that placates SLR, Maunus, and SlimVirgin.— CpiralCpiral 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed this ANI proceeding. I see where I was wrong to beleaguer being generally misunderstood, as this is a policy violation forum, and I asked (!) if it violated policy by reverting without discussion! I know this is not a policy violation, but for a novice, any move is questionable. (So I mislead Manaus and SlimVirgin. Very sorry. Thanks for useless input.) I am not comfortable with continuing because my premise was that SLR was a novice editor. When I understood that SLR is a joking administrator of Wikipedia, then I subconsciously dropped my memory of the mention or suggestion (please see that original question mark I made) that any move (such as reverting) is questionable. SLR knows what SLR is doing. When I started "Please consider an evolutionary action" I did not have any action in mind. I was reporting a rogue novice. That report has been made. I don't know what even could be considered an action against good SLR. What wows me to say this is 1) reviewing SLR's home page (which appears to be hung with cited poetry ("Give criticism arms/ And states can be demolished by it") and many beautiful book titles about cultural knowledge), and 2) comparing this proceeding to the one above! [30] I don't want to draw any more attention to SLR or myself such as the Support and Oppose stuff. There is nothing here but my misguided effort to get something done about what appeared to me was a novice editor ignorant of what I consider simple civility. I'm OK, OK? I see where SLR was wrong, but I no longer care one bit about his incivility, misleading "jokes", multiple ANI escapades, and I don't want SLR to change one bit. I am the open-minded, talkative, rational, caring, changling, and certainly, I have every right to avoid being Opposed for any reason. ASAPlease put the resolved template back, someone, for Cpiral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and let me go and write my love poetry. — CpiralCpiral 08:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The upbeat vandal

MrMan12321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do feel a little bad about bringing this here, but user MrMan12321 is an SPA whose sole purpose is to leave 1-line compliments on people's talk pages under the heading "Well done!". I'm not going to raise any complaints, but I would like to raise awareness of this.AerobicFox (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this lemon may have soured after I brought this up. A recent post by him on my talk page seems not so nice.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since this user is basically a bot that searches for random contributors from the Special:Recentchanges page, and then congratulate them for that contribution, and since I believe I speak for all when I say such a bot would never be approved, I thus am voting to have this user deactivated, the same way we would pull the plug on such a bot.AerobicFox (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Don't we all want to have the gift of manliness bestowed upon us? sonia♫ 08:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Editor notified. "Be not afraid of manliness: some are born manly, some achieve manliness and some have manliness, erm, thrust upon them."--Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well done, he was already notified. 2 notices is admittedly more manly though.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well! I archived mine out of sight. This is quite annoying, especially when in the middle of fixing up a complex table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Creepy. Congratulating female contributors for being "manly males" seems quite inappropriate though. I blocked it. —Ruud 21:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, in this cynical world, a truly sincere "well-done" is rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is automatically revoking talk page access appropriate here, Ruud? I didn't think that was standard policy at all unless the user abuses their own talk page. Silverseren^C 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It can mail to unblock-en-l if it desires so. Consider it an occupational hazard of award-givers to be mistaken for trolls. —Ruud 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. I thought you weren't allowed to revoke talk page access unless they abuse it? Silverseren^C 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to wait for that. —Ruud 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate, all blocked users should have the opportunity to request unblocks unless they have abused their talk pages - for starters it makes sure that blocks are applied appropriately, as sometimes admins make mistakes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have the unblock-en-l mailing list. —Ruud 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't reasonable. Most people aren't able to navigate bureaucracies well enough to figure that out. I'm really good at navigating bureaucracies and I have x thousand edits and I didn't know about that - I would have ended up emailing arbcom if I was blocked with talk access revoked (but 99%+ of users won't have heard of arbcom). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The e-mail address is display to any user who is blocked and tries to edit a page. —Ruud 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why on Earth have they been marked as "Banned" [31] ? Also, why was their talk page access removed? I do, personally, suspect possible troll - but this seems extremely extreme. Especially the 'ban' thing.  Chzz  ►  23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of preventative measure I suppose. But I don't understand why talk page access was revoked at all. Ruud's explanations up above make no sense to me. Silverseren^C 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the admin was trying to be, dare I say it, manly? I don't think there is too much to worry about, but unblocking its talk page may be a good idea.AerobicFox (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that people consider saving their energy for worthwhile cases. Yes, rules are great and they should always be followed meticulously, but is it really worth spending a couple more hours debating a satisfactory result? Several admins must have read this section, and if they want they can enable talk page access—I don't imagine that would cause much drama, although a brief discussion with the blocking admin would be polite. Meanwhile, there are lots of unresolved tendentious editing cases to be finalized. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already asked the blocking admin, Ruud, to restore talk page access above. But he went on about having people use the unblock mailing list, something very few (pretty much none) new users would know about or bother to use. Silverseren^C 08:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Somehow I doubt Mr. Manly is a new user; 2. There is already a template on the user's talk page pointing to this ANI discussion which points to the mailing list. Good RBI by Ruud, with the talkpage disabling helping the "ignore" part. I think Ruud's ban (now undone, but whatever) was fine. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The block wasn't actually lifted. Just the "Banned" message from the talk page. mechamind90 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think allowing this user to communicate further in any form on-wiki is a good idea, you either have a seriously bad sense of judgement or need a reality check. —Ruud 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But mebbe he was just trying to reach out to the other men on this manly Wiki while we write articles on manly topics like Key West, Fire Island, & San Francisco! (Okay, someone had to allude back to that unforgettable & manly SNL sketch. Feel free to close this thread now.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that there are five users including myself that are advocating for allowance of talk page access, I think it should probably be restored. We're not advocating an unblock, but just an avenue of discussion with the user. Silverseren^C 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Might as well. I think he's flown the coop anyway, unless he's communicating behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has an admin given talk page access back yet or is this section just being ignored? Silverseren^C 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The talk page is not protected. You can leave a note on it if you want, mentioning the unblock mailing list, if for some reason you think the person might make use of it, though IMHO it's just an invitation to more trolling. I'd say what we currently are seeing re that user is a community ban in the old traditional sense, namely, a block that no admin is willing to lift. That seems fine to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• *waits* Silverseren^C 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent annual creation of role accounts for a class assignment

This report is regarding the following accounts:

• Psyc3330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psy3330 W10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyc3330 w11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 3 accounts appear to have been created at 1-year intervals for a class project at the University of Guelph (random example). Ordinarily I would have taken this to WP:SPI; however, contributions appear to be constructive and in good faith, and no two accounts were ever used at the same time. It appears each successive account was created months after the last edit of the previous account. I notified the currently active account that shared accounts are not allowed ([32]), and it appears the W10 account was also similarly warned ([33]). My question is, what is an appropriate course of action here, if any? I'm leaning towards at the minimum requesting that the w11 account declare on the talk page that he/she used to edit under the other two names, and possibly requesting a block of the other two. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find it hard to take or recommend any enforcement action towards what appears to be a very constructive class project that benefits the project greatly each year (e.g. [34] [35], [36]), as there are apparently no other user conduct issues apart from improperly/inadequately tagged images. I think that one of the problems with shared accounts, however, is attribution. –xeno^talk 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the contributions seem to be constructive (some of the sandbox stuff seemed very good) and that their identity management is nowhere near best practice. However, rather than going for any quick fix I suggest Kuyabribri escalates the question to someone in the Foundation, because they wish to attract and keep new editors (per Sue Gardner's March 2011 Update) and university involvement is part of the picture. No, wait! I appreciate there's something slightly yucky about asking the Foundation for advice – what do they have to do with anything? – but at least they could co-ordinate a discussion about sandbox names (e.g. should there be a naming convention for course roles, in which "Psyc3330" would become something unique like "ca.uoguelph.psychology.3330.Memory") and whether individual students should have their own logins, if only for legal attribution reasons. AFAICS there's potentially a lot of detail here that needs consensus, so trying to create guidelines on the fly will probably be counter-productive. We're not seeing vandalism from this vector, so we have the luxury of time to find an effective solution. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm loath to add only a complaint to a discussion, but I think the attribution/account requirements are rather tenuous and spur more problematic enforcement than they are worth. In this case I think a personal message to each accounts should suffice and unless we have evidence that they really are being used as pure role accounts for a large number of individuals we ought to tread very lightly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's obvious from the editing pattern/rate that it's being used by a good number of people simultaneously (or perhaps it is a very advanced android...), but again, I'm finding it hard to care too much about that, so long as they are benefiting the project with these fully-formed and well-sourced psychology articles (an area that is understaffed as it is). –xeno^talk 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone should tread at all before considering the wider implications. Let's get advice from the people who are running the course (who can describe the dynamics they are seeing on the ground) and whoever around here knows about facilitating collective editing by university classes. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps engage someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination? See also: Wikipedia:School and university projects. –xeno^talk 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. No doubt some models of university class contribution will be more effective than others in attracting editors who will contribute in the longer term. This needs someone who is familiar with the territory. - Pointillist (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've posted a message at User_talk:Sross_(Public_Policy)#Best_practice_for_class_leader_and_student_accounts. - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing me this way. I can't speak for any WMF staff but myself, but I've seen quite a few similar situations with group accounts for classes, because that's just what seems natural to a lot of people trying in good faith to do a transparent Wikipedia project in class (without wading far enough into the rules to find out they are required to use individual accounts). They generally feel persecuted when people start telling them they're doing it wrong and might be blocked. I'd say drafting a guideline about these situations would be really helpful, since over-aggressive enforcement often creates useless stress and bad feelings for instructors who were trying to do the right thing but are too far along once the problem is pointed out to easily change their system. I'd say the guideline should be along the lines of, explain the expectation of individual accounts to the instructors/group accounts, but let them continue through the current assignment or term if it would cause much disruption to switch to individual accounts immediately. The Public Policy Initiative team is working on an information portal for educators who want to do Wikipedia assignments, so hopefully that can be a tool to teach more instructors best practices for these kinds of things before they get started. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Xeno, Sross. We must be extremely careful not to discourage new good faith editors and collaborations. Rjwilmsi 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Also agree. In my opinion some group accounts should be permitted, like constructive academic groups as in this case. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• If group accounts that are editing constructively are normally reviewed as sockpuppet at WP:SPI, something is wrong - role accounts are distinct from sockpuppetry. If they are blocked rather than encouraged to branch into one account per user, then the relevant policy is broken and needs to be fixed. –SJ+ 20:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Soewinhan

Title changed, easier for navigation. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Soewinhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept removing military related information such as battalion composition, names of former commander in chiefs 'etc. and replacing them with text copied from politically biased media sources, which are clearly unencylopedic. I have warned the users that if he wishes to include political messages, he should either put them under a section or include in other appropiate articles or sections in country article. Myanmar Armed Forces is a military stub article and should contain relevant military related information. Come someone please help? Okkar (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the article on the Tatmadaw a stub. That being said, the article definitely has some neutrality issues as is. I'll take a deeper look into it later today, if no one else has done so by then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (??????) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit added by User:Soewinhan here, is a copyright violation of http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma (Copyright 2010. Free Burma Alliance). I have left him a standard copyvio message.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page has "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya." added on the 1st Feb - compromised account?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Ronhjones, you left warnings at my talkpage about copyright violations. Actually, you should check that your sources are replicas of Wikipedia. Compare them with History of Burma. Thank you. I will remove warnings at my talkpage.

Then they are copy and paste edits without attribution.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Okkar, you are going into unnecessary details about that particular part of history. Rarely anyone finds a military article in Wikipedia with several graphs like "Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948" and "Staff and Command Positions in War Office (1948)". Why not you also add all graphs from 1948 to 2011? On the contrary, that article has no history about post-1962 era at all. When I tried to fix, Okkar reverted my edits saying "Overt political messages / POV pushing" and "vandalism"? He didn't comment at talkpage and blatantly reverting my edits saying "vandalism".

3) I have seen several times user Okkar has accused others of vandalism and started edit-wars. Today, Okkar edit warred at May Sweet and The Irrawaddy articles with User:Hybernator. Compare this editions and decide who violated NPOV. He attacks all those who edit Junta related articles.Soewinhan (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact 1 - The talk page of Soewinhan stated that "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya.", however the account became active after my disagreement with Hybernator on May Sweet article. Both Hybernator and Soewinhan used the same 3RR complaints. It is highly suspectable that either Hybernator and Soewinhan are the same person or Hybernator has access to Soewinhan account, or they are working together. This should be looked into. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact 2 - Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article. As such it is necessary to include the composition of troops and units at the beginning of official formation in 1948 after the independance. I have made that point quite clearly on Talk page of the said article. Soewinhan have serious COI issue regarding the article as he persistently trying to include overtly political write ups copied from biased media, which are of no relevance to a Military article. No other country Military article include political messages, see Indonesia and China, both of their militaries are heavily involved in politics as well as human rights issue, but none of their respective military pages include what Soewinhan is trying to include. Regardless of political situation in Burma and alleged human rights abuses by Myanmar Armed Forces, the focus of the article was to provide background history and information relevant to "military" nature. Look, nobody likes Myanmar Armed Forces, but that doesnt mean we have to be bias - we are contributing to wikipedia and we have to be objective to the neutral policy of Wikipedia, otherwise, what is the point of having these articles? We may all as well let everyone use Wikipedia to push their own political views. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact 3 - The issue with May Sweet article again highlight the fact of COI issue with both Hybernator and Soewinhan. Both removed the actual video explanation link of the Singer from the article, which was essential to the hoax news issue and replaced with the version pushed out by The_Irrawaddy media from their website. This is clearly a POV as well as COI issue. However, both of them gang up and run to report me for 3RR, when in fact it was Hybernator, who reverted again after he was being warned by admin. If I have to be like them, I could also persuade other editors to report them the same way they are doing to me now, but I have not done so. So you can see, there is a bit of sock puppetry going on here. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This will be a joke in Wikipedia. We two and others (Hintha, Chris, and many) against you because we believe you are wrong. Try to prove you are right (if you believe you are) rather than accusing and provoking others of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Why don't you surprise all other users contacted with you against you? Like User:Hintha Chris and User:Hybernator. They are well-established accounts with thousands of edits. Soewinhan (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is because I do not share the same political view as you and the people you have listed. I edit wikipedia to contribute, whereas you and the people you listed have other agenda to use wikipedia for citation in political publications - you admitted that openly in your response to Ronhjones above. It shows clearly that you edit wikipedia to include politically biased message, so that these political organisation such as, Free Burma Alliance, can cite them in their publication. If anyone care to analyse these so-called well established accounts, they will no doubt find that all has been politically bias. Chris was previously warned by admins for his political biasness Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the source cited by Soewinhan, for example: http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma, are anti-government political organisations, as such the views and information these sources contains are highly POV and highly disputable. By citing these source to include political message which has no relevance to Military nature to a Military article clearly violate Wikipedia NPOV. Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. See this edition. No citation to Free Burma Alliance. Also, I didn't write anything by myself as I have said. I drew relavent materials from History of Burma article.

It is you who cited to DSHMIR archives which constitutes original research. Soewinhan (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You cite Free Burma Allaince as the source, Free Burma Alliance cite Wikipedia article Burma as the source, you and your friends edit Burma, so it is cyclic sourcing to push out your own POV. This is clearly in breach of Wikipedia Neutrality. Okkar (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a content dispute, but I'm not sure that's quite right. Should we only include the Tatmadaw's perspective on themselves, or only include the perspective of other government organizations on the Tatmadaw? I'll make the broader content argument at the talkpage, but although cyclical sourcing is a problem it's separate from neutrality, which is what you're complaining about (and which I agree is a problem at that article, but probably for different reasons than you do). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Just in case there's any confusion; the Tatmadaw and the Myanmar Armed Forces are the same thing. I use the former because it's shorter.

@Okkar -Accusations without citations. Would anyone agree with you? I know you have a long history of accusing others, excessive use of sockpuppets, edits with COI, and civility. When I have free time, I'll open up a discussion how to deal if you. Soewinhan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesnt excuse you from pushing your own POV, vandalising articles and having COI. Every case are considered with its merit, so please dont try to tar everything in one brush. Okkar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. Anyone with a browser could check my contributions history and see that majority of my edits goes to Burma history before 1900s. Also, this is not a dispute forum or a forum to report editors who disagree with you. Soewinhan (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimechelle COI, Incidents

This user has a conflict of interest with this article and is hostile to other editors while trying to push in inclusions without consensus into a Fringe Theory article Frank J. Tipler with his beliefs that it is mainstream [37]. He has been attempting to do this by citation overkill [38]. This is evident from the talk page of the article Talk:Frank_J._Tipler. He has also previously been hostile [39]. He also has been making accusations [40] (non-exhaustive list). I can provide many more diffs if required. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, including those papers makes this whole affair unfair.

How dare I include his papers which have been published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings.

At any rate, your objection is absurd. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. His requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all you can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. You cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, would you be able to provide more diffs of his accusations? I feel that those diffs show him as a bit arrogant, but not hostile. LiteralKa (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? How many diffs do you want? I could spend a large portion of my time collecting them. But see the latter portion of this discussion: [41].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret having to put the matter bluntly, however Jamie Michelle is a known crank with a long history of disruption at Wikipedia articles relating to this subject. Clearly on a mission to promote the unorthodox theories of Tipler, his repetitive cut and paste monologues on Wikipedia Talk pages are evident all over the internet as well, simply Google the phrase ""the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics" for a taste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that, I agree. (Though diffs would be cool too :D) LiteralKa (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is part of an athitheist crowd that got worked up after Prof. Tipler appeared on a television news broadcast. The online video of this made the rounds and was posted on a number of antitheist discussion boards, after which they started disrupting all the articles associated with Prof. Tipler on Wikipedia, even though they knew nothing about the Omega Point cosmology other than that they disliked its theological implications.

LuckyLouie follows me around on Wikipedia in order to inject his would-be wisdom.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I added the ANI template to LuckyLouie's edit page as an editor recently involved in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some diffs. Some of these diffs are from this administrator noticeboard [42]

[43][44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] Here he misquotes a settlement plan to justify edits against concensus. [50] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that IRWolfie-'s complaint here has no foundation whatsoever. This issue has already been settled. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, and IRWolfie- is here attempting to go over his head. N419BH's requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all IRWolfie- can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. IRWolfie- cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this alleged settlement. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

N419BH is not an administrator.[51] But it wouldn't matter, because administrators make mistakes as well as non-administrators and are usually open to having their decisions reversed if other factors surface. Doc talk 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. "[R]eviewer, rollbacker", I ought to have said, if I could have found out that information, which you have now provided me with.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility problems aside, a more long-term solution might be to request that Jamie Michelle stop edit-warring and abide by consensus at the article: i.e. cease "citation bombing" the article with any and all papers published by Tipler. Continued edit warring might be followed up by a topic ban if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs less citations to papers in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and proceedings. This is what is distroying Wikipedia. We must put a stop to it! Yet this issue has alreadly been settled by "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH.

It's clear what your objective is here. And that objective is not to tell people about how widely-published Prof. Tipler's papers on the Omega Point cosmology are in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and proceedings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, IRWolfie-'s posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for IRWolfie- to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimemichelle, conference proceedings are not peer reviewed and therefore not considered reliable sources for science articles. They are definitely not reliable sources for fringe theories. IRWolfie has plenty of policy based reasons for removing the sources you added. See policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SPS. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, proceedings are peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a standard process of proceedings papers.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about your conflict of interest with regards to the topic, not what occurred in an imaginary settlement (provide diffs). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to Jamie Michelle, N419BH's opinion on the matter is merely one editor's opinion. There's obviously a discussion going on, so one previous opinion isn't sufficient to gauge consensus. Please focus on the current matter. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because how horrible it would be if Wikipedia started citing peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding. Wikipedia could never last were that to occur. This is a horrific outcome, which must stop if sanity is to prevail.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

Oh, so you don't want to be implicated in bringing up an already-settled issue. How convenient of you. Wow, you're really looking out for yourself. You're really taking the high road there.

Perhaps we should all just bow-down and worship you for your selfless devotion to truth and beauty. Lord knows you have only the highest of motives.

At any rate, your posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for you to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy. And N419BH's discession was that all the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding must remain in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle, you need to drop this "reviewer, rollbacker" nonsense, because it is meaningless here - any editor who has been around a while and hasn't misbehaved can be granted review and rollback rights, and they provide no authority whatsoever. N419BH has no authority and has not "finalised" anything. But even if N419BH was an admin, they would still have no authority to make content decisions - the community, through discussion and consensus, makes content decisions, and that's exactly what's happening here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward is there anything that can be done to mitigate the effects of the obvious COI of Jamiemichelle?. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have expressed your own views on the Omega Point cosmology. And I have offered counter-points to what you expressed. Thus, it is improper to say that I have some sort of "conflict of interest" when you have expressed the same sort of interest, but in an opposite way.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the user spends most of his time spamming internet forums with ideological pro-Tipler diatribes entitled "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics" I think expecting him to behave differently here on Wikipedia might be unrealistic. I support a topic ban to include the articles Frank J. Tipler, Omega Point, and Cosmology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your post here violates Wikipedia policy, as despite who you think I am you are not allowed to connect my Wikipedia presence to whoever you think I am on any matters outside of Wikipedia. I will report this.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not and administrator, and I have never claimed to be one. Rest assured that if I was and administrator I would have blocked you for violation of WP:3RR, a red-line offense. and if you look at my post the article's talk page I told you that one citation per sentence would suffice and that you would need a reliable source to claim the theory in question was mainstream science. Furthermore, I told you that each citation should be relevant the information contained in the sentence. Your response was to revert, for the fifth time that day, to your preferred version of the article, claiming in the edit summary that as an administrator I had endorsed your version, when in fact I had not. You have continued to make this claim while continuing to edit-war over the article's content. N419BH 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise support a topic ban. I'll take Jamie at there word that they wish to be a productive editor, but that clearly cant happen while they're tied up pushing crank theories a simple Google search shows they're rather obsessed with. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a history of tendentious editing in non-Tipler topic as well (in 2006, alleges that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing,[52]). I loved this two-hour, 108 edit revert war on the Tipler biography between Jamie Michelle and Headbomb in 2009. Didn't we used to have a 50-revert rule (j/k)? The bulk (but not all) of Jamie Michelle's editing seems related to Tipler and the Omega Point, including attempting inserting it into Existence of God,[53] but I do see some ok edits to computer-related articles and other topics[54]. The 1994 Nature review of Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" is brutal, by the way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An 108 edit revert war? Wow. It appears that Jamie Michelle has been a cyclical disruption problem for 2 years now, and a lot of editors including myself have been kept busy cleaning up the mess. A recent statement indicates they feel persecuted for bringing "truth" to Wikipedia that "God and the resurrection can be proven by standard physics". Please admins, this is a case where you can do this user and the community some good by using your tools. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Headbomb has shown he has a high tendency toward edit warring; I know because he has permanently turned me off bringing any additional physics articles up to FA. I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on Jamie Mitchelle's doorstep here.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that. But I might add that Headbomb wasn't involved in the last couple of Tipler article disruptions. They originated from behavior by Jamie Michelle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

In light of continued POV-pushing against consensus, I propose the following:

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and corresponding talk pages related to Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to discussing the above on unrelated pages. Failure to comply will result in the removal of editing privileges for an appropriate length of time as determined by the blocking administrator.

Commentary

• Support as nom. N419BH 03:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as previously noted. A mandated break from the Tipler crusade is a smart idea, and enables him to contribute productively to other areas of the encyclopedia if he wishes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• As noted earlier, support. -- ۩ Mask 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support JM, please try to edit some totally unrelated topics for a while. The ban can be reviewed and maybe lifted once you've gotten some more experience and built up a good record. You currently have 432 edits of which the bulk are related to Tipler or dispute resolution. It takes a good while longer than that to understand how this place works. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This gives time to see whether or not edits by this user JamieMichelle will turn out more productive results on other pages than any of the recently disruptive contributions made on pages related to Tipler and the Omega Point Theory. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3rr is a brightline policy and it's been violated on more than one occasion, both today (which got a block) and Monday [55][56][57][58]. An enforced change of topic to one where the user doesn't have a strong opinion might help the him understand better how to edit in a collaborative environment. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support We'll then see if this editor is really here to help the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic bans should not be drafted with phrases such as "broadly construed." Try limiting it to just the two specific articles and see how it works out. Racepacket (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Broadly construed" is standard wording, so that the restricted editor cannot wikilawyer regarding their edits to a "related" topic, deprecating those in conflict with the subject or their topic ban for instance, are not covered by the terms. The uninvolved admins are usually adept at determining whether contested edits are related to the topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The whole idea is to avoid further misunderstandings and disputes, so it would make more sense to develop something precise that would avoid future "wikilawyering" and return trips to ANI. The question is not whether there are admins "adept at determining" what they think we meant here, the question is whether the proposal can be clearly understood by JM. He can push other theories, just not the Omega Point Theory. Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with LHvU's explanation: wikilawyering can work both ways. If JM were to edit pasta & be sanctioned because "obviously Frank J. Tipler eats pasta", that reasoning won't fly. On the other hand, if JM edits pasta to add the fact Frank J. Tipler eats pasta & BTW here's some facts you need to know about his ideas, then I'd be surprised, were the clause "broadly construed" not included, if JM didn't wikilawyer over being sanctioned. The point here is to see if can make contributions which improve Wikipedia, not to find innovative ways JM can advocate for this Tipler guy. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks like enough of a pattern of disruption to justify a topic ban... — Scientizzle 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, let's see if they're actually interested in helping the encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; leaning towards oppose in favor of alternative wording; in my opinion, this doesn't go far enough because the extent of the problem justifies going beyond the article and article talk space alone. Some individual interpretations of appropriate lengths of time are absurd to the point I'd remove that mention altogether, but due to the nature of this issue, why force an admin to use a presumably definite period of time if they are up to scratch with the nuances of policy and such rulings? I'd be willing to support "Jamiemichelle is indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed, including talk pages. This topic ban also applies to discussing these topics on unrelated pages. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this topic ban." Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wonder if there is standardized wording from arb decisions for topic bans. If there is (finding out would require comparing a bunch), I'd say go with that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support; it would be a net positive for article content and for the community. I'd be happy with indef too. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Intentional Misuse of Vandalism - by administrator

I want to make a note of a particular nasty mis-use of vandalism by users Golgofrinchian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sabrebd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the page Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I'm being accused of vandalism for saying that there needs to be a reference for black paternoster, that the name of the author of a book called "Satan's invisible world" is GEORGE sinclair, not JOHN, that it doesn't quote Ady; and for adding a section on the catholic origins of this prayer. Since this is a Catholic children's prayer, having a section on that is not unusual!

There may be an editing dispute going on here, or even editing war, but it isn't vandalism, and threatening to block someone because he read the sources, and showed they are inaccurate, name the wrong author, and don't mention something else, is a misuse of vandalism.

I suppose the idea was since I am a new user, that I couldn't complain, and this would shut me up. I think this is particularly nasty, in keeping with "Satans Invisible World", as quoted as the *only* source for a well known Children's prayer being a spell. *FYI And that is wrong as well, it is to a similar sounding, but different rhyme). One user said this article was hard to read, and I agreed and tried to re-section it, but gave up a long time ago. Sabrebd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is relying on the fact that he has power to simply revert and it keep it to what he wrote.

However, this is an editing dispute, not vandalism, and is relying on power, not reason and facts. The author wasn't correct, the quote isn't in there, and deleting my references to a catholic origin of the rhyme - when it is a catholic poem, is ridecelous. Note Golgofrinchian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the last user to remove the information on a Catholic origin. Why?

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Golgofrinchian ≤TALK≥ 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Golgofrinchian is not an administrator. --Jayron32 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. But the notice makes it look like it is? MaxKen (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

(Non-Admin Comment) That notice is a generic one used by everyone when warning a user about vandalism. The general procedure is for four warning templates to be issued, and then the user is reported to the administrators by way of a page that the admins check regularly. Therefore, while User:Golgofrinchian is not an administrator, he has the power to request that someone be blocked. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I let them know about this thread in case their ears were burning. Doc talk 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks like an edit war between MaxKen and Sabrebd (talk · contribs · count) leading to Sabrebd's reverting a bunch of MaxKen's repeated tags as vandalism with Twinkle.example Golgofrinchian reverted to Sabrebd's version[59] but didn't label it as vandalism. There is some talkpage discussion between MaxKen and Sabrebd, which is the best place to work such differences out. This is a content dispute and it wouldhelp if everyone stopped calling each other vandals. Discuss calmly and don't bite the newbies. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am not an administrator. Very happy to get some arbitration on this matter. User Maxken made some edits to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which removed some sources and, in my opinion, did not adopt a NPOV. I reverted some of these changes, assumed good faith and attempted to achieve a consensus on the talkpage, despite my best attempts to maintain civility, explain policy and discuss the issues. So far this was just an editing dispute. After a return for his 24 hour ban from a sock-puppet incident, Maxken then carried out a series of edits, initially without any discussion on the talkpage (the editor having subsequently justified them, but not attempted to engage in a meaningful discussion). In these edits they did deleted extensive material from the article which is based on reliable sources. These edits, example, unlike the earlier ones were simply disruptive, not only removing extensive material based on reliable sources, but leaving broken citations and other formatting problems. After reverting them, directing the editor to policy and guidelines, the need to achieve consensus and warning that this sort of disruptive edit can be considered vandalism. The edits were repeated, including the disruption of the text. I interpreted these as vandalism and reverted them. After a justification on the talkpage by the user, I also pointed to guidelines again. Without wanting to get into the details of this case, there are in fact ample reliable secondary sources that support the assertions about this also being a charm, including work by the Opies (considered the definitive text on nursery rhymes) and by Keith Thomas (probably the most important work in the study of witchcraft and magic).

To summarise, there has been a content dispute here, but my attempts to explain guidelines and get consensus, precisely attempting not the bite the newbies, does not change the fact that recent edits are vandalism and damaging to the article. If we saw these recent edits while patrolling, we would not hesitate to revert them, precisely as Golgofrinchian did, without any prompting from me. I have striven to maintain civility in the face of what might be interpreted by some editors as personal attacks, I am always happy to discuss content and my primary aim is to achieve consensus wherever possible and hope this will be the outcome in this case.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SabreBD. In this type of situation it's best to not use the word "vandal" in discussion, even if the other person is making clear and repeated errors. MaxKen, are you still here? Do you understand what's going on better now? It's really not possible to impose changes on an article by edit warring. I checked page 23 of Sinclair's "Satan's invisible world" (pdf downloadable) and it does show the "Black Paternoster" described in the article, though the connection (if any) to the kid's rhyme is unclear. I don't think the other sources are online so it would take a trip to the library to check them, or alternatively maybe SabreBD could supply some verbatim quotes from the sources on the article talk page. SabreBD's other Google Books hits also don't visibly connect the two poems together (I mean on the page showing the search hits; I can't see the book contents). In literary subjects (as opposed to, say, political BLP's) we tend to be a bit looser about what we accept as sourced and what we treat as OR, but I think we do need clearer documentation of the "origin" story than what's currently in the article.

I don't see a problem with describing the poem as Catholic, since Ady (per the article) apparently says "popish charm" which means the same thing. The dispute here seems to be over the appropriateness of having stuff about witchcraft and satanism in an article possibly directed at children (MaxKen objects to this). It's certainly the case that some kids rhymes and stories (like Grimm's Fairy Tales) have unwholesome origins (I was going to mention Ring Around the Rosie but its connection to the plague seems to be a myth). The stuff in this revision is interesting and maybe the best approach is to split or move the white/black/green Paternoster stuff to a separate article with a cross-link. Would that satisfy MaxKen and SabreBD? Alternatively, try an RFC. FWIW, the version of the poem that I remember went "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you saddle a rat and I'll jump on". 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My ears did tickle a bit, I do have a bad cold. However, being my name was mentioned here several times let me throw in my .06 cents. I am NOT an administrator and I never indicated anywhere I was. I used the term editor and user with rollback on any of the talk pages this is discussed. I only patrol with Igloo or Huggle. I have no vested interest in the article outcome other than to try and keep it within the guidelines. During a patrol I came across an edit being made by MaxKen. It appeared at that time to remove sound information and replace it with biased content. I did 1 revert. That is all. I left MaxKen a few notes on either my talk page or elsewhere indicating he needed to get all of his ducks in a row as it were before removing work done by previous editors. It is interesting how my single revert coincided with another editor independent of one another. I do not know SabreBD nor had we conspired to remove any edits by MaxKen. I gave a fairly civil reply to him on my talk page but I believe he may feel ganged up on. I did not report him for vandalism. I did 1 revert on an article that appeared to not be sound. I then wrote MaxKen indicating how he could improve his chances for having his input to the article accepted. I then find I am being reported here and I have a nice reply on my talk page doubting my intent. It all seems a bit excessive but thats just my opinion.Golgofrinchian ≤TALK≥ 11:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Golgofreinchian, IMO it was a error to warn MaxKen for vandalism when this is a content dispute, though the situation was a bit confusing due to the prior edit history. It's understandable that people get upset at being called vandals when they're trying to fix what they see as a problem. Anyway, now that a clearer understanding is emerging, I hope everyone can let go of leftover ill feelings and try to work this out collegially. Making more progress will probably require examining SabreBD's sources which means getting hold of printed books, unfortunately. MaxKen, if SabreBD's sources hold up at all, given how this place works I wouldn't expect a think of the children rationale to get much traction among the general editors. We have a separate WikiJunior subproject for kids' books and you might like that better. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 75.57.242.120 on this matter. If the 2 main editors in this can step back, breathe and talk it out I am sure they can come to a consensus with the article. Maybe they add a section for their viewpoints so they are both allowed in the article. This may bolster a NPOV view by presenting all of the facts. As far as my warning it was done through Igloo and it is an automatic template. I have no control over the level of warning, being there were 3 previous warnings placed there it automatically gives a level 4 warning. In the spirit of not edit warring I generally will only revert 1 edit on an article that appears to be made in good faith or attempts to add information, but in a poor manner. This leaves it open to other rollback users to verify the validity of the rollback I made. If they find the same issue and also roll back it is sort of a double check. So at this point it just appears to be a conflict between 2 editors. Hopefully they can find a common ground and work it out. Thanks Golgofrinchian ≤TALK≥ 13:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those above for comments. A lot to respond to here, but I will try to keep it as brief as I can. Just to be clear there are two seperate issues. First, a dispute over content and POV and secondly the issue of when removal of legitimate material is considered vandalism. The content dispute needs to be resolved, as I have repeatedly stated, on the talkpage of the article. Since I did not feel I could get MaxKen to understand this, my plan had been to seek some conflict resolution. If we can get back to discussing this on the talkpage of the article I will be very happy. The second issue was disruptive editing that I considered vandalism. I wish to underline I was not attempting to use reversion of vandalism to conduct and edit war, to revert a POV issue or force someone to the talkpage, but because I considered the fragmented state in which the article was left as vandalism and thus a step up from previous edits, for which I was able to presume good faith. However, if that form of editing stops then the problem simply goes away. On the content issue, I am lothe to get into the details as that should really be done on the talkpage. However, it is not much use if it is just ignored and reversions made, so I think some process and guidelines may need to be agreed before proceeding.--SabreBD (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest forgetting about the vandalism issue at this point (mistakes were made in the past, just leave it at that) and restarting discussions based on the present state of the article, if that's ok with the involved parties. We haven't heard from MaxKen in a while so let's see if he's still here. I agree that content discussion should be on the article talk page so we should probably just adjourn to there at this point. It's best to avoid having multiple discussions in separate places about the same basic topic, as that gets unwieldy. It's fine to put a link on the article talk page back to the ANI archive page for this thread, once it is archived, if you think this thread contains anything worth referring back to. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with that, but it would be useful if MaxKen could signal that he understands the processes and significance of the talkpage. It would also be useful if interested editors could take an interest in discussions, otherwise it is likely to be a two-person stand off. It might be helpful if someone prompts him/her. Maybe they are just busy, but it can be hard to follow these multiple thread pages and that would be better coming from someone else.--SabreBD (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fisted Rainbow unblock request

Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
211.28.221.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was patrolling CAT:RFU and I came across this user who was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats on February 22 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The user in question has issued a statement, as suggested by the blocking admin, retracting his legal threat. Since JamesBWatson is on leave, what do you guys think about unblocking him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the socking he was doing under his IP following the block? On the flip side, is there any substance to his claim that he was subjected to personal attacks for 6 months? And if so, has anything been done about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through all of Fisted Rainbow's contributions, and even gone so far as to search for "Fisted Rainbow" using the search box. The only relevant page I can find is Talk:Earthcore. There are some comments that could be classified as personal attacks, though they are far below the severity of Fisted Rainbow's legal threats. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) _{(edited on 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) by — Oli ^OR Pyfan!})

Maybe before he gets unblocked, he could be asked to provide maybe 3 diffs of what he considers to be the worst personal attacks? The rationale would be that he's liable to end up right back where he was, unless he can justify his previous complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea, I'll ask him for a few diffs on his talk page. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure he's familiar with things like diffs, so I've provided a few in response to your request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Boing! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who knows the backstory here, I'd ask for him to be unblocked as well. I don't think he was aware of NLT until he was blocked, and the "IP socking" was him removing those legal threats before requesting an unblock. As to the personal attacks, one can only look at the giant morass that is Talk:Earthcore and it should become rather obvious why he said what he did. I'll notify Boing! said Zebedee of this thread, since he was also involved in this earlier. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This sure doesn't seem like merely "removing [the] legal threats before requesting an unblock". Not a very nice tone, either. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock. Yep, he has been subject to a lot of personal abuse, much of it defamatory allegations about him and his business (some of which is now gone). He was justifiably upset about it all, and I think the legal threat was simply borne out of frustration. I've interacted with him, and I think it's safe and fair to unblock him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this all started when someone repeatedly added defamatory allegations to the Earthcore article itself, not just the Talk page, when I misunderstood myself and made some erroneous judgments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what the argument was all about. User:Cognitive Dissident had repeatedly added that Controversies section to the Earthcore article, blaming it all on User:Fisted Rainbow as an organizer of Earthcore - although the source did not support any such accusation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a personal attack. Since that Cognitive guy is still theoretically active, how likely is it that this skirmish will continue where it left off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking the guy certainly seems reasonable at this point. The Cognitive guy, who has never been blocked and apparently sometimes edits from IP's, maybe needs to be watched also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a few more personal attack diffs at User talk:Fisted Rainbow#Personal attacks. There has to be a strong chance it will continue, but I have the article and the two users' talk pages watchlisted now, and I'll have time to deal with any problems (sadly I didn't have time to try to help when it last kicked off). I'm surprised to see User:Cognitive Dissident has no warnings (though he has made a lot of his attacks from IPs), but I'm happy to deal with him - if he posts another personal attack, I think an "Only warning" followed by a block is probably the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Copies of the diffs - [60], [61], [62] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to the specifics of the case but I am concerned that the user circumvented his block to slam the blocking admin for taking a wikibreak which for all we know might've been forced by RL issues. Not very nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That was regrettable, but it could be argued that he did get poor service from us. When this all started, I misunderstood and incorrectly reverted against him, as did others. And he got little help with the most recent spate of personal attacks on the article Talk page - actually getting blocked himself for acting out of frustration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that simple block evasion is something we should be prepared to see in new users being blocked. Not to say that we should condone it, but we shouldn't see it as equivalent to block evasion from a long term editor who ought to know better or socking. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - it looks like he registered to be able to defend himself against the defamation, and doesn't have much Wikipedia experience otherwise -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While I don't see anything wrong with the unblocking, his/her complaints seem even more strange since as mentioned at the beginning JamesBWatson blocked them on the 22nd February. They made some unblock requests which were judged to insufficiently allay the legal threat concerns in the proceeding day or two then disappeared for a few weeks. In the mean time about 2 weeks after the block JamesBWatson [63] went on a wikibreak. Whatever problems in the way we dealt with them, it's clearly unreasonable to expect an admin to have hang around for ~3.5 weeks after their blocks so they can deal with any issues arising from someone requesting an unblock. So even if it was a completely planned wikibreak, I don't see anything wrong with what JBW did. I've left a message on FR's talk page informing them of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and unblocked him, conditional on that he stops making these attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've offered on his Talk page to help should there be further defamatory claims, and urged him to let me know rather than reply in kind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal information?

Resolved

 – Nothing can be done. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm writing this report because here there has been a user putting someone's personal name on the page (whether it's actually his or not, I don't know). I'm sure theres probibly nothing that can be done with this within Wikipedia policy but I just wanted to be sure. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be done unless it is proven to be another person's name. I think we can AGF and say that it is the editor's own personal information in this case. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The first name mentioned is a reference to Robin van Persie; the second name mentioned seems to an attempt by the poster to sign their own name (which is also contained in their username). In short it seems to be just a good faith but misguided attempt by User:EBettencourt to use the talk page as a discussion forum for this documented sporting event. Being a featured article, the article itself doesn't indulge in sufficient WP:RECENTISM to discuss this at all. So nothing needs doing other than very politely asking the user not to use the talk page as a forum (and maybe they were doing nothing more than implying it should be discussed in the article, in which case even more good faith can be assumed). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven

I was shocked to see this sort of behavior from an admin. He made these 1 2 edits to a userbox I created. I don't know what the policy on editing other people's userboxes is, but it's obvious that his edits were a hostile action meant to destroy the intended meaning of the userbox. He admitted his actions were over the line, but I still felt it necessary to report it since it came from an admin. Also, he deleted a subpage of my user page. Honestly, I don't know what was on it, if anything was on it. But given those two edits, I can only interpret the deletion as a hostile instance of trolling. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• He's acknowledged his action was over the line with the userbox (and frankly the box is/was darn misleading) and used no tools, I don't see an issue for ANI there. If the deletion wasn't of a blank page, then there may well be a problem. Can any admin clarify what was deleted? Hobit (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The actual userbox is a separate issue. His intentions were not to improve or correct the userbox but to hijack its meaning. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd view it as an attempt to correct a misleading userbox. In any case his edits were inappropriate IMO. He has acknowledged that. If he does something similar in the future that would be a problem. That said, the only potential abuse of his admin status would be the deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's the kind of junk that should not be on any user page in any form, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It does nothing to contribute to the project, and just serves as a thumb-one's-nose-at-my-ideological-opponents. For the record, this would apply to someone who had the attempted alternate version on their user page as well. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a simple scientific fact. What's "thumb-one's-nose-at-my-ideological-opponents" about it? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Stating "it is a simple scientific fact" is uninformative. I could list a number of "facts" from a certain point of view that would certainly be loaded rhetorically. It is a provocative statement on an emotional issue and contributes absolutely nothing to the project. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Please delete the userbox per NOTSOAPBOX. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of User:NYyankees51/Userboxes seems like a non-issue. It contained a draft of the current userbox of interest and was blanked six minutes later, the two edits only by NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) two days ago. It fits WP:CSD#G7, so the deletion doesn't appear improper, but it can be undeleted if you want. Other than such a request, I don't see any necessary admin action. — Scientizzle 22:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Looks like a case of pro-life vs. pro-choice. I doubt this ANI would even exist if it weren't for that. Dachknanddarice (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Userbox recreated by user. Deleted per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and salted. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Now User:Bishonen has deleted the userbox entirely, claiming consensus here and that WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies. What is going on here? How was that userbox any more controversial than the rest of them? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally accepted as a keep argument. In fact, I think what you've said is less of an argument for keeping your userbox and more of an argument that there are many others that ought to be nuked also. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. But in any case, there was no consensus or policy on which to base removal. Can it be restored? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe submit it at MfD? Basket of Puppies 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Several categories of WP:NOT apply here (specifically, per Bish, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but as pointed out in collapsed section also WP:UP#POLEMIC). MfD is the more usual and less controversial method to delete it, but admins can delete with sufficient justification without the whole process. I would have taken this to MfD just to avoid this type of lingering argument over validity of the action, but that's personal preference and not any belief that Bish did something wrong.

A Deletion Review ( WP:DRV ) can be performed, if no admins are convinced that this was stunningly wrong and just unilaterally restore it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really polemic to put one userbox on your userpage. I don't think this one is any better or worse than any of the other political userbox that could be found on a great number of other userpages. I'd rather get rid of all of them, but if we aren't going to do that, I don't see why to single out this one. But use WP:DRV. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the first step is to discuss it with the deleting admin. There's an open request on the admins page to reconsider the deletion. When and if that discussion doesn't result in agreement between the parties, then it can go to DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: @ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 17 — Scientizzle 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scientizzle. I have explained my reasoning on my page. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Could an uninvolved admin please review this talk page comment - I'm concerned it's potentially libelous

Moved from WP:AN.  Sandstein  07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

JamesBowen (talk · contribs), who states that he is the James Bowen who has been involved in promoting the concept of a Battle of Australia has just posted this statement on the article's talk page which makes some pretty strong criticisms of the integrity of the prominent Australian historian Peter Stanley (who used to head the history section of the Australian War Memorial and is now the senior historian at the National Museum of Australia and has published articles and a book disputing that there was a 'battle for Australia'). These comments don't really relate to the discussion of how to change the article which I and other editors were involved in, and appear to be a continuation of the attacks made against Stanley on Bowen's Battle for Australia website here. Bowen has been heavily involved with the Battle of Australia article recently, mainly (in my view as an involved editor) to promote his views of this disputed concept. Could an uninvolved admin please review this comment and situation and take action as appropriate? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Includes such statements as "I suspect Dr Stanley knew that he was not being truthful when ...". This looks like a misuse of Wikipedia to continue a real-world scientific and personal disagreement, and should result in a block until we are persuaded that it will not reoccur.  Sandstein  07:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have noted that I'd warned the editor ([64]) for previously posting unreferenced material critical Stanley into the body of the article about a month ago. I've also warned him about COI issues here and here. EyeSerene (talk · contribs) reiterated these warnings here and here. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending material, left a note on Bowen's talk page. Rev/del(how do you spell the past tense of this nonexistent verb?) as well. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Rev/del'd". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What Nick said :) I suspect this may be back at ANI in the near future, but I hope I'm wrong. EyeSerene^talk 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cask Thomson (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – Closed by Lear's Fool. lifebaka++ 10:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, just wanted this AfD closed as it's gone over 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Alvez3

User:Alvez3 made this posting on my Talk page which IMHO is an unprovoked/unjustified personal attack . He/she changed some long-standing text (in place for at least 2 years) in the Nomenclature section of Byzantine Empire – a section which has been controversial but is now stable and the article itself is FA. I’ve reverted with edit summaries and a posting on the article Talk page explaining why I believed the text should be left as is. He/she hasn’t posted a reply (but has posted his view on my Talk page, but without commenting on the points I made in the article Talk). He’s reverted my reverts (in which I was trying to maintain the long-standing text) 4 times over 7 days. (Sorry, I’ll probably be criticized for my reverts. After my last revert, I did post a 3RR warning on his Talk page - which he deleted - in which I said I wouldn’t revert again even if he reverted. He reverted again.) I think I’ve been civil throughout, but he doesn’t seem to understand that per WP:BRD he needs to obtain consensus to make his change. Is there anything that can be done about that or the personal attack per WP:NPA? (I've notified the User of this thread on his/her Talk page) DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have warned Alvez3 about personal attacks, also about edit warring, and told him to engage in discussion. DeCausa, yes, you were edit warring too - if I blocked Alvez3 I would have to block you as well. I see the page is now locked. Hopefully discussion without personal attacks can proceed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. DeCausa (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaining about edit-warring while edit-warring himself is typical behavior for Decausa. It's something he's done repeatedly. At some point, being lenient just means being taken advantage of. Mindbunny (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

After perusing this thread I visited Byzantine Empire and reverted to the long-standing version. It seemed appropriate to me that that version should prevail on this featured article whilst any discussion took place. Alvez, responded by putting this on my talk page, a personal attack of the same sort that Elen warned him about. I replied to his message on my own talk page and urged him to participate in the discussion at the article talk page, something he still hasn't done. Naturally, since I replied on my own talk page, I dropped a talkback template on his. He responded to that with this (my "demeanor" consisted at that point of a single revert) and this. Take a look at that last one. He's threatening to file a complaint because I let him know that I had replied to him on my talk page. This unfortunate fellow really seems to have gotten the wrong idea about how things work here. Isn't there some way an administrator can help him to see things more clearly?

Also, just as a note, from what I can see at the history page of "Byzantine Empire", no one has committed more than a single revert a day there for at least the last several days. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked him (note, I made a hash of it and accidentally listed it as edit warring to start with, but he hasn't edited the article since this started). He needs to communicate better with people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For information, Alvez3 just before he was blocked posted this on my Talk page in which he accused me of recruiting someone to edit war on my behalf! I presume he's referring to Steven J. Anderson, with whom I've never had any interreaction. I think he's just pretty clueless on Wikipedia processes/policies e.g. he complained about me putting putting an note about the existence of this thread on his Talk page as it "clearly looks like an attempt to influence an ongoing dispute by demonstrating authority where there is none"! DeCausa (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this always bad form: "After perusing this thread I visited Byzantine Empire and reverted" The only effect of reverting because you object to an editor's behavior is to inflame whatever content dispute it is that is aggravating the editor. Other than obvious exceptions like vandalism, edit articles because your opinion about the content, not about the editor's behavior.Mindbunny (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Bunny stop trolling/baiting...none of this is any of your business right? After the last ANI thread where you whined that people shouldn't be following others around...how are you not a hypocrite here? ...and yes, your bad faith edits have my attention.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

COI editor adding selfsourced content to Dolphin drive hunting

A new user Jddlondon who appears to be John Dineley, an aquarium industry consultant and the owner of marineanimalwelfare.com is adding content sourced to the latter to the article, doesn't react to notes and warnings on his talkpage and just started socking as IP 86.161.133.54. Could an admin please take care of this? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

posting personal information about another editor

Administrative action is required against User:IntrigueBlue for posting personal information [65] [66] in an attempt link a real-life person to Wikipedia edits - against WP:PRIVACY. IntrigueBlue has been warned to stop disclosing the personal name of his target, [67], and was also chastised in a recent ANI, [68] but the message has not gotten though. "Outing" is a form of harassment and is a serious concern, even if it is not true, and it should not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If Ralph D. Scurfield is claiming elsewhere that he is editing that Wikipedia article, it is hardly a case of outing an editor. Pointing out a credible concern that an article is being edited in POV fashion by someone with a conflict of interest is valid. Resolute 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think this comes under WP:OUTING either. IntrigueBlue hasn't linked a name to an IP address and they've said that one of the accounts "claims to be" rather than "is" the person mentioned. If that is indeed what the account has claimed, then cautiously repeating that claim (ie leaving open the possibility that it may be false) shouldn't be a problem. Reading the ANI thread you've linked, consensus seems to be that this is OK; I'd say IntrigueBlue has posted in line with what they would have understood the conclusion of that thread to be. EyeSerene^talk 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the message as far as I can see - if someone claiming to be Joe Blow is editing Joe Blow's article, then it is worth mentioning it, as there may well be several issues arising. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like IntrigueBlue attempted to respond to this section but it was lost in some sort of strange edit conflict [69]. (I wasn't logged in when I initially edited but logged in in the background then submitted and then had a session error so just resubmitted, I guess this contributed in some way.) I have informed him/her of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation, Nil Einne.

This issue has been discussed at some length, as Onthegogo has observed. However, I'm concerned that he/she may not have completely read the discussion before linking it and starting this new section. The general consensus, following a RFC, was that the only issue was that I stated as fact what was only a claim. In my repeated comment on Talk:Sunshine Village, I corrected this error, after first discussing the matter with the involved administrator. I see no reason to have this discussion again, as to the best of my knowledge it has been adequately addressed. WP:OUTING is explicitly not applicable to repeating information provided by other editors. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with the dismissive responses by Resolute, EyeSerene, and Elen of the Roads (even more so when they repeat the name of the targeted person in this forum). IntrigueBlue is defending his "outing" actions (which by WP:PRIVACY is defined as a form of harassment) by claiming that the target of his harassment has identified himself and has also been removing content from the article. However, the only removal of content from the article in the past week was made by myself, and I am not and have never claimed to be that person. Onthegogo (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's no specific prohibition against an editor using their real name as their user name, although WP:REALNAME points out the inherent issues with doing so. That said, I must concur with Resolute et al that this isn't a case of WP:OUTING, since the editor in question has apparently used their real name as their username. Referring to such an editor, by definition, can't be outing, since they already "outed" themselves. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that the editor in question used their real name as their username is wrong. I can find no evidence of that. The claims of IntrigueBlue are suspect and should be verified as he may have his own COI. Onthegogo (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be something a CheckUser would need to verify, one way or the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement was originally made by 207.229.0.198 here, but was prematurely removed by an administrator during the original ANI process. Unfortunately, there's no way to reverse an edit deletion after the conclusion was overturned, as it most certainly was if you review the original discussion.

Assuming that I have a COI in this matter is a violation of good faith. I do not have any association or prior experience with the subject of the article or the individual in question, and am merely reacting to conduct and discussion on the two articles. As far as COI edits go, please review the edit history. Most of the anon edits, including two by 207.229.0.198, have removed information critical of the organization, as I must observe also applies to your own edits to the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW they can be undeleted if it is decided to do so. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this discussion. IntrigueBlue's position is that because some IP address allegedly once claimed to be Ralph Scurfield, IntrigueBlue and other editors are now permitted to violate BLP policy to insinuate that an identifiable living person is making COI edits? And now IntrigueBlue is insinuating that I have a COI because I have stated my opinion that it is not appropriate to list a minor personnel issue concerning four former employees in an encyclopedic article about a ski resort with 700 employees. Does IntrigueBlue think that every editor who disagrees with him on this article is Ralph Scurfield? If not outing, then it is a violation of BLP policy and it must not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely involved on this, but I hold now as I held during the last ANI discussion on this: IntrigueBlue is stating only things that were explicitly stated on Wikipedia. This is by definition not outing, because it doesn't involve external information. While admins agreed that it is wrong to definitively state that a certain IP is automatically a certain real world identity, since IPs can change, there is nothing wrong with reminding editors that semi-protection is ending and that we might see a repeat of IP editors making changes without discussion. As to whether or not this belongs in the article, that's a content issue, which should be handled at the article talk page; if you (Onthegogo) feel that there is a BLP violation by keeping that info in, then you should raise it on the BLP noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only editor who I think is Ralph Scurfield is the one who explicitly stated that he is Ralph Scurfield. It's not that complicated. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously complaining about IntrigueBlue insinuating you have a COI here after you accused him of same? Seriously? ... Ultimately, the statement that there appear to be POV issues with potentially COI editors is credible. It is also credible to state that BLP issues have occurred in the past at both Sunshine Village and Ralph D. Scurfield and it is prudent to note the fear that these edits could pick back up now that protection has expired. As to the value of the section on the fired employees, I am not a big fan of highlighting it by putting it in its own section, but lets face it, the firings certainly have notability beyond the immediate Calgary/Banff region. Where to place it, and how much emphasis to put on it is an editorial matter, not an administrative one. Resolute 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to out a Wiki user and intimidation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Babasalichai

This is a blatant and clear attempt to out a Wiki user and intimidation. Pls assist. Babasalichai (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sockpuppetry investigations are not WP:OUTING any more than looking up the WHOIS information on an IP account is. Looks to me like an ill-advised attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Babasalichai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jonathangluck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jonathanglick13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A quick perusal of the SPI shows from overwhelming behavioral evidence and self-identification that these are all the same user. Since Jonathangluck is currently blocked, this means that he's evading that block. He should have his block reset, possibly extended, and the other two accounts should be indeffed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It can be entertaining when the subject of an SPI goes to the SPI page and digs the hole even deeper. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*passes the popcorn* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Claim of Impostor

Resolved

Hello, IP 216.171.185.194 has made a claim [70] that User:Michelle Stewart is an impostor. Per WP:REALNAME, could this user please be blocked until her identity be verified? Phearson (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's verified or not, that article should be deleted because of a lack of notability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Stewart (talk) username-blocked and invited to CHU. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Its been marked for A7. Much thanks, Phearson (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Disgruntled editor vandalising my userpage and now disrupting article space with POINTy edits.

Resolved

I am hoping that someone could help Scarpy to put down the stick and back away from the horse.

On the Sexual Compulsives Anonymous page, there was a dispute over NPOV in the lede sentence. (Talk page discussions here and here.) A consensus was arrived at, including with agreement from Scarpy (see here). However, right after the consensus was implemented (here), Scarpy changed the lede again directly counter to the consensus (here). After discussion of the counter-consensus change (here), Scarpy decided to back out of the discussion altogether (here).

Still unhappy, however, Scarpy decided to express his opinion by vandalizing my userpage (here) and reinstituting his counter-consensus opinion (here).

Because this is one of a family of pages, any assistance would be appreciated to prevent the dispute from spreading to the other pages.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

James has a point here, changing the language of the lead paragraph on his user page was bad judgment on my part. Let me say here, and I'll also post it on his talk page, I apologize for doing it.

For the record, I'd like to say, however, his description of how it went happened differs from mine in a few ways. Consensus was achieved on the kind of language to use, but not the exact language to use. I still agree with the consensus in terms of making the distinctions suggested clear, but not the exact language that's used at this point. That seems pretty clear to me from the discussion. Also, the consensus was regarding the SCA and SAA articles, James didn't make similar edits to the SLAA article until today. Either way, I'm backing out of all discussions regarding these topics. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Scarpy's apology is enough for me. I do not need to belabor the issue.— James Cantor (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request review of administrator action by User:SarekOfVulcan

NOTE: This section was closed and hidden while it was only the fourth section from the bottom of the page. I object to such an early closure, and would have liked more input. If there's nothing actionable here, is that because an admin is completely free to not use tools against one editor in the same way that he's used the tools against another editor who's done the exact same thing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please block IP 64.113.185.2

64.113.185.2: All this user does is vandalize. Today, he received two "final warnings" on his talk page (one from me and one from another user). S/he has been warned multiple times to cease and desist, however s/he continues to vandalize pages. Alex (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This should be reported at WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for a page notice on the article for the band Attack Attack!

Due to many not understanding that the use of the term "crabcore" (a joke genre made for the band Attack Attack!) is not a real genre, nor notable, but has had reached much discussion and has gotten the page protected many times for IP addresses referring to the band as such or using it as a joke against them. I've suggested to create a page notice for the band's article for those who are unaware that it is considered vandalism. I've crafted it below and I believe it should be added on as the article's page notice as soon as it can be done. I would have done it myself already, but as you may know; page notices can only be applied by administrators to articles. • GunMetal Angel 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the code for the template from the Caillou page notice due to persistent vandalism on the notorious children's television character being allegedly victim to cancer (being used so as a joke or insult to his appearance). The "crabcore" joke for Attack Attack! began as an Internet meme as an attack on the band since in their video they are shown crouching-down and swaying side-to-side while playing their instruments. So among the case of Caillou having a page notice over the same amount of overdone vandalism appearing on the article, the case for Attack Attack! is practically the same suit of clothes, just in different colors. So how 'bout it? -- GunMetal Angel 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the talk page. BurtAlert (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the editor doesn't know that it's a joke? Good faith attempts to improve an article shouldn't be called vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not responsible for user ignorance. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you were. But you are supposed to assume good faith and welcome the newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the wording of this edit notice is not very welcoming and as written I don't support it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I also think it should be made a good deal more friendly - lose the threat, explain something about the joke, and just say something like "So please don't add it". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to work it out, a user comes there to edit, nothing about crabcore - and he goes to edit and he gets this please don't post the crabcore stuff. IMO just revert and welcome.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm no. This happens in bigger doses then you think. If a page can get protected all for the sole reason of writing "crabcore" on the page numerous times, then yes it needs a page notice, it's not just a few IPs, it's been between 50—100 so far just within the recent 500 edit history. If anyone agrees that the notice may seem harsh, then remove the threat and re-word it, but in the case of the template being added as a page notice, I still remain more on the scale of it needing to be done then suggesting it. • GunMetal Angel 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Please do NOT add any mentions of the term "crabcore" as a serious notation; this is not a real genre. If you have any questions, please ask on the talk page." You can also create a FAQ on the talk page that explains why crabcore shouldn't be added as a genre. If someone enquires about it on the talk page, you can refer them to the FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good basic approach. The specific wording can tweaked further if necessary. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How many times has this been crabcored since last page protection? Is it still a serious problem? As requester Gunmetal Angel you might like to answer this. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the problem was mostly from IPs, and the article was semiprotected for six months on 3 February, this edit notice may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge, good idea. The wording change is appropricate. @Moriori, yes it is a serious problem, everytime the page is unprotected this is bound to come along, having it protected for that exact reason is bad enough. @EdJohnson; we're not supposed to rely on an article's protection to keep back somehing that will never be fixed without an edit notice. Wikipedia is supposed to be something where everyone can edit and without a simple notice of what not to do on a specific article, how is that not needed? Pretty nessesary to me, hence I still stay by that this needs to be done. • GunMetal Angel 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving pages while discussions are ongoing and other disruptive moves (looks like a pattern)

• Undescribed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Undescribed has just moved to Hurricane Karl to Hurricane Karl (2010), a move which I reverted (with an appropiate note in the edit log) due to an ongoing requested move discussion about this very issue. They then made the move again. Even those supporting the move agree that it is a controversial move and that it should be discussed first. I was simply going to drop them a note on their talk page but it would seem that this is not the first instance of this happening (the previous case resulted in move protection) so feel something stronger is needed. Dpmuk (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would also add that the other moves this user has just made are the same moves that resulted in page protection last time. Dpmuk (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User has hit WP:3RR on moves. Gave warning. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who was one of the movers, probably a bad decision anyway, might want to reinstate the move protection.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Undescribed has never participated on an article talk page. He was blocked 24 hours last October. If he continues to edit without responding here or agreeing to change his approach, some action may be needed. He is very stubborn, though his edits are not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this thread when I did it, but I reinstated the page protection to the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Overtly racist edits redux

• Giornorosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dezidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Giornorosso was blocked following this ANI request. Shortly thereafter, User:Dezidor showed up at articles recently edited by Giornorosso. Looking through Dezidor's contributions I noted that they had added Barack Obama's portrait to Mulatto, which is exactly what Giornorosso did in one of the edits I included in the initial report. The IP user:90.177.208.162, which locates to the Czech Republic, seems likely to be involved as well. Again, I am requesting a block for this user. It would be nice if a checkuser could also take a look and if interested editors would go through Dezidor's edit history to look for possible POV issues. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Dezidor indefinitely. The block evasion combined with the racism were both out of line. NW (Talk) 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible hoax article

Hi, could someone look at The Miracle of the Human Liver? I couldn't find anything online about the novel or author and the references might be fake.Jnast1 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted as an obvious hoax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser request

• Sock 1
• Sock 2
• Sock 3

Requesting indef blocks for the users and IP (or rangeblock if using multiple IPs). Requesting checkuser to discover any other latents.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI exists for a reason. All blocked, though. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-consensual title-changes

Perennial WP:MOS pagestalker, Pmanderson (talk · contribs), appears to be engaged in a personal campaign to rid Wikipedia of Endashes. He has been continually arguing that MOS is redundant, and that editors should follow external sources or external style guides, in apparent violation of the guideline WP:DASH. It seems that he is not getting his way in the relevant talkpage discussions, he has started arbitrarily changing text within certain articles, substituting hyphens for the endashes that were there. Examples at Mexican-American War (edit summary bizarrely says "restore from MOS errors") and Eye–hand coordination – a sneaky substitution accompanied by word reordering. He reverts when these actions are undone. He seems so far to have stopped short of page moves, but that avenue would seem to be the logical conclusion if his current actions are not nipped in the bud. I would request a warning from an uninvolved admin for him to desist in such edit-warring, and to resume discussions at WT:MOS. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You must use content dispute resolution and 3RR. There is nothing that ANI can do. TFD (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; this is being discussed at 3RR.

If my old opponent from the date delinking case had bothered to look at Talk:Eye–hand coordination, he would have found that that was a disagreement of substance; if he had looked at Talk:Mexican-American War#regrettable edit, he would have found the "MOS breaches" (as some people call them) and error of substance referred to in the edit summary. I must therefore disappoint his malice.

Please let me know if there is any further interest in this piece of forum-shopping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)