Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note: I am herewith signing this segment in response to reminder (below). As some editors have noted, Mjpresson has furnished no proof of any "threats' from Tokerdesigner and even, it appears to me, attempted to deceive editors voting in this proceeding by adding his/her own boldfacing after the fact to a comment (cited below) which I did leave on the User:Mjpresson talk page. I have never threatened to "tag", delete or vandalize any article by Mj or anyone. To get an idea of what User:Mjpresson intends to do if User:Tokerdesigner is banned for a week (as proposed below) view recent edits to Cannabis smoking (photo of a "man smoking a joint" promoted to top of article) and my response thereto on Talk:Cannabis smoking. I will also, as time permits by tomorrow, because User:Mjpresson has objected to my defense argument (also below) as too long and even proposes deleting some of it, present my argument at the MP:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page with links to it inserted on this page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [1]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [2] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[3] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose we should let him have more rope and let him to acknowledge better and change his ways. Switch to Support. He should know not to do that. Also, the 6 months would give hime time to change his ways. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Please see [4].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [5]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case day by day as library time permits.

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)

Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)

Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding?

Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.

That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:

Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")

"... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the italics. What is a "wank"? As for policy, Tokerdesigner is not "anti-policy" (whatever a "wank" is). I affirm that in the vast majority of cases policy rules. (Or rules police.) But Jimmy Wales and partners instituted Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for a reason. Wikipedia/Wikimedia was intended to be a progressive project as indicated by the 2008 fund raising slogan, seen here above pages for several weeks: "Help Wikimedia change the world!" If readers want conventional strict encyclopedic rules and total neutrality they can go to Britannica. WP:IAR must be invoked in one particular situation: "SAFETY FIRST!" That means: SAFETY TRUMPS POLICY. Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month when I felt I had to protest after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service) by 40%, an unprecedented reduction, in 18 consecutive edits including this:

cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted a paragraph covering the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including a reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against that practice. What's "not allowable" about that ref? (In the interest of Safety First, and in the service of readers, including youngsters, who want to know about issues of safety regarding hashish use, Tokerdesigner then restored the ref, see above.) Mjpresson, why did you delete that ADoH warning?

As if in answer to Mjpresson's May 26 deletion of the Australian DoH warning that mixing cannabis with tobacco "can lead to unintended nicotine addiction", the World Health Organization issued this May 30 warning:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/wntd_20110530/en/index.html

"... This year, the tobacco epidemic will kill nearly 6 million people, including some 600 000 nonsmokers who will die from exposure to tobacco smoke. By 2030, it could kill 8 million."

Let's do some math: assuming 1% of the nicotine addictions over the past half century resulted at least in part from youngsters exploring hashish having received advice to roll it in a joint together with tobacco (I think the figure is higher), that would account for 60,000 of the 6 million yearly premature deaths (with huge medical expenses in the later stages of illness). (Comparison: Ratko Mladić is in court over a one-time execution of 8300 at Srebrenica. Will the Wikipedia editors of today someday be compared with UN Peacekeepers who stood by at Srebrenica "for policy reasons" while Mladić's troops killed the 8300?)

I cited, above, two further edits: (a) one in which Mjpresson deleted what he/she refers to as "How-to"-- i.e. safety instructions" which could, if observed by readers, lead to avoiding the "other" How-to (cannabis and tobacco together in a joint, "which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction"), and (b) one in which Mjpresson deletes a "See also" link (which Mj believed to be a "cat"-- category?) to the one-hitter article which describes what are seen as possible alternatives' to rolling cannabis and tobacco together in a joint.

Without waiting for voting to close in this proceeding, Mjpresson then went to One hitter (smoking) and deleted over half the article, particularly pictures and information which could instruct readers in how to avoid rolling tobacco and cannabis together in a joint. Mjpresson further deleted a picture of a bottle of dokha, a sifted tobacco product used in a midwakh, as "non-contextual", even though the picture served a useful purpose in the {One-hitter (smoking) article by showing how herb (any species!) should be sifted before use in a narrow one-hitter. This seems to indicate an intention to deny readers information which promotes health and safety (but admittedly interferes with recruiting them into nicotine addiction).Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support A week block for not heeding the communities warnings since 2008 to use reliable sources for verifiability seems fair to me.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tokerdesigner has disrupted this conversation above with his own "oppose" (can he do that?) and a huge amount of lengthy copy/paste inserted. Can this be removed from the conversation? Mjpresson (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be hatted. But we can take it as read that people can "oppose" their own block or ban, and give a reason why - otherwise WP:ANI would be more like a kangaroo court. In this particular case the reason seems to be rather tangential, and Tokerdesigner is just digging themselves deeper into a hole with the genoicide comparisons, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only can someone oppose, it's unusual for them not to, unless they can't for some reason (they are away from Wikipedia or are blocked, etc.). -- Atama頭 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my previous note from here (after justified criticism, below, and because no longer timely. Readers can search it down in "History".) I have added further defense argumentation at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page, at Talk:Cannabis smoking and at [6], the latter also now referenced, below, by Mjpresson. At all three of those venues, if editors will read the entire text, they can observe illuminating one-on-one debate between User:Mjpresson and User:Tokerdesigner, including references to edits Mjpresson has made in the last three days to numerous articles, perhaps in expectation that Tokerdesigner will be banned and other editors intimidated. (See Mjpresson:Contributions page.)

Option to change vote

Anyone who has already voted (above) can still-- as of this moment-- change their vote. After reading the further debate installments referenced above, they may feel they understand the issues better. The issues are complex-- if they weren't, humanity would have solved the 6,000,000-a-year cigarette mortality problem by now, by understanding the differences (a) between cannabis and tobacco and (b)between commercially advertised overdose cigarette/"joint" "smoking" and a vaporizer or one-hitter-- so regrettably editors have a burden of duty to inform themselves more comprehensively than usual when deciding on this demand from Mjpresson to ban the "anti-policy wank" Tokerdesigner.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an actual conspiracy theory rather than a bizarre conversational gambit, it's definitely wasting other editor's time, goodwill, and attention. bobrayner (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tokerdesigner's self referencing is preposterous. See my reversion of one here [7]. I don't know if the community has noticed this. I have reverted many of these by him.Mjpresson (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That "self referencing" was produced by some formatting machine later, I didn't put the name "Tokerdesigner" in there.

To address this issue now: on the archived section of Talk:One-hitter (smoking) you can find a list of the wikiHow and Wikiversity articles Tokerdesigner referenced, in order to comply with WP:NOTHOWTO which includes an overt directive that readers seeking how-to information be encouraged to seek it at wikiHow.com among other places. Referring to those articles kept that how-to information-- how to make one-hitters, etc. in true Wikipedia "do it yourself" spirit instead of buying them from high-price WP:SPAM headshops-- out of Wikipedia pages without denying readers access to it.

(Those wikiHow articles contain typewriter-generated diagrams similar to ones which Mjpresson has recently deleted from WP talk pages where they were posted in hopes other editors would decide to use the JPG technology to enter them as thumbnail illustrations. Since when is it considered civil to delete talk page postings?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And now this [8] unsigned note making false allegations on others' talk pages. Mjpresson (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm a a stooge of the world's leading genocide-for-profit conspiracy?:[9].Mjpresson (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like this to be addressed, please read his entire note if you have all day.[10].Mjpresson (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner says this of me on the talk page: "Using Wikipedia to promote the interests of the cigarette industry (through his advocacy in 44 detailed articles about the chain-smoking movie-maker José Mojica Marins whose main character Ze do Caixão (in English "Coffin Joe"-- sound like Joe Camel?) commits serial murders for sex and personal vindication). I personally couldn't smoke enough tobacco to stay awake sitting through 88 hours of those horror flicks. To reference another BRIC country: a 2004-05 study showed 89% of all movies made in India contained depictions of "tobacco use" (almost always cigarettes)."[11] [sic]Mjpresson (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed 1 week ban (or longer). Tokerdesigner's crusade (and inability to AGF) is detrimental to the project and to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning assumption of good faith: anyone with time to read the entire debate will find statements of mine showing that I assume good faith from Mjpresson, despite disagreements which stem from a perception that he/she has been pursuing a "policy" of removing from cannabis-related articles information which might promise to obstruct an "industry" agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction-- see the latest 30 Contributions by Mjpresson to various articles since Mj opened these proceedings. Bobrayner has the option, though it be onerous, to search further into the matter and even change his/her vote. This includes additions and revisions of my argument (above) since yesterday; I will continue as time and logistics permit to improve the links involved to make referencing them easier.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction"? You've proven my point about AGF. Please stop digging. bobrayner (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But, bobrayner, why would Mjpresson delete the Australian Department of Health warning against mixing cannabis with tobacco (May 26, referenced above)?Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:THERAPY can be applied here[12],[13], [14],[15],[16],[17] in addition to the WP:V and WP:CIVIL issues. Please know that I do not intend any personal attack by raising this.Mjpresson (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean any personal attack, either, by mentioning here that Mjpression has (a) referred to Tokerdesigner as a single-purpose editor and (b) contributed 257 edits (I counted them) to the WP biographical article on the chain-smoking film-maker José Mojica Marins.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

Should I just continue to add these until the problem is addressed? [18] Mjpresson (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My energy and wiki-goodwill are being drained by this user ranting about me site-wide. Are the admins aware that this issue remains unresolved after 11 days?? Mjpresson (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And the relentless "one-hitter" obsession [19]. Mjpresson (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• ...to hell with a one-week ban, this is out of control. Support full siteban of Tokerdesigner, and also a polite suggestion that he find a more reputable dealer for whatever he's smoking, because good GOD is he getting some bad stuff. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned before this should be a permanent ban discussion for relentless WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:THERAPY. I certainly support that.Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not to mention violations of WP:CANVASS. --Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What's going to happen here

This isn't getting any traction because it's difficult to tell exactly what's going on, why it's disruptive and what policy would suggest is the correct outcome. From a quick read of the history, however, the following would seem to be true:

1. Tokerdesigner's edits are mainly in the area of cannabis smoking.
2. He's strongly in favour of promoting methods of cannabis smoking which don't involve tobacco, to the extent where he's convinced himself that those who disagree with his edits are working (directly or indirectly) for the tobacco industry.
3. He's edit warring on articles under the category of cannabis smoking to promote his POV.

Never mind talk of "one-week bans". Those supporting such things don't appear to understand the difference between a block and a ban, nor for what reason we block editors (specifically, that blocks are not punitive). Appropriate methods of resolution are things like:

1. Taking specific instances of edit warring past 3RR to WP:ANEW
2. Seeking a third opinion on specific content disputes
3. A request for comment on user conduct if the above fails to satisfactorily resolve the problem
4. Further remedies depending on the outcome of the RFC/U

None of the above is likely to happen while the likes of Mjpresson are edit warring right back, or wasting time proposing bogus sanctions at ANI. Put simply, y'all need to take this content dispute from the top rather than simply trying to un-person Tokerdesigner. For what it's worth Tokerdesigner's POV pushing here seems incredibly obvious, but our dispute resolution process is designed to amicably resolve such things while hopefully steering people into more productive editing: kicking people off the project is supposed to be a last resort.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I seriously propose that Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) did not read all the diffs provided. A serious issue has been blown off. There were 5 supports for the block and one protest by the blockee. I am not edit warring. He is just causing us more work and allowing an abusive editor to be disruptive sitewide. Seriously Cunningham I propose did not read the diffs provided and has made a capricious error of judgement. Mjpresson (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved:[20],[21], [22],[23],[24],[25], [26], and 5 supports to block contested only by blockee. Mjpresson (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had initially titled this section "too long, didn't read" before posting it. The reason it has been "blown off" is because a huge list of diffs with no succinct summary of the supposed wrongdoings is unlikely to get any attention at ANI at all, and the "proposed solution" is bogus. It is irrelevant whether people have supported it or not as we're not going to enact punitive blocks based merely on the number of people shouting for them. Lastly, you're not doing yourself any favours by attacking the only admin who has bothered taking the time to respond. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm only concerned about article quality and stopping the ranting about me sitewide. It's all in the diffs. Not concerned with doing myself "favour"s as you put it. That sounds a little threatening. You simply made a decision without reading provided diffs. Mjpresson (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"I had initially titled this section "too long, didn't read" before posting it.". An admin is attempting to reslove an issue without reading provided evidence and diffs. Mjpresson (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't just throw a mess of diffs at ANI and expect a result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: That post of mine was a bit curt, so I'll elaborate. What we have is a terrible mess of diffs, accusations and discussion that makes it incredibly difficult to figure out what the actual problem is. I'd suggest you write a succinct (500-1000 words) description of the history of the problem, with diffs provided at each juncture to help us understand what's going on. This may be better as an RfC, than an ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that most of the "tl;dr" stuff is from the wall-of-text postings by TokerDesigner that almost feel like they were intended to disrupt and break up the discussion. Has anyone *other* than TokerDesigner objected to the topic/siteban proposals? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rdfox, you are correct. There were 5 supports for a block and one object from Tokerdesigner. He has managed to copy and paste and mess up this thread until it's unreadable for the purpose of disrupting the proceeding. Tokerdesigner has trumped and played the administrators and has succeeded. Mjpresson (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of skipping Tokerdesigner's walls of text. What I am not capable of doing is finding a solid, policy-based proposed solution from other parties. A site ban is absolutely not happening based on the say-so of half a dozen involved editors, as you've already been told, so complaining about not getting one enacted is not productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [27] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [28] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [29] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [30], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [31] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [32]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [33], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [34]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[35]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Process

Resolved

 – Topic bans enacted, nothing more to see here. Night Ranger (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently the featured sounds process is in a bit of a controversy. Due to the wording of the criteria, both a video and the audio track from a video can be nominated and passed as a featured sound. This is opposed by many of the regulars to the process. To keep the same arguments from being rehashed in each nomination, the active FS directors (Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) and myself) put a freeze on all nominations of this sort so they could be debated in one central place. This has erupted into a scene. All of the good faith and will I have has been exhausted. Would a cooler head please intervene. (I haven't exactly kept my cool) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure what the issue is here there is support on both sides. I have seen two or three regs who oppose duplicate noms and two or three (including myself) who support them. I am awaiting a substantive response to issue that are repeatedly WP:TLDRed. I am asking for explanation of why they want to run WP:FSC differently than all other quality review processes. I believe what Guerillero seeks is an excuse to continue WP:TLDRing from a friendly admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) continues to nominate duplicates (videos and sounds, mostly separately and this was all done directly after the wording of the criteria chagned to allow videos and sounds), despite being told not to in addition he also continues to nominate arrangements (mostly brass band) of well known and historical music despite being told not to, now while brass band arrangements aren't all bad they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis (his response above shows he's just doing it because a couple regulars support some of his duplicates), a majority of these nominations have been boring or musically uninteresting music. He claims he's doing this because both files have EV, but take a look at his wall of stars and his first post at WT:FSC, he made it clear that he wanted an FS to his name because FS was due to appear on the main page (this has been pushed back until underlying problems in the process are addressed). His continual ignorance of the concerns raised by others goes against the collegial nature of Wikipedia, it's hindering progress and is downright annoying. It's funny that he should be accusing Guerillero of TLDRing, check his active and past nominations. How incredibly hypocritical. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:14pm • 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) When was I told not to nominate them any more? I have not violated any instructions. In terms of arrangements, I am not a musician. I don't know when things are arrangements all the time. I am a volunteer file-hunter and trying to find good files. I have found about 50 good files, so you have to put up with a few dozen bad noms along the way. Are you looking for an excuse to WP:TLDR as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It's just one of a number of issues that need to be worked through among editors at FSC and integrated into the criteria. It's a pity that TTT can't hold off nominating files of the categories he knows have become controversial—until there's an in-depth discourse on these matters, some of which are complicated in their implications. I appreciate TTT's work at FSC, but I don't want to think that there's a mad rush to acquire rows of stars on his userpage for featured content promotions. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) First off, you are acting like I am nominating a bunch of stuff everyone is rejecting. My nominations have resulted in 49 WP:FS since April 1. Second off, I don't even know that I was told not to nominate audio duplicates of videos (before today).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yes you were, look through all of your recent 20 nominations. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:59pm • 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 44 of my last 56 file nominees have passed. Check WP:FSL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Is this so much an issue with FS than it is with one single editor? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Strange Passerby has hit the nail on the head. Although I am no longer an active participant at FS, I do watch it, and this particular problem editor began causing issues while I was still there. TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. He has exploited the fact that FS does not really have a policy on videos yet, which is the entire reason that he has so many FS credits already. I have advised Guerillero to consider delisting many of them, although it is up to the current participants at FS to decide whether or not to take that advice. The long and short of it is that TTT has exhausted the community's patience. Like James (AA), I've long since abandoned the pretense that TTT is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons. He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego. If his actions at FS were not enough to convince me, recent events at FfD have (see nominations 16 though 71. I don't want to steer this too off track with the FfDs, but I think that this specific nomination, combined with the above situation, shows that TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Though I have no opinion on the FS issue at this time, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago, and then, when he was generally unsuccessful, moved to VPC, where he was active until the project was closed down precisely because it lacked any real drive/direction beyond "WE NEED MORE VALUED PICTURES". He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating) and, though I wasn't involved with this (so please don't take my word as gospel truth), I believe he has been warned about similar behaviour at FAC and GAC as well. Tony takes very seriously the, as Sven mentions, "stars on his trophy wall". While many editors (myself certainly included) like to display their achievements on their userpage, Tony can take it to something of an extreme, which can sometimes lead to issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) As the other WikiCup judge, I can second virtually everything J Milburn just said, except that I haven't heard anything about FAC/GAN warnings. Regardless of how the FS issues are worked out, I believe there is a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is very different than FPC and VPC where I could not get the hang of things. At FS after an initial pass rate of 5/19, I have learned what WP:WIAFS is saying and have had a 44 of 56 file pass rate since.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Amalgamated this and the topic ban proposals to keep it in one piece. MER-C 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is classic TonyTheTiger-- he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived. This behavior occurs in any area in which he edits-- I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Can we get an uninvolved admin to close these two ban discussions below please? It's been almost a week. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The discussion has been open for over 5 days, and it is clear that there is strong consensus to support both proposals: (1) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured sounds, and (2) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." There does not appear to be consensus that the topic bans should be time-limited, so these topic bans will be in effect until the community decides they are no longer necessary. I will inform TonyTheTiger that these topic bans have been enacted, and will update Wikipedia:Editing restrictions accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC). Edit: I have informed Tony and updated the list of editing restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds As per my comments above, at the thread "Featured Sounds Process", TTT has exhausted the patience of the Featured Sounds community. I quote from above "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process. Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I can only speak from my own experience of Tony at DYK last year, where concerns were also raised (then WikiCup-related) that Tony was spamming, almost abusing, the process just so he could claim more DYKs. As a result I have no difficulty believing he is misusing FS in a similar fashion, and would support such a ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) As I explained in the section a few above this one, similar things have also happened at FPC and (before it closed) VPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps it would be a good idea to extend this topic ban proposal to all featured media processes and similar (GA, DYK, ITN), in that case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support as a completely uninvolved editor. TTT is using the process as a personal vanity project by nominating as many files as possible for consideration and hoping some get through. He does not appear to be taking the time to evaluate them correctly before nomination. This is subverting it's intent which is to get the absolute best files featured. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support. I am pretty new to looking at either FS or TTT, and no axe to grind. Guerillo has been professional and TTT has been moving stuff around on the page in contravention to the Director decisions (as the final acts in a pattern of problem-causing). It's fine to debate the policy, but outright distruption of actions of the Director (elected by the participants) on holding or rejecting nominees, makes the whole place unworkable. Throw into that, that he is an admin and should behave better. And that he is tone-deaf and wikilawyering in interactions. And the history of similare disruption on other Featured Content processs...TCO (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) DON'T TOPIC BANS REQUIRE DIFFS OR ARE ADMINS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY STORY THEY WANT Resoponse to the four claims above by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing." Not true. I began participating in FS in April. You might note that my nominations have passed at nearly an 80% (44 of 56) clip since my initial learning period (5 of 19) (Check WP:FSL). I have developed a good understanding of WP:WIAFS and begun only nominating things I view as very likely to be determined to adhere to WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger ignoring negative responses." To the contrary I have been learning from negative responses. I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful" I have recently fought against closures that were against process both for those that were unsuccessful those that were to be successful. N.B.: Yesterday there was a batch of 5 closed unsuccessful without regard to WP:WIAFS that I fought against and last week there was one of my nominees that was moved to nominations to be closed that had 2/3 majority required to pass that I fought against being closed immediately and put back into the queue because I felt it was being closed prematurely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." (Repeating from above). I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted. I have not been clogging the system. I have been filling it with stuff that gets promoted about 80% of the time (44/56=79%).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support While a lot of this "content" based discussion passes me by I am capable of determining concerns from reviewing contributions; there are over 5,000 deleted contributions. This is against a total number of edits of around 150,000, or 3% of edits, but of concern is a review of the deleted contributions in detail indicates that this appears to be a persistent or consistent ratio since 2006. This leads me to the conclusion that the editor has not (or cannot) been able to alter their approach to introducing content - the majority of deleted contributions being either "autobiographical" (in the widest sense, content derived from their own sources) or various files - despite some evidence of concerns having been raised all the while. This appears to be an editor, while a good contributor in certain areas (as the 146k "live" edits testify), who does not seem to Get It over certain matters. Removing them from areas where these concerns are manifested seems to be entirely reasonable and, given that this appears to be a long term issue, it should be for as long as there seems to be an issue. Presently, this is apparently the Featured Sound process and therefore I support this topic ban. I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I am not trying to impress you by calling him a liar. I am presenting an uncontested fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) You are apparently as eager to test the limits of WP:CIVIL as you admit you have regarding WP:Notability. There are more acceptable ways in which to make a point that anothers accusation are unsupported by diffs/are likely not to be able to be evidenced. Being able to conform to WP practices is part of what is at issue here - and you are not helping yourself. Impressing me is irrelevant, but not impressing me has lead me to my opinion given above and not caring makes me more unlikely to change it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) How do I observe my deleted content, I believe there are three or four spikes in this regard. There were probably a lot of deleted edits when Template:NYRepresentatives and Template:ILRepresentatives were deleted. Then when Template:1970-1979VogueCovers, Template:1980-1989VogueCovers, Template:1990-1999VogueCovers & Template:2000-2009VogueCovers were deleted. And finally when the recent user space pages were deleted. I doubt that there is a consistent rate of deleted files, but rather a few spikes, mostly in template space when I was learning what was a good contribution there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) There may well be "spikes", but I noted that there were instances going back to 2006 and for every year since. It is still a lot of deleted contribs. As for being able to review them, I do not know how an editor can review their own deleted contribs - I have been a sysop too long and my non sysop account (User:LHvU) has no deleted edits (and very few otherwise). Perhaps a non admin can address this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Obviously, I am going to have a high rate of deletions. I am probably the only editor on wikipedia who has created 100s of reviewed class (GA, FA) articles from scratch without doing the same type of article over and over again. I am constantly testing the fringes of notability with every article creation. Most article space deletions will be from having ventured to the borders of WP:N with my article creations. You will note that I have several GAs of articles that had been AFDed and such. I contest the borders and sometimes my borderline contribution result in early articles for NBA basketball players like Manny Harris and sometimes they end up in deletions. Someone who polices Barack Obama, fights vandals, or perfects the art of creating virtually the same article over and over again will not have high deletions like me. These deletions are basically unrelated to WP:FS and should not be used to determine this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is a project to produce a free encyclopedia, and not an exercise in determining what the base level for notability - or to alter that standard by production of marginal subjects (especially with a relative high level of failure; surely only a small percentage of the other 140K of edits can only be to such content). One of the major tools of content creation is WP:Consensus, where by both discussion and action one determines what the criteria for inclusion is - and once it has been established ensure that contributions are compliant. It is recognised that sometimes there will be mistakes or re-assesments, and that consensus may change. However, it is apparent from both your editing history and your comments here that you either do not care for or are unable to comply with consensus and notability, and nor do you think you should. That is your choice, but it means that those who do work to those standards need not have to endure your disruptive presence. As this appears, per your comments above, to be your standard operating procedure, I continue to support those who wish to continue to act within the expected norms - which in this case are those involved in the Featured Sound process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support this POINT violation makes me beleive that TTT is unable to work well at FS. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per LHvU. Doesn't appear to get it. Noting that I'd prefer a time-limited ban as opposed to an indefinite ban. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per LHvU. I really wish it didn't have to come to this :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:59am • 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - A topic ban seems excessive, considering so many of his nominations have already suceeded. This needs a topic RfC or to be take to the talk page and ironed out by all parties, not a topic ban on a highly productive editor. Night Ranger (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I see you aren't very familiar with TTT's edits, it's true he's a generally productive editor. However, a majority of his edits are counter-productive and arguments ensue in every featured process he's been involved with (including the now defunct Valued Pictures process), I'd hoped this would not be the case at FS but in the last 2 months his nomination reasons have been shorter and shorter, his first few FS nominations were fantastic, now he merely uses a useless, unhelpful statement such as "meets all the FS criteria", without going to explain how it meets the criteria and his own reason for nominating (which would be personalised, of course). —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:07pm • 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Support. I think there is a broader problem - Tony's interest seems to have shifted from building good content to collecting scout badges which is rather missing the point of wikipedia and is consuming the time and goodwill of other editors. However, this proposal is a good start, and I hope TTT will tweak their priorities a little in future, as TTT seems to have done lots of good content work in the past and I look forward to more of that, both from TTT and from the other people whose time has been wasted... bobrayner (talk) Oppose, his nominations have a 79% pass rate, I'd hardly call that spamming FS with material that does not belong there. I mean, can we get some evidence of attempts to actually resolve this without a topic ban please? I looked at his user talk page and it seems the only feedback he has ever gotten about his work at FS (on his talk page) is a barnstar.... jorgenev 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) His pass rate has nothing to do with it. Numerous people have commented that he has abused numerous featured processes, and if you look at WP:FSC now, you can see several flops. His pass rate is high because we didn't have a clear policy on videos, we didn't have a clear policy on length, and we enjoyed, before we found out about the caveats, the enthusiasm he was bringing to the project. Most of his current FSes will be put up for delisting in the near future, because most of them are around an hour long and a good deal of them have quality issues. This is not to say specificly that he is being targeted, as many current FSes are in need of being delisted, but a good number of his will be among them, and that will drop his percentage considerably. Both of the active FS directors, a former FS director, and several people in several other featured processes are all saying that TTT is highly problematic. Looking at it just on numbers drastically understates the amount of damage that TTT has caused. As for the evidence, it is at WT:FSC, the archives of that page, and in the nominations themselves. There is a cumulative affect from the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the battleground behaviors that is very easy to pick up on, and for lack of a better term, extremely grating over the period of time that he has been at FS. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Support—Reluctantly. I sugggest a one-month topic ban to protect FSC from disruptive nominations and other edits, and to allow it to negotiate the criteria, which clearly don't serve the process well now. This trophy mentality for his user page is over the top. Tony (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support as an uninvolved editor. I'm seeing what others do: an editor so intent on using the project to get praise that he threatens the success of the project. --NellieBly (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I am not familiar with this particular brouhaha. I've edited minimally in the last 6 months and hoped when I didn't see TonytheTiger at FAC when I got back that he'd learned from his previous issues. That does not appear to be the case; instead, the issues have transferred to a different process. I would support a broadly construed ban on TtT from any featured nomination process unless he can gain the support of a conominator. Someone who can provide a reality-check when TtT's enthusiasm for the process crosses the line. If that's not the case, then I will support a topic ban targeted to Featured Sounds. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed Over fifty graphs of TonyTheTiger's poker winnings were recently deleted in one day at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1. The conversation at one specific nomination, this specific nomination|this one, illuminates that TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable. Among the items not deleted are two images of the letter T in his signature, a check paid out to him, and a tee shirt he made himself. They are available for viewing at his biography page User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon. He's begun requesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here, and it may be necessary to start a similar proposal there,Edit: Someone else made the move-to-commons requests. however in the mean time, unless he is ordered to stop, I have serious doubts that he will. Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support, definitely. Still thinking about the proposed topic ban for FS. Unfortunately, I don't see signs that TTT is understanding the problem. Tony (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Not only that, but a good chunk of this user's userspace was recently purged in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. MER-C 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) THIS TOPIC BAN IS BASED ON A LIE BY SVEN MANGUARD THERE EXIST NO DIFFS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ON WP OR COMMONS (1) ME INSISTING I WAS NOTABLE (2) ABOUT ANY REQUEST TO MOVE FILES TO COMMONS BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT MAKE ANY Come on Sven have some class. What other lies are you willing to tell to make a WP:POINT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to have to Support the ban proposal. Sorry, because TonyTheTiger is clearly a long-standing contributor with a great track record. But I've looked at all that poker stuff - the images and the masses of personal bio material recently deleted - and it has to stop. He just isn't notable, and this isn't a web host - he needs to take all that stuff someplace else and stop trying to use Wikipedia for material about himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Comment- I believe the title of this and the preceeding section should win the top 2 prizes for the most unintentionally hilarious discussion page topic headings in Wikipedia history. If you don't understand what I mean, read the two section headings while pretending you are a non-registered, first-time Wikipedia editor looking at ANI for the very first time. No offense Tony. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) At least they're fit for family viewing (you might say they're G-rate!), which is more than I can say for some of our notable subjects' self-images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Isn't a ban suppose to occur after a warning. I was never given any indication that my image uploads were inappropriate. I have not uploaded any since the FfD. What gives with a ban?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support that much vanity content is painful --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support unfortunately, this seems to be needed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This makes no sense. I have been participating in XfD for 5 years and never violated a consensus decision. Why would someone say something like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Fully support Topic Ban - amongst many other reasons the screaming all-capps bold hysterical response from a tiger in a corner above is self evident that Tony's passion is far from acceptable in this arena - indeed maybe Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:01am • 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support Completely not involved, but having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out. --Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - This seems to be quickly devolving into a huge pile-on. What's next, he's banned from having pictures of tigers on his userpage? He appears to have stopped uploading images and says he has not opposed any kind of consensus at xfd, so I don't see the need for a ban (which I wouldn't necessarily call a topic ban anyway, but I digress). Night Ranger (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Support - Pedro says it well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, he has not continued has he? It seems like editors with some personal dislike of the user are trying to pile as many topic bans on him as possible here. jorgenev 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) First of all, I don't have an underlying dislike for this editor. I think that if he focused more of his energy on improving content and less of it on self-aggrandizement, if he put in the work to earn all the stars he displays on his userpage, that he'd be one of Wikipedia's best assets. Unfortunately, TTT categorically refuses to accept that he is not notable. He has, by now, gone through several discussions where that message has been made clear, most recently the 52 templates and 50something graphs that went through deletion discussions. With this editor's track record on the matter, I do not believe that temporarily stopping is in any way indicative of future behavior. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane. That MfD was one of the worst; other people would have been blocked for such egregious violations of WP:UP#NOT. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Comment That vanity piece of his should be sent to MfD per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:UP#PROMO --Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC) - I have just nominated the page for MfD. Doesn't anybody like working on articles anymore? Who the fuck cares about someone's personal page like this, really?--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support – Unfortunately. That MfD was a textbook application of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pedro himself also brings up a good point. —mc10 (t/c) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane. I would also caution the editor that BOLD CAPS don't give the impression he hopes; editors may see them not as sincere anger but as an attempt to intimidate or bully, and that is counter-productive to a positive reception of any argument. --NellieBly (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane and WP:NOT#WEBHOST Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Pedro. It turns out that User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is based on content deleted (unanimously!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and userfied five years ago. MER-C 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Not going to happen per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Because Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) resorts to lies in discussions about me, I would prefer not to have to deal with a liar in my WP interactions. At his topic ban initiation you will note that he resorts to lies and does not use diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) Lie number 1 "He's begun rewuesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here" I do not recall requesting that any files be moved to commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) He's right there. I admit, on this small point, I got it wrong. Sfan00 IMG put the requests in on the letter and the check, and I'm not sure who moved the ones already in commons over. I can stand by the rest of my argument though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Lie number 2 "TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable" Why would he make arguments that I am claiming notability. Note that in the arguments he points to I state "I am not arguing notability"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) You may not be arguing notability, but by trying to host masses of biog stuff about yourself, you're *acting* as though you're notable (or that you think Wikipedia is a free web host) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - This seems to be a ploy to silence sven. You tout your passing percentage but you fail to mention that most of those files passed by a slim margin due to the fact things pass with a 2/3 majority (including the nominator). If you would look at my closing statements they reflect this. For the moving files to commons this link should be helpful. File at commons The file was moved to commons after the local version was deleted at FfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This link? Jarkeld (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) That would be the one --Guerillero | My Talk 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Neither of those is a diff supporting a claim that I have been requesting moves to commons. None of these opposes presents any evidence against the statement of fact that Sven Manguard is a liar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - this is just petty retaliation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. This is just silly. TCO (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Sven should be proud that all his admin friends think the fact that he is a liar is silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose if you don't want to deal with Sven Manguard, you don't have to. no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Note - It might be helpful if the "accused" admin would post a diff or two to refute the editor's claims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Reversal of fortune Don't propose things that are obviously not going to fly. I propose topic banning TTT instead. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is absurd-- since it's also unsigned, I can't tell who put it up, but it's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger did, at this diff. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Um, and also, it is signed... GiantSnowman 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Tiger troll. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 'Oppose per WP:POINT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Can everyone calm down a little and look at this objectively? I don't know Tony but from a look at his edits, he appears to be one of the most significant content contributors I've come across. I've read through this and while I see some indications Tony should (1) stop and attempt to form consensus and (2) stop uploading unhelpful files in violation of NOTWEBHOST, I also see no reason to institute topic bans and I certainly see no reason to use comments like "tiger troll" as someone did in Tony's proposal. This is looking like a huge gang-up and it's really not on. Night Ranger (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. TTT has shown consistently over the span of a few months that he is unable to work at featured content processes without turning it into a "look at my featured contributions"-like flood, many editors who have dealt with this across the different processes clearly feel this goes beyond simply FS and this needs to stop, hence the community ban request which is wholly justified. StrPby (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that these topic bans are in fact the best thing for the project. The comments by J Milburn and Strange Passerby, among others both at this thread and elsewhere, indicate that TTT has done this type of thing before. Chances are moderately high that if he continues this behavior at another featured process, the next topic ban proposal will be for all featured processes on Wikipedia, and will have significant support. I, however, chose not to go for that extreme. Also, I was tempted to suggest that TTT be topic banned from creating any page related to himself, be it a subpage, file, or template, after the combination of his 50+ poker templates and his 50+ poker graphs. He's been told repeatedly that he is not notable, and has used, to an appalling level of excess. Again I chose not to go for that extreme, and again I can easily see the community deciding to go for that in the future. This isn't pleasant, I didn't do this for giggles, but I also didn't do this on raw emotion and I believe that I was being objective when I made the proposals. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Night Ranger, I see you've been editing en.Wiki for a few months and have 134 edits; apparently you haven't had the pleasure of dealing with TTT's aim to use Wikipedia to promote ... himself. Your analysis is mistaken. I suggest that any featured content process should enact a clause similar to the one we had to enact at FAC to end the abuse endured there (and I noticed that TTT moved on to disrupting DYK in his quest to win WikiCup, and then to Featured Sounds in his ongoing quest to promote himself, which he admitted at TFA/R) ... FAC's solution to the TTT problem was a rule change: If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Sandy, my account here is new but I've been on Commons since 2007 and have edited here as an IP for a few years as well. You're right, I'm not very familiar with Tony, but from the standpoint of someone who is totally uninvolved and sees someone who has made a great deal of content-based contributions to Wikipedia, it just seems a shame that this has been taken to this level. There has to be a better way to deal with this than topic bans. Maybe not, I dunno. I do know we need more content contributors, not fewer. Night Ranger (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy's and Sven's comments are dead-on. As at FAC, TTT's activity at DYK was the direct impetus for a rule change requiring nominators to conduct reviews on a 1-for-1 basis. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy, I don't know what you are saying I admitted to. During the 2010 WP:CUP, I happened to be out of town at my grandmother's deathbed trying to edit without a regular connection and I ended up causing a lot of problems at DYK. Then, at WP:FSC, there seems to be a bunch of lies being cast about by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) that I am nominating any old crap, when 80% of my stuff has been passing. Clearly, I never got in tune with FP, but Sven is insistent on categorizing my FS contributions as if they have not been successful and huffing and puffing about how it is just like all other situations. For any featured content review process, 80% pass rate is pretty good. At FAC and FPC, I don't have great pass rates, but at FSC, and FLC, I do. At FLC my last 8 in a row have passed if my records are correct and at FSC, 44 of my last 56. Don't generalize to all featured content processes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Your FAC pass rate is what it is because you get other people to pull your articles through-- they almost all appeared at FAC ill-prepared, and you continued to bring them ill-prepared until the TonyTheTiger Clause was added to the instructions. I was referring to your typical self-serving statement, once you realized Featured Lists and Featured Sounds would be on the main page, that "Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing." After that, you went straight to Amazing Grace and tried to insert sounds just so you could get them featured. It's always all about you all the time. Please stop calling Sven a liar-- that's a personal attack and you should be blocked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) A liar is a person who tell multiple untruths. He has admitted to one regarding whether I have requested materials be moved to commons. Most people would say claiming I nominate wantonly with low-quality nominees at FSC is far from the truth since 44 of my last 56 have passed. He has said I have claimed to be notable when I have stated the opposite. This ban discussion has basically gone down the path of Sven posting lies, me showing they are untrue and people piling on saying that even though the things are not actually true you have a bad attitude and have been a problem in a whole bunch of other ways. How would you like me to sugarcoat this ban nomination. It is a string of untruths put together to instigate a lynch mob of people willing to ban a person from posting images against an XfD when the person at issue has never violated an XfDs in five years on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, when I was on my grandmothers death bed, I worked offline and dumped dozens of articles into the DYK process for the CUP causing people to question why I was not using my normal editorial routine (wondering if I was dumping my own work) and creating debates about whether the numerous hooks should be merged as well as causing consternation about why I was not reviewing articles as fast as I was nominating them. At FAC, I'd have to check, but I think about 4 of my last 5 passed. So the complaint you are griping about is from years ago. I have only been nominating with co-authored work of late to keep problems to a minimum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. WRT, Amazing Grace, now that I have nominated 75 FSC, I understand what sound reviewers think improves/degrades articles (as evidenced by my 80% pass rate) and believe the two files that I want to add belong in the article. However, the main editor does not want to talk about the merits of the files and continues to WP:OWN the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC) My condolences, but please stop throwing numbers around, they're irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that you've been asked to stop and your methods have, in fact, been questioned and you aren't confirming or denying this. You continue to update your biography despite the very fact you aren't notable, while you are thanked for your contributions you seem to be promoting yourself and your work on Wikipedia albeit liberally (your consistant calling up of how many FSes you've made in your comments in this ANI thread are just some of these examples). Wikipedia isn't a world stage or WordPress, it's an encyclopedia. All userspace frippery is not helping build an encyclopedia but rather starting unnecessary arguments such as this, I'm sure you know full-well you aren't notable and I'm sure you know full-well no one cares if you're successful or unsuccessful in your poker ventures. Sure you've contributed a lot of content, but showing it off and going around and waving the number of featured content you've nominated/contributed to in arguments in an attempt to coerce others to agree with you seems like you're trying to get the upper-hand, so what if you have good "pass rates", you're starting arguments left, right and centre. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:08pm • 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Can you explain to me why you are condoning me for following your suggestion. Aren't you the one who said to go count my recent nominations. I went straight to WP:FSL at your suggestion {"look through all of your recent 20 nominations"). Now, that you realize your suggestion makes you look bad, you try and say to ignore the numbers. I don't know if 56 files is exactly 20 nominations, but those are approximately the most recent twenty to have been evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Proof once more ... that handing out achievement badges results in people disrupting the project for the sake of their trophy pages. It's high time we codified that FA / FS / DYK / WikiCup et cetera are strictly intended to make contributing here a little more fun and that editors who take them too seriously will be asked not to participate in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I'd wonder whether instituting regular discussions to whether to ban particular editors on the less than clear-cut question of how inappropriately seriously they are taking the processes would end up causing a lot more drama than the status quo. Thinking of the cases of Ottava Rima, Matisse etc. Skomorokh 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I would hope that it takes less effort to ban one from, say, DYK than it would to ban them from the whole project. But the point was simply to state up front that we consider these things to be strictly informal games meant to aid the building of the project, such as to dissuade people from treating them like an end to themselves. That way, there would hopefully be less drama when it comes to asking people to voluntarily stop participating in star-collection. I've been meaning to write Wikipedia:You are not your barnstars for ages now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) delurk A person's motivation for contributing is unimportant. What matters is the end result: does it result in a net improvement to the encyclopedia? Somorokh makes a good point that the informal approach has advantages. Trinket collection is a positive except when it morphs into gaming a process, and usually that self-manages. The drawbacks to formalizing 'don't take it too seriously' is that it shifts attention from project mission to qualitative judgment of the editor, and that type of shift generates conflict. In this discussion (re: the main thread), the basic problem is that one editor who does not take feedback well has nominated a very large number of 'freebies'. Roughly that is like the difference between putting an article through an automated spell check versus manually editing it. Although it does help the project to convert files to .ogg format, it also creates problems when an editor frequently submits nominations that may take more time to review than to nominate. Two approaches have resolved that in the past: reviewers decline to evaluate and/or editors enter informal agreements to shift focus toward submissions where their own efforts have a greater role. In this instance an individual's response became combative after other editors called a break to revise the featuring criteria. New essays aren't needed: WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT already apply. The current friction would be substantially less if an editor had built up a trophy collection of several dozen FS stars by recording cicadas--especially if they created new articles for the cicada species. There's a wide open niche at FS to parallel FP's bird and bug photographers. The difference between conflict and productivity is a willingness to take feedback and step outside the box. Durova412 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) relurk A person's motivation is important when it's self-promotion that is wearing down other editors who must review ill-prepared work, draining their time, and abusing of the featured content processes. I have never been in favor of banning anyone from a featured process, on the principle that even a stopped clock is right twice a day-- IMO, the solution is to change the rules of the processes to stop the abuse, which is what we were forced to do at FAC because of TTT's repeatedly using it as peer review for ill-prepared articles, after which he moved on to DYK (which he seriously abused in his quest to win the WikiCup) and Featured Lists and Sounds. I also think DYK made the wrong change to their rules, requiring nominators to review, which has only resulted in more faulty DYKs, poor hooks, and ongoing copyvios, but that's another topic. There are other problems at Featured Sounds, which is an immature process-- they should adjust to prevent this kind of abuse, but I don't foresee that happening. Similar problems occurred at Featured Pictures, which is also gameable for those who participate in the "reward culture". The "reward culture" per se is not the problem-- it's editors who game the processes while abusing of editors who must review sub-standard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC) The now-banned user ItsLassieTime was notorious for a number of things, including racking up "good article" nominations while apparently compromising many of them with copyright violations (as was later learned). I wonder what the point is? Is anyone likely to list writing wikipedia "good articles" as a point on their resume? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Not yet, but someone has used good articles to assist in achieving tenure. --70.246.148.152 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy is quite right that negative effects on other editors are an important consideration. It's a difficult situation to manage when an individual consistently leeches productivity from a large number of highly productive editors. She has handled difficult situations and earned a great deal of respect for it--most people would have burned out. I just wish I could share her optimism about formal criteria changes being the solution for FS: both FS and FP are in a situation that FA would face if about 1 in 2000 public domain articles from other encyclopedias were adaptable for FA promotion, with about 95% of those requiring serious work but the remaining 5% of those only needing wikimarkup. That 5% occurs in clusters. Both FS and FP have the same dilemma: although it's useful to this site's readers to import great content to WP and get it recognized, people are human and reviewers get fatigued. The editors who know where the caches are could flood the nomination process with freebies, and if the community attempted to create a formal definition of a freebie they would likely create a gameable definition. In the past this worked out informally because the people who knew this loophole had the project's best interests at heart, and the community would be pleasantly surprised how some "notorious" trinket-collectors were basically enthusiasts who responded to this reasonably. A pragmatic strategy is to deal with an editor's motivations empirically: if the energy is positive it can be redirected into win-win alternatives, although the history prior to FS and the reaction to recent feedback do not bode well. Tony, if you're reading this it would be a really good idea to switch gears: there is plenty of other low hanging fruit at FS--I suggested a couple of types in a previous post. But if the motivation really is to game processes then the most effective response is to disengage. Nobody is forced to review nominations. Durova412 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Naive question -- if a contributor is gaming some incentive like FS by flooding it with self-noms, can't people who object just let those self-noms sit while they review others? Or, as a policy fix, set an upper bound on self-noms-per-week? FWIW, I don't know TTT from Lulu the Lotus Eater, and my user page boasts of 8 DYKs. Sharktopustalk 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Astute question, Sharktopus. That's exactly how the reviewers usually handle gaming: withholding reviews on a case by case basis. A flexible response has served the project better than hemming in the most productive editors a blanket "be less productive" rule. Durova412 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC) FS has no self cleaning mechanism like FP. A sound could sit unreviewed for a month and stay on the board. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Can someone explain to me what the difference is between gaming the system and posting numerous noms that are sufficient quality to have a high likelihood of passing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Too bad Just checked out his tony the tiger (Antonio) user page. Pretty darnded interesting actually. If he had that as his user page itself would be kinda OK, no? Or if we made him skinny it down (not tracking his current winnings or the like...guy needs to get his own blog really.) The 600# deadlift in particular is pretty darn respect-worthy. Too bad the fellow does not "get it" that he is disruptive, but it's been years and the guy is an adult. (Even worse, he is an admin, which means he should have a certain type of maturity, of self-reflection). Wiki just needs to do what is right for itself. Too bad we don't have some special stars for FAs on core articles. Hmmm...getting an idea here. Even for that, I know he would gaff it off and do the minimum...guy is a bit of a sea-lawyer. Still...reminds me of the comment about Wikicup and FA interactions. If we made at least SOME of the "rewards" like TFA and 'cup give priority to "real topics" this might make our overall "product for readers" better. TCO (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, TTT is not an administrator. I believe he had an RfA at one time but did not pass. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Three RfAs (1, 2, 3). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Also, this year, the WikiCup is offering more points (and, probably, a separate award) for high importance articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Good job. I look warmer on the 'cup now.TCO (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Close this With the enactment of the topic bans for TTT, could an admin please close this enormous thread? Thanks --Blackmane (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vacating Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Resolved

 – TonyTheTiger's request to vacate one of his topic bans has been rejected. Bencherlite^Talk 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been informed that this ban has been closed as enacted. I have been informed that Wikipedia:Arbitration is suppose to be a last resort after all avenues have been exhausted. I have been told by the closing admin that the alternative formal avenue of appeal is back at WP:ANI. At ANI, instructions say to Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Following the procedure I contacted the nominating admin (Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)) and asked him to consider requesting that the ban be vacated for the following reasons: It was not filed in good faith. I.E., you did not follow WP:AN/I procedure (Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.) and attempt to determine if I had any intention of uploading images about myself and if I might consider resisting such urges. There was no warning given that I need to desist from uploading images about myself or action might be taken to ban such activity. There was no violation of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1 decisions by me. There was no history of violations of other WP:FfD decisions by me. There was no history of violations of any WP:XfD decisions by me. He responded that he felt I had threatened him by notifying him that I was pursuing appeal procedures. He also informed me that proper procedure was to view the ban as if it came from the community. I am asking the community to take heed of its own policy and reconsider the ban for the above reasons as well as those below. Following closure of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1 regarding images related to a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template discussion Sven Manguard, nominator requested a ban to keep me from undoing the two XfDs by reposting the material or posting new substantially similar material. The debate was cluttered with side-discussions statements supporting the two WP:XfDs (E.G., "that much vanity content is painful", WP:NOTWEBHOST, "having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out", WP:N, etc.), which had already been resolved. Note that ANI policy is that Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions Reading through the ban discussion you will find repeated statements in support of both prior XfDs, but no statements that I had or was likely to violate either based on my history. There was no discussion regarding any behavior by me involving history of or intent to violate the deletion discussions by reposting the material or posting new substantially similar material.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Definitely not, per WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU. The community has pretty resoundingly spoken, alleged bad faith or not on the part of the original nominator. It's not even been 24 hours and this is further proof that TTT is refusing to listen to the community. If TTT wishes to pursue arbitration he should be advised it isn't likely to turn out well for him on this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I heard the community supports both XfDs. No need to propose a ban to support them when they are in no danger of being violated, especially in violation of policy in all kinds of ways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose vacating ban. I agree with User:Sven Manguard [36] that your statement "I would request that you consider your responsibility as an administrator and make a formal statement at WP:ANI that the ban be vacated so that I do not have to raise questions about your ability to follow procedure at ANI and then Arbitration." is a threat. Your follow-up statement [37] "I apologize that you view my statement that I was following appeal procedure as "now you have threatened me"." appears disingenuous, at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) And for the record, Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) is not an administrator. I agree with JoeS that your comments above and on Sven's talk page are threatening, all the more so since you appear to have used your incorrect assumption of his (non-existent) admin status as part of the threat. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC) That is true. That I am not an admin also came up in the original ban discussion, which is why I didn't correct him on my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - a quixotic focus on the minutiae of procedure is the very definition of Wikilawyering. And people don't wikilawyer unless they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anyone to actually agree. Don't like it? Take it to arbitration. → ROUX ₪ 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - I'm not getting involved in either side here, but I will say that Tony has a good point that he was never warned and that these kinds of things should be discussed on talk pages before being brought to AN/I for bans. Night Ranger (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Editor gives the appearance of trying very hard to game the system to get what he wants despite community consensus. That's not how one works collaboratively, and it's disrespectful of the consensus of the community and of the individuals who make up that community. --NellieBly (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Roux said it well. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - you are clearly not taking the hint. In addition, if you have no intention of violating the community's desires by continuing to upload images about yourself, why should it matter? PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC) As much as I may oppose the request here, I think there is room for understanding the concept that no user should be under restrictions which confine them to behaviour circumscribed by policy, inasmuch as any understanding of such policy would negate any need for restrictions. Everyone knows what the speed limit on highways (where you live) is; one speeding ticket should, if the driver understands they made a mistake, not result in a judicial injunction to stay under it. The circumstances here, however, seem to indicate this is an habitual speeder who doesn't comprehend that speed limits apply to everyone. → ROUX ₪ 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose (edit conflict) I am, of course, 'involved' at this point, however I stand behind the ban I proposed. TTT has been, over a long period of time, told that he is not notable and that Wikipedia does not exist for self-glorification. Did he upload anything after the mass deletion? No. However the extent and length of the abuse was so staggering, consisting of the single largest case of WEBHOST I have ever seen, that I believed immediate action was necessary, and the community agreed with me. I also ask this; If TTT did not intend on uploading more images/graphs about himself for his biography, why would he be fighting this so hard? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I didn't comment in the initial ban discussion, but it was quite clearly enacted properly and I thus oppose overturning it. I would also suggest that TTT wait at least three months before making another attempt like this. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I didn't participate in the original topic ban discussion, but the consensus there was very clear, and it is much too early to consider vacating it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Question1 If I have no intention of reuploading the deleted content or uploading similar content in the future, what am I suppose to change about my behavior before requesting to have the ban removed in the future? What am I suppose to learn about uploading content before having the ban removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Tony, if you intend to comply with the terms of the ban, it would seem you don't need the ban to be removed. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) You are allowed to have a bio, and although yours is excessive, it isn't against necessarily against policy. You are not, however, allowed to upload 50+ graphs or create 50+ templates that only exist to serve on that bio. You need to demonstrate that you understand that Wikipedia is not a server for your own personal use. My advice: go six months without creating any new pages related to yourself, use a table or two to replace the graphs you have now, put the custom t-shirt and the two letter T scans up for deletion, and take all the stars and tigers from your user talk page and stick them on your user page (so that it dosen't take ten minutes to load your talk page). I would most certainly not start loading personal images at commons, and would most certainly not drag out these proceedings, as they don't paint you in the best of lights. You need to show the community that you've learned from the recent XfDs, you need to show the community that the topic ban is no longer necessary. Come back in six months with a genuine apology, a promise not to abuse the system again, and an invitation for the community to look over your contributions. That's the strong case that will get this repealed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Partial support. No, I haven't gone crazy. Nor have I been drinking (as someone who implied that a week has tens of days in it recently accused me of). Of course, the restrictions had to be passed. Enough was clearly considered enough, and emergency action was needed. I should state that the rest of this post refers more to the FS topic ban, than to TTT's personal upload rights, and that I endorse the first three sentences of Sven's above post, dated 00:56 UTC on 20 June. My reason for supporting is that this entirely justifiable interim measure should be reviewed, if it is to be applied in the longer term. The benefit TTT is capable of bringing to the project is astronomical. I'm not downplaying just how much of a mess he made at DYK, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is capable of producing reasonable quality articles at an incredible pace. I've no doubt that a similar thing happened at FSC, and therefore that a ban is a necessary short-term measure until something more suitable is devised. But lest we forget, a sizeable proportion of all current FS's were uploaded by Tony. 18%, assuming his userpage and WP:FS are both up to date. His contributions include a number of national anthems of underrepresented countries, and a number of noteworthy Presidential speeches, including a 2010 State of the Union address video. Low-hanging fruit some of it may be, but I'd much rather the project had it than not. What is clear is that Tony's interaction with processes as a whole need to be managed, as does his personal uploading, and I use such a broad word as "managed" deliberately. I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but looking at the big picture (Tony's behavior as an entire package), isn't this exactly the sort of area that Arbcom should be handling? If starting this discussion is a prerequisite bureaucratic tick-box for an Arbcom hearing of some sort, then this discussion has my support. However little confidence I have in Arbcom, in practise only it has the ability to apply something that lies in between nothing and a topic ban. In this instance, I consider something between the two extremes to be appropriate, on both topic bans. — WFC— 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Comment Tony's proposal, entitled "Vacating Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed", is explicitly tied to topic ban #2, "2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed". Tony did not propose vacating "the FS topic ban" #1, "1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds"), but perhaps he meant to do so. I see no reason to vacate ban #2, especially given Tony's promise to not violate its terms henceforth. As for topic ban #1, I believe that should be discussed as a separate item. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I have no problem with the first three sentences of Sven's statement. However, they were addressed by the two XfDs. There is no need to support XfDs with bans against violating them, especially without even attempting to talk to the party involved. The ban is basically a wikilynching in support of some kind of lesson. After the XfDs closed there was no need to run around stirring up support for a ban on the XfDed items. Since I have been here 5 years and not violated an XfD, no need to have ever had a discussion about a ban to enforce them. If the ban is enacted, what is a person who has not violated an XfD ban in five years suppose to change about his behavior. That is what I need to know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Nothing could provide more conclusive evidence of the need for these topic bans than this proposal which comes 12 hours after the ban notification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC) It is unfortunate that 12 minutes after the original ban proposal someone didn't say this whole proposal is out of order because there was no behavior violating the XfD and no warning involving violative behavior.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Please stop Wikilawyering, you're not helping yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Sven, he sums up the current situation well. Could someone close this per WP:BOOMERANG? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Support I like how the pathetic attempt at wikilawyering further strengthens the original arguments for placing the ban on TonyTheTiger. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Sven, and request a quick closure per WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and WP:SNOW. cmadler (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting the ban. Self-promotion had been going on far too long, and the community has spoken to stop it - and that's where things should stay, at least for now. If it is not your intention to act against the terms of the ban anyway, then trying to get it lifted now is just pointless lawyering -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Proposing one image upload per year TonyTheTiger's user page may require an occasional update. I propose that he be allowed to upload one self-serving image per year, broadly construed, a minimum of 12 months between such uploads. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC) WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. If he wants to upload another image of himself, he can ask an admin/the community if it's okay like every other topic-banned person. elektrikSHOOS 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Can we just let this end? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on article rescue

Since Avanu (talk · contribs) is not showing that he can differentiate between useful and unhelpful contributions on the subject of Article Rescue, I propose that he be topic banned on the subject for one year. For example, he added a section to Template talk:Rescue last night about an article that had been "rescued" without the use of the tag, as an indication that the tag wasn't required. Since most of his contributions on the subject seem to hover around that level of logic, I think he needs to stay away from the topic altogether.

• Support as proposer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because if we started topic-banning editors just because they happen to make a few bad/controversial edits, based on a "low level of logic," around a particular area, then we would quite likely need to exclude every single IP editor from topics to do with the US government, and from sci-fi, and from cartoon shows. We'd lose quite a lot of editors. Topic-bans, especially for extended periods of time, should only be used on the most compelling and serious cases, and I'm really not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is a lot of discussion and engagement on the talkpage, among other things. This is clearly a good-faith contributor; perhaps slightly misguided, but really not at the level of desperate incompetence which should be the domain of the topic-ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Further observation: Avanu's engagement on the talkpage seems to be pretty mature in comparison to some [38] I might add! ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poem was clever, and friendly. However, if you don't think so, it would appear that an interaction ban is probably the right thing because if that's all it takes to get sand in your shorts, and you can't help but turn everything SoV does into something worth whining about... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Interaction ban" you say? Funny suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Let me get this straight. You're proposing that an editor be topic banned because he made a talk page post that doesn't run afoul of any policies or guidelines, but, in your estimation shows a "low level of logic?" Can you please either provide the diffs of disruptive or otherwise problematic editing in this area that would show the need for a topic ban or withdraw your proposal? Right now the proposal looks awefully spurious, and given your history with Avanu perhaps it looks even worse. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by Avanu - Sarek, if you think I was saying the Rescue tag *isn't* required, then you completely missed the point of what I posted. The thing that myself and other editors have all been trying to get the 4 or so of you to recognize is that we are in favor of Article Rescue, *but* we're not in favor of drive-by tagging. For some reason Sarek, DreamFocus, and a few others feel incredibly threatened by anyone suggesting that the Rescue tag follow its own guidelines. The story I posted last night was an amazing example of an editor doing things right and being about more than just talk. Sarek, I'm not sure if you read any of it or just simply did a knee-jerk reaction, but frankly I was really impressed by the story of how that Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) article was rescued.

Note: I have a feeling that if people look deeper into this Sarek, they're only going to see what we've all been seeing in your conduct and others' conduct, but you brought it here, so, ok. -- Avanu (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Note: I'm posting the diff to my very first discussion on the Rescue Tag Talk page. I notified people that I was making a WP:bold suggestion for change, and the first person to reply to my post was Sarek, where he immediately phrased it in terms of WP:ownership. diff Essentially this has been what the discussion has been about. 2 or 3 Article Rescue Squadron editors who express a strong strong ownership of this template, versus several others who are trying to get them to see that their cause would be much better supported if they weren't being so touchy about following policy and the tag's own guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistorical note: The debate started a bit earlier than that.

• improper tag in light of Articles for Deletion discussion. If I can't simply merge it to end the debate, why should someone else 'flag for rescue'?
• again, adding a POV tag (rescue) in the article with a strong demand to leave the tag in place while an AfD is ongoing runs counter to the idea of CONSENSUS for AfD, until AfD is settled, leave out
• Violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS, WP:CANVAS, WP:PS, and possibly more. Improve the article, await consensus, do not re-add tag
• Undid revision 426293719 by Heironymous Rowe (talk) - vandalism and violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS
• ...there is an ongoing deletion discussion. No consensus has been reached, and during this an editor decided to add the 'rescue' tag, which implies the article will be improved, which skews the deletion discussion. True improvements to the article are needed, not WP:CRYSTAL promises, so this seems like a way for people to WP:GAME the AfD rather than actually improving the article and letting AfD run its course.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - As an uninvolved editor, I read the current Template talk:Rescue. While, at first read, I believe Sarek's perspective on the issues raised there is the correct one, the issue raised here seems more like a content dispute. I think both parties are operating in good faith, but the tension on the talk page is a bit too high. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk)

• We have never been in the business of attempting to silence editors who voice strong opinions about our processes, so far as I know. It's not exactly an uncommon opinion that ARS is far from a net positive in its current form, and editors who are part of ARS should accept that the onus is on them to either reform the project to be more universally accepted as productive or to convince its detractors that it's fine as it is. The diffs provided certainly don't warrant a topic ban on the entire process of "article rescue" (a phrase which had never been controversial until ARS started up, by the way). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the justification for a topic ban. I do see an editor who is being tenacious and borderline disruptive. I'd strongly recommend that Avanu take a break from ARS for a while. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hobit, I, and other editors, have asked for minor and reasonable compromise on this tag. In the course of this debate, the status quo editors have continually expressed ownership of this template and have said this issue comes up "every six months or so" (since 2007). Rather than have this issue drag on for yet another 4 years, I'd like to get a reasonable compromise established so we can put this issue to bed once and for all. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You just declared an intention to argue against consensus for the next 4 years?????? I think you just made my case for me. Thanks for the help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not how I read what Avanu said. Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Yes, I get that. I'd say another way to say it is "this WikiProject won't do things the way I want them to and I'm going to stick at it until I get what I want". I'm not saying you are wrong (I honestly think most of what you have proposed is reasonable, but so is the current tag--I view either as acceptable), I'm saying you need to let it go. There is no consensus for your view and pounding on it isn't going to change things, nor frankly should it. One should not reward people for coming back again and again with the same point. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, what we have seen is a perennial issue and a set of editors who have been running off those who ask for compromise. My goal is to seek a lasting consensus, not just have 3 or so editors continually driving away alternative viewpoints. -- Avanu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But we don't tend to ask other groups to do do things the way outsiders to that group want them done unless there is consensus there is a wider problem. It's clear the members of the group prefer the template as it is. And it's also clear that there is no consensus that the template is a problem as it is. Unless a wider consensus of a problem gets established (perhaps via an RfC?) just arguing with the same editors over and over again isn't going to change anything. I imagine you know that. So it becomes unclear why you keep beating the same drum. As I said, you are being tenacious and borderline disruptive. You are doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. If we're going to topic ban editors from Article Rescue for having a "low level of logic", that's going to be quite a cull. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For real. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is really the most informative and erudite opinion expressed in this entire section. Plus I laughed :) -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I laughed, too! Actually quite refreshing to find such a gem in this 'house'. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support LOL — Ched :  ?  21:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC).. just so there's no misunderstanding: the support for Black Kite's "LOL" is an oppose of the "ban". — Ched :  ?  22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- We only impose sanctions on editors who are being disruptive. Strongly advocating that the ARS use their tag responsibly is far from that. This seems to me to be a case of "I don't agree with Avanu! Silence him!" Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For a number of reasons, the largest of which is I'm not really sure Avanu is that far out of the mainstream in his thinking on ARS. -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Please take this in context. Avanu will not stop bringing up the same argument time and again, and even now is trying to start over and do it yet again. Think of this is any other wikiproject. If someone who never contributed to any articles the project was involved in, spent months filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations, wouldn't you consider that disruptive? Dream Focus 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ..."filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations" - pretty good description of your own user page and talk page, no? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's his personal page, of course. Here Avanu is like the preacher on the public street corner all day telling us we're all going to hell. A few times is sufficient to inform us of our sinner status.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to hell. Nor do I think you are going to Miami. What I do think is that *very* minor adjustments can satisfy all parties, but frankly there have been a very small group of 3 or so editors who just won't bend even the smallest amount with regard to addressing misuse of this tag. I put in a proposal that allowed people to remove the tag after 24 hours if people hadn't followed its own guidelines. This was just flatly rejected. Despite knowing it was being used improperly, the minority of faithful ever-present defenders can't allow anything about this tag to change. I've provided many different formats for proposals to find a compromise here and we've had old editors come out with stories of their attempts to work out a compromise on this, all the way back to 2007. Yet the same very small group of editors tenaciously grip the reigns on this tag. I'd like to see this perennial issue get settled, and although it might seem pushy, I'd just like to see this finally stop. And that isn't going to happen by running people off every few months. I'm new to this really, but the same issue has cropped up for years, and I believe with a VERY minor degree of compromise, we can reach a solution here. -- Avanu (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on our discussion today on the rescue template talk page, its pretty clear your objections are form over substance. When I said awhile back that an editor will pop in at ARS from time to time since 2007 seeking changes, my point was that each said editor crusaded essentially alone and got no consensus for a change. This is no different when people come to the village pump or AfD and say "hey let's suspend AfD" "AfD has been a problem for years, and let's call it Articles for Discussion" not "deletion." These proposals also never gain traction, they just come up from time to time when someone new to the situation is not familiar with what came before (all normal Eternal September stuff). You continue to insist that change *must* occur, but you haven't proven a serious problem to those participating in the discussions. So we are getting weary.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as an involved party. The proposer (User:SarekOfVulcan) and User:Dream Focus have been involved in a content dispute with User:Avanu (and myself). The latter named editor has not covered him- or herself with glory (making poor choices related to boldness, personal comment and hasty reply), but I tend to agree with User:Avanu on the merits. Avanu raises a real issue, that recurring Rescue tag abuse tends to color the ARS as a canvassing club. Template usage instructions should be improved to dissuade abusers. Avanu and other editors who've approached the ARS about such improvement in talkspace and in template talk have been discouraged, derailed, and gamed. User:Dream Focus has been particularly unhelpful and dismissive. If ARS members can take responsibility for maintaining a formal part of the deletion process, then they can respond reasonably when drive-by tagging abuse is pointed out again and again. BusterD (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - the debate playing out right now with regard to the Gery Chico article epitomizes the problem here. Compare with Silk Road (anonymous marketplace) and Islamic Center and Mosque of Grand Rapids, discussions on the same page. -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. While we agree with Avanu, everything's hunky-dory -- as soon as we start disagreeing, the WP:CABAL is being disruptive. Hence the topic ban proposal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, that's bollocks, and not really worthy of a respected admin. Meanwhile, of course, a much easier way of sorting out these problems would be with the magic letters "MFD". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Not sure how the WP:CABAL comment applies here. I just see a very small set of people claiming they can WP:OWN a template and disregard its rules. Wikipedia does have a WP:CANVAS guideline and by willingly disregarding these simple rules, they're basically just violating that. As I've said, very minor changes can fix this and as we see at the Gery Chico discussion on this tag's Talk page, compromise seems to simply not be a part of these editors' vocabulary. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Black Kite, while an MFD would eliminate the problem (by eliminating the tag), I think that would be overkill. I can see a legitimate use for this tag, but if you ask people to follow the Usage section of the tag's rules, you get DreamFocus, Colonel Warden, or Sarek on your case defending its misuse. Milowent seems to follow suit as well, but seems more willing to have a reasonable debate on the merits of the issues. The first three really just seem completely set on no changes at all, and seem to regard those perennial requests for doing things correctly as a bothersome nuisance. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron would attract outside input. I'm not necessarily endorsing an RfC, as things have changed since WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination) (May 2009). Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have never known a use of the tag to be harmful by getting an article kept that should not be kept. There would be no such thing as excessive use if more people actually fixed articles in response to it. Every discussion about this tag has detracted from the main issue of getting more people to do careful and responsible work on articles -- whether on looking for information and improving them, or looking carefully for information and not being able to find any. Those two needs should be carried out simultaneously, because the hard part is looking for information, not arguing at AfD. If anyone want to really waste time on this, do an MfD. Every minute spent there is a minute not spent improving the content, which will not be helped or hurt much by anything about the tag--it's the attitudes behind using it or not wanting people to use it which are the problem. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In line with the suggestion above by Flatscan, I have started an RfC on the Usage of the Rescue Tag at Template talk:Rescue#RfC: Review of Rescue Tag Usage. -- Avanu (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted below by User:Dream Focus, User:Avanu has twice reinserted material under discussion in project space, then requested comment (in bold above). Avanu discredits the issues under discussion by such disruptive and gaming behavior. I still oppose a topic ban, but this editwarring is disruptive enough to warrant a block. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Avanu has once again tried to add in a bit others have objected to on multiple occasions, both in reverting him, and also the lengthy continuously discussions on the talk page. This editor is obsessed with adding in a bit, and will not stop trying to do so without forming consensus first. See the current discussion [39] The main discussion is at Template_talk:Rescue and has been going on for so long with this same person, that all three archive pages contain it. The template page has been protected previously to stop him from edit warring on it. This does seem rather disruptive and he clearly has no intention of stopping. Dream Focus 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much any time DreamFocus weighs in on this subject/template, it is with a very partisan tone and phrased in fairly absolute terms. Per the suggestion from this AN/I, we now have a RfC going, which seems to have attracted outside input and new editors. Unfortunately the typical approach of several of the partisans in this debate has been to attack the editor, rather than make substantive debate or suggestions. I'm thankful for some of them who have been willing to discuss, but particularly DreamFocus and Colonel Warden seem just interested in attacking me personally and figuring out any way to simply end debate. I myself am growing tired of the debate, and I wish that we could have initially had more reasonable voices. PabloX seems to have a willingness for reasonable debate, and Jclemens is also doing so. These two editors have expressed an opposing viewpoint to me, but have at least been willing to debate the issues and not the editor. When a tiny group thinks its acceptable to belittle the opposition, that's what tends to make me want to continue instead of giving up. When I get real and thoughtful discussion, I don't mind admitting I'm mistaken, but partisan us-versus-them mentality is neither polite nor right. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You attack others, and claim they are attacking you. This discussion here is about you and your actions. If you want to make a change, write it out, as I have said repeatedly, and see if anyone supports it. If five people have reverted you, and additional people have objected to your changes on the talk page, then you need to accept consensus and stop trying to make that same change time and again. And you tried bringing in outside views earlier when people didn't see it your way. That is what real canvassing is, not someone tagging an article to ask for help in finding sources to save it. Dream Focus 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you the impression that ANI threads have to focus solely on the actions of one editor. Avanu's whole point here is that it's the same small group of editors who keep reverting him, out of what looks to be a sort of siege mentality (which is never good on WikiProjects, even pseudo-cleanup ones like ARS). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL per Black Kite, and trout Sarek who should know better than to start a discussion this ridiculous. —SW— ^confabulate 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring by Δ over NFCC issues

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

---

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

This is a separate incident from above, and I'm going to start by quoting the WP:3RR exemption for NFCC:

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Bolding belongs to the article. Not my emphasis, but it is the emphasis of this report. This means that the removal of the content should be unquestionable. There should be no reasonable question over whether the image is okay to be in the article. Unfortunately I have to seriously question this series of edits, which resulted in a brand new user getting blocked over a dispute with Delta: Tamimo (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg and immediately added his FUR [40], and then [41] went ahead and added it to the article. This is very commendable. He is a new user, and made very few edits, but he knew enough to make his FUR before adding it to the article. Great, except within 2 minutes, Δ removes the image. What could possibly be wrong? Well, you may have to go back and look very closely to see the mistake he made, because the edit summary is not very helpful. Over the next hour and 46 minutes, delta removed the image 6 times

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

All with the same edit summary, none with any further explanation. Even after the user posted a question to his talk page [42], Delta did not really offer any further help, [43]. He made an assumption that the user did not read the edit summary. However, the user did add a FUR rationale, this poor new user was understandably confused and frustrated. For those who didn't notice it, this article is for a TV drama, there was also a movie of the same name, Raja_Ki_Aayegi_Baraat. The user had simply forgotten to add (TV series) to the FUR. The image isn't even in use on the movie page. Why would it be? it wasn't intended for there. It only took me a few seconds after pulling up the image to realize what the error was, but a new user may not have noticed his typo, especially when met with repetitive and unhelpful edit summaries.

Unfortunately the user made a minor personal attack on Delta's page, for which he was warned, and then after having edited no further, he was blocked out of the blue. That probably needs a review of its own. I have asked the blocking admin for an explanation to this but he hasn't responded yet.

The issue here is "unquestionable". I think this removal was very questionable. It was a trivial thing to see the mistake that a brand new user had made (he'd made a couple edits prior but really only began editing today), and this would have been a very minor fix, and didn't warrant 6 reverts of a new user, with static unchanging edit summaries. For those who will undoubtedly say "There is no way Delta could have known the intended use", the FUR clearly states Logo image of Indian drama-serial This is clearly not intended for use in the movie article, and the image itself isn't present in the movie article. I see no evidence the user has ever edited the movie article, and a quick note of the diffs above will see it was added to the drama article very quickly after the FUR was added, making it all the clearer where it belonged. The FUR further goes on to say Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial making it all the clearer what the intended use was.

All in, this seems to be the same behaviour that generated countless ANI threads on Betacommand when this was all getting started. His inappropriate handling of NFCC issues, especially in relation to new users. As such I propose the following:

• Delta be blocked until such a time that he can demonstrate he knows the difference between questionable and unquestionable removals, typos resulting in missing FUR are not unquestionable removals.
• As was previously suggested by didn't gain consensus, he be placed on 1RR for all NFCC related editing

The image itself has been fixed, but we run the risk of losing a potentially good new editor, one who knows enough to add a FUR, because of this.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as a transparent end-run attempt at an indef block. You say he is to be blocked from editing until he can demonstrate that he knows how to edit properly. I don't suppose you'd accept a nicely written essay? If not, how exactly is he supposed to demonstrate anything? This nonsense is getting tiring. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, typically users are blocked until its clear the disruption will not continue. Disruptive editing with new users was a problem 3 years ago, and it's still a problem now. There is no evidence a week or a month long block would fix the problem anymore than the time passing during the last 3 years has. If he can clearly state that he's aware of what a questionable removal and non-questionable removal are and that he'll only repeatedly remove unquestionable ones, than that will suffice. Nowhere did I ask for an essay.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Clear attempt to hound him. If you wish to report edit warring, take it to AN3. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  This issue goes well beyond a simple 3RR violation, his interaction with users over NFCC, especially new users is a years old issue that hasn't resolved itself.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As you will see in my comments below, another thing to consider besides 3RR is his cookie-cutter, context-ignoring editing style Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. In cases such as this, the better approach would be to fix the minor error in the FUR, and drop a friendly note on the uploader's talk page explaining their error and why the exact article title must be used. A similar situation exists where an article has been moved, but the FUR has not been updated. Again, the better solution is to fix the problem rather than deleting the image. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly my point. This is what moves this beyond "unquestionable".--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I have deleted the image under WP:CSD#F7, for yet another reason: it had a blatantly false fair-use tag and FUR (it was declared as a logo, which it clearly wasn't.) If anybody wants to fix that, feel free to undelete. I couldn't, because I don't know what it is and why and how it is supposed to be representative of the series. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Most likely it was a title screen with the logo on it, as I recall it appeared to be a screenshot with text on it, and a source was given, but I can't verify that now because you've deleted it, which also disturbs the diffs presented above. Why don't you restore it so that it can be fixed?--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning (FYI, there currently is fair use rationale now). He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots. Though Delta may be right on paper, his methods are clearly violation of policy. If I was an admin, I would support harsh disciplinary action against Delta Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:NFCC is policy. Removing files that don't meet the NFCC policy is permitted, even if they are inserted multiple times. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) The ND logo is free use, the UCLA logo is not. It would have been better to have removed them both, to be fair to both teams. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that Delta didn't indicates the lack of contextualizing his edits. There is now rationale for use of the UCLA logo in that article, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)`

NFCC is policy, and Delta was technically enforcing it, but the very first thing I noticed as well was bot-like behaviour. Six reverts to one article, all with the exact same edit summary, and exactly zero attempts to engage an apparently new editor to help them correct their ways. It strikes me that a human would figure out, sometime long before the sixth identical revert, that it might be time to change message or tactic. NFCC usage and enforcement is a giant clusterfuck at the best of times. No attempt whatsoever was made to guide the editor on how to correct their ways. That is the truly disappointing, and completely typical, aspect of Delta's behaviour. Also, looking at his log from today, 14 edits in one minute, all with identical edit summaries, on a very wide range of topics. Frankly, I question whether this is Delta himself making these edits, or a bot. Resolute 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could get a bot for this, however Ive been working on regexes to remove files for years and have had limited success, right now I have a process that works most of the time, but can break a page in about 5% of removals and until I get that figured out there is a snowballs chance in hell of me using a bot for this. However if you take a look at the JS tools that I have provided you will see a simi automated example of the removal script, with a smart edit summary tool. So yes its fairly easy to do large numbers of removals especially if you are working off a list of files that are used across multiple pages without rationales. So please stop the veiled attacks on my character and if you have questions about my actions, or how Im doing them you know where my talk page is. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Delta has technically violated the 3 revert rule, however, he was doing so to enforce the NFCC policy. To me it seems like this proposal is just another attempt to indef Delta. Enough is enough. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  3RR only makes an exception for unquestionable removals. This was not an unquestionable removal. Nowhere did I suggest he be indefinitely blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's unquestionable: the image lacked a proper rationale required by NFCC and the Foundation for its use there. Easily-fixable, that's a different story...--MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's not remotely unquestionable. The error was very easy to see, and Delta had plenty of opportunity over 6 reverts to notice the error and either fix it or bring it to the user's attention. Not once did Delta specifically state "There is no FUR pointing at this article". that probably would have given the uploader the kick he needed to notice the typo on the name. He just repeatedly stated over and over there wasn't a valid FUR linking to the big article on it, but never once stated the specific issue on this page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we're back at editors using Delta to complain about the strict enforcement of NFCC. Now, I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right, but as far as current policy and NFCC goes, there is nothing wrong with >3RR on removing images that lack fair use rationales. If you don't like that, get consensus to change WP:3RR to change that. Or NFCC.

But now lets get back to the problem here. Under the consideration of the community restrictions, has Delta done anything wrong in this specific instance? No. Reverting with the same , correct edit summary (including the link to the right policy) and responding to the user to point him to the right place is all part of this. Yes, NFCC policy is not easy, but that's why there's plenty of places to ask questions. At worst, [44] this comment is slightly biting the newbies, but I've seen other established editors do far worse without repercussion.

What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page (the uploading using, the article in question, or the like). Delta's lack of reaching out first to explain the issue seems to be the biggest point of contention, because if he doesn't do it first, the resulting discussion may get argumentative from the POV of the uploader or user ("But this image is fair use!"-type arguments), and Delta gets stuck in a corner in how to respond politely.

Now, I know this is going to come up, but I am sure someone is going to suggest that Delta must fix any "simple" obvious errors in rationales before deleting them. While it may seem a fair requirement, at the end of the day, unless those simple errors are explicitly listed, this will be gamed against Delta to drive him from the project. ("Well, of course you should have know this was the logo for My Baseball Hometown Team instead of for My Basketball Hometown Team"). The burden, as stated many times over, is on the uploader or those wanting to retain the image to ensure NFCC is met. Even if you define simple cases, like disambig errors, someone will find a way to make a Delta change a huge violation of he restrictions.

Thus, the complaints on this specific issue cannot be dealt with, and one can only consider actions that force Delta to engage in conversation while fixing non-free problems as best he can. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if Delta meets any serious opposition to his removal, he needs to stop and take a serious look at what he's deleting. We might excuse him a single mistake of going through and missing a typo like the one we saw above, but after a couple reverts, he needs to start having a discussion, or thoroughly having a look at the image in question to see where the confusion may be. If he's going to get tied up with an article for over an hour and a half he could take a few minutes to look at the image more thoroughly. It's one thing if there is no FUR at all, it's another when there is a simple mix-up like this. There is a noticeboard for a reason and he either needs to handle this situations or send them off for someone else to have a more thorough and helpful look at them. To make it easier for him, I would accept him being allowed to run a script or something that would automatically kick articles to the noticeboard if he's been reverted twice on them, with the understanding that he walks way from those articles after they're passed on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the block request, regardless of tamimo's discovered status, there was still clearly extensive edit warring over NFCC issues, that don't seem to be clearly exempted by 3RR, and which at least another editor agrees with, and likely more if this discussion is allowed to run its course. Can we use this as a talking point to get somewhere?--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This parts are finished

---

Unblock of User:Tamimo

This appears to be the edit for which Tamimo (talk · contribs) was blocked. IMHO, the warning issued by Gfoley4 was more than sufficient. Tamimo made no further personal attacks after the warning was issued, and the only other interaction with Δ was to ask again why he keeps deleting the image. I feel that the block was not justified, and therefore should be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked the admin here [45] about it, but have yet to receive a reply.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported the user to AIV and Icairns decided to impose the temp block. Newbie or not, "dont u dare mess with me" is not an appropriate comment to make. Delta could have maybe explained the situation better to the newbie. "I don't understand" would have been a fair comment from the newbie. "dont u dare mess with me" is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So you reported a new user to AIV without first issuing a warning? You're aware that AIV complaints are typically not acted on unless there is a clear indication of warnings issued and ignored? #2 on the AIV instructions The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop., in fact it seems your report [46], came a full 7 minutes before the brand new user was issued a single warning [47]. Maybe this entire situation needs a far deeper look.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw "dont mess with me" as a threat of violence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For which the editor was (harshly?) warned at lvl 4. The block came without further continuation of the behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There can be no compromise where threats of violence are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Threats of violence need some legitimate component to them. There is no indication that this user had any personal knowledge of Delta, or that he was actually planning to attack him physically. There isn't even a physical component to the threat. For all you know, he may have meant "Don't mess with me or I'll report you". keep in mind it was only his first day of editing. There isn't even the remotest hint that there is a threat of violence here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw it differently, and still do. A user making a comment like that is up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Him "being up to no good" is a far cry from someone saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kick your ass", both of which are a far cry from "Don't mess with me". That's a terrible assumption of bad faith, that has zero basis in reality, and we don't even have a history on which to base it. If this was some long term user who'd had a history of physically threatening users who made this kind of comment, I guess. But a brand new guy on this first day of editing? Not even close.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see you prove that his threat of violence was baseless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First you need to prove there was a threat of violence. Please indicate where he said he would take any physical action, oh and again on AIV obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only, I don't see where the user did either of things.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from, "Don't you dare mess with me" is a threat of violence. P.S. The guy's block has now expired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this user comes from "where you come from"?--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where he comes from, nor does it matter. Err on the side of caution. When someone makes what could be a threat of violence, they have to be dealt with. So, have you fixed that image's rationale yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a threat of violence. What if he meant something along the lines of "Don't you dare mess with me, or I'll file an ANI report"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Ummmmm .... he hasn't even requested an unblock yet. Maybe wait and see what he says? — Ched :  ?  07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (STALE: block expired) — Ched :  ?  07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block has now expired. Tamimo was dealt with by means of a warning, as this was a first offence, that should have been sufficient. Δ could have done much to alleviate the situation than he did. By taking a step back and looking at the slightly wider picture, instead of robotically following the rules strictly to the letter, he could avoid many of these situations from arising. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes he could have, and that was the outcome of his arbcom case and community sanctions. That was supposed to be the entire point, but here we are, and he's still doing it. As the argument was made above, Delta was technically correct in that no FUR pointed at the article, but that is only due to a typo which makes the removal questionable, he was right on the basis of the FUR, but he was wrong in regards to 3RR and edit warring, and of course it happened over his favorite subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo, et al.

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.80.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.67.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.73.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These may all be the same guy, using a Nevada-based ISP. Note that his previous registered user ID was indef'd for copyright violations and personal attacks. Imagine that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Might want to file an SPI, so someone with Checkuser can see if there are any other IPs or accounts he has been editing from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, let's just leave the poor, misunderstood, abused newbie alone, as Crossmr thinks we should assume good faith. P.S. Here's one thing he said that got him blocked.[48] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your original report, as you had no idea about this when you made it. You still haven't proved that he made any kind of threat of violence and in fact have only strengthened the fact that there wasn't one. His personal attacks are trivial at best, and in fact your sarcasm is stronger than his attack. As far as you were concerned you were reporting some new editor to an inappropriate noticeboard for an imagined attack based on your own personal bias. It's become quite evident that this is likely an immature user who probably needs mentoring, but as often the case in NFCC issues, appears to have been brow-beaten by more experienced users. Look at his talk page. He got absolutely slammed with notices. Something that wasn't supposed to be happening anymore, this is exactly one of the problems that was identified with betacommand and his bot.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My having turned him in was based on experience and what admins have advised me offline on numerous occasions. Meanwhile, Ched pointed out that the guy made no attempt at an unblock request, which seemed a bit curious, so I investigated a little bit. If you think the guy can be mentored, feel free to volunteer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is different. Socking to avoid a block is something which should be investigated if there is credible evidence that it has taken place. Tamimomari was blocked on 4 June, Tamimo did not edit before 6 June. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the dynamic IP ranges, he might be hard to stop. If you start following the chain of the IP's, they go back a few months, with additional 71's turning up. I remain convinced that he only created the registered users in order to upload pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• hmmm ... the closer ya look .... just sayin., — Ched :  ?  08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Image needs restored

Resolved

Image has been restored so that errors can be fixed

Future perfect deleted the image, but it appears he's now gone offline. As he noted there was a missing license, I'd like to fix it, but I didn't save the image. So if someone could go ahead and restore the image so that I could fix the license, I'll do so. From what I recall, it looks like a title image similar to File:Friends_titles.jpg so I'll check the source and update it appropriately.--Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted under F7. There's no mega rush here. Having seen the image, It could be described as a screenshot of a title sequence rather than a logo. Given that the uploader is a new editor, we can expect mistakes to be made, as seen above. This may be another mistake. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that above, but he said people were free to restore it if they wanted to fix it, I want to fix it, but he hasn't restored it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google cached it [49] this page contains the same image, and it's clearly a title screen (which contains a logo), the same as the friends logo.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the one I saw yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not showing in FPAS's deletion log. If you can show me where he said that, then I'll undelete the image for you to fix it. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's right here [50] in his deletion log

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy: obviously false tag (not a logo))

and he said right here he didn't object to people restoring it to fix it [51].--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have one admin who blocked the guy for making a threat, and another admin who deleted the image on the grounds that the guy violated the fair use rules. Looks like a growing conspiracy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FPAS beat me to the undeletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated it with the additional license and added the word "titlescreen" to the description.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You also need to add it to the appropriate article, or the orphaned-fair-use bot will tag it for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No administrative action is needed at this time. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Yeah..not sure who this person is that closed it, but the immediate matter was neither dealt with, nor does tamimo being a sock end up being relevant to the issue. It wasn't known when Delta was making the reverts, and if tamimo hadn't been a sock, there is no evidence that Delta wouldn't have done the exact same thing. Even Massem seems to agree that Delta should be limited to 1 or 2RR on NFCC issues, this discussion was certainly still on-going--Crossmr (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• My position is this: based on the last Delta thread, I can't see us reasonably putting a 1RR or 2RR limit on Delta without being too specific on the types of edits that are, but that doesn't address the core issue in that the past incivility and the like that came from Delta generally arose from him not communicating the issues of NFCC. That is, my belief is that a reasonable community restriction that would help improve the core issue is to require Delta on a contested NFCC matter to explain on an appropriate talk page what the issue is before engaging in either a second or third revert. It doesn't matter if this is a templated message or what, but as long as he is explaining his actions away from his own talk page, that's the head start that is needed. That's above any other matters and assumes he is following NFCC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is in separating genuine disputes from people who might try to abuse it. How about this - Delta should only feel free to continually revert NFCC issues on images where NO FUR appears at all, not just for that article but for any article. Beyond that he should limit himself to a single revert, and then kick it off to the noticeboard for others to handle. This gives him an opportunity to make his case and if it doesn't hold, then he can let others handle it and avoid conflict. This way if there is confusion over the FUR, like in the case above where it was a simple typo, it can be handled without mass reverts on the part of Delta. As I said, I'd support allowing him an automated process to kick off pages which he meets opposition to make it easier and faster for him to handle these without adding a big burden to his work and letting others who may handle the situation better or more thoroughly do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  He's not abusing NFCC. Unless someone wants to propose that change at WT:NFCC or at WT:3RR, Delta's following the letter of the law and within the bounds of the community restrictions. What I surmise others want is that Delta be a bit more human in his edits - and that means at minimum discussion resulting after his first remove is reverted prior/as he completes the second revert, and not just via edit summary notice. Pretty much every situation that appears where Delta is heading down the incivility track is due to lack of personable communication with the person that is reverting him. I would be a bit cautious on the next possible step, preventing Delta from exceeding 3RR on NFCC matters, but as you say, the infrequency of these cases usually means that if Delta lets someone else know about the issue that person can step in to take over to deal with the persistent user that's engaging in the EW.--MASEM (t) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's debatable as some users do think he's abusing NFCC. In this case I feel he was, and I wasn't the only one. As I've mentioned before, you either get to choose the letter of the law, or you don't. If you want to live by the letter of the law, do you know how many violations of his community sanctions he's committed these days? Even if it's policy, he really shouldn't edit warring anyway. That gets him into a bad situation. Even if he is right, if he's edit warring with some new user, we could end up chasing away a user who is just confused. He's done it in the past, as users have basically said they left because of the way he acted. So even if he is following the letter of the law, it's how he follows it that causes issues, and now that I've thought about it more, he really should be at 1RR on all NFCC for the sake of his interactions with others. He can remove an image twice, and if there is still opposition, kick it off rather than risk creating a bad situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get all this straight. Delta scares me with talk of blocking me in User talk:Chaswmsday#WDTN and User talk:Chaswmsday#June_2011, based on what I later find is just his/her own Essay: WP:Fair use overuse, assuming Delta=Betacommand=Durin. And the Essay seems to misquote WP:NFCC items 3a and 8. But if I dare revert Delta's edits to keep the images in question from being orphaned and then speedily deleted, I could be charged with edit warring, but that any of Delta's subsequent reverts of my reverts would not be counted against him/her, even though there would be no huge consequence to keeping the images intact while the dispute is pending. And just how/when is the dispute resolved? When a few users who have a certain bias in their minds get their way on an issue that allegedly was settled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Use of images in articles? And that can be justified both by argument and by a reasonable interpretation of 3a and 8? When I leave in frustration? Urgh. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, Delta's using standard template warning messages for over-use of images and 3RR, so I would not talke it as "scaring" you to avoid a block - they're boiler plate messages that behavior like this is discouraged. Secondly, no, Delta (who is Betacommand) is not Durin. That essay was written a few years ago so the exactly language of NFCC#3a and 8 may have changed, but the intent has not - we strive to minimize non-free images and only use them where they aid in comprehension of the article. Delta's removals and reverts of that are in line with established practice that loading a number of decorative images into an article is never appropriate, the idea that some may be readded after considering how each meets NFCC. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that people do not read the notices/edit summaries that I leave. Unless I start using extremely large red blinking text Im not sure how else to get them to read the notices that I leave. When I make an edit I clearly state the reasons why. 95% of the time users just stick there fingers in their ears and ignore what Im trying to tell them, and they just blindly revert to their version, not bothering to even consider the reason for my edit. I have provided several useful scripts for working with/checking non-free files and their rationales. see:

• importScript('User:Δ/NFCC.js');
• tools:~betacommand/check_files.html
• tools:~betacommand/rationale check.html
• example of checking all uses of a file for rationales.

Im doing just about as much as I can except saying fuck WP:NFCC, lets use as much as we want ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the standard "explanation" doesn't make sense to newbies. I know at one time it didn't make sense to me, either, and I had to ask whoever it was (not Beta/Delta), and probably more than once, just what that standard warning is supposed to mean in plain English. What it means is, "You're using it in article that's not listed in the picture's fair use rationale." In this case, the user Tamimo (now indef'd as a sock of Tamimomari) didn't ask the right questions, hence he and Delta were talking past each other. Then Tamimo issued a threat (continuing the bad behavior he had shown as Tamimomari toward another editor), which escalated. Whoever brought this here led us to the serendipitous discovery of sockpuppetry. But this problem could arise again, and I think the solution is a more-clearly-worded explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, as I have said, I am always open to suggestions/modifications of the notices I leave. However very few people step up and lend a hand fixing that. Ive seen two people step up and lend a hand, Hammersoft and Xeno User_talk:Δ#Maryland_State_Colonization_Society, and in both cases I have adapted my notices/edit summaries to try and make things clearer. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on Delta, you've had move lives than a thousand cats. You've been talked to countless times and it's done essentially no good because you're a AN/ANI regular still after years of the same behavior. Just think that if all the user and admin effort that's gone into attempting to deal with you had instead been put into actually improving articles....and even more so if we didn't need AN/ANI/Arbcom/etc. It's a mind boggling thought.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because people just complain, say "it should be done better" but never actually put their money where their mouths are. Hammersoft and Xeno are part of the solution, instead of just complaining, Ive made multiple suggestions including a file/use discussion similar to FFD but for individual uses rather than the whole file (cases where a file is being over used but FFD has zero chance of deletion) Take a look at my edits and compare them with policy, Every single one of my rationale missing removals is exactly within policy. I also have one of the highest mainspace percents with relation to my contributions. Most people who follow these notice boards have anywhere from 10-40% of their edits to articles, very very rarely will you see one with 60%. I on the other hand spend most of my time working on articles and have over an 80% mainspace I typically spend most of my time working in the article space and avoiding the drama boards. If we deleted AN/ANI I bet we would loose a lot of people here just for the drama. I however focus on what actually matters, articles. you are only at about a 45% mainspace ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's because some poeple, you in this case, refuse to learn how work truly productively in a collaborative environment. You avoid drama boards? ROTFL. Delete AN/ANI, yea, you'd be one we loose because you you thrive on it.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the main issue, and in fact you've been told by users you accused of not reading them that they had. Your explanations are sometimes not that clear or helpful. Look at this case. This was a case of a typo. You took the time to revert the article 6 times, but not once did you look at the image and realize "oh there is a movie and a drama, this image obviously isn't being used on the movie page, and has the words 'identify the drama' in it". I know many people like to often say "I can't possibly know what the intended use is", but in this case, it was extremely obvious what the intended use was. The image was used in one article and had one FUR they just didn't match because of a naming typo. Had you fixed that obvious error, or even said to the user "The FUR doesn't point directly at this article" they may have noticed the error and we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt that simple taking a quick look I saw a film and what appears to be a tv show both using an image, I dont know if the tv show spun off the movie or vise a versa, I cant tell what the file is really, (Ive seen movie screenshots used in TV articles) so its not as clear as you claim it was. I took the safest route and just removed it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was that simple. The description clearly said "Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial- ;Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat." The image was NEVER added to the movie article, and the movie article doesn't even mention the drama at all. The image was added to the drama article 2 minutes after being uploaded. It could not have been anymore obvious where this image really belonged especially after looking at it 6 times. The movie article clearly says it is from 1997, and the drama is from 2008, the movie obviously did not spin off from the drama. The file was clearly described (missing a single word does not make it as unclear as you'd like to claim) and had you followed the source you'd have clearly seen that the page is about the TV show and the image is being used to identify that.--Crossmr (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a very productive discussion at this point. I think what would be helpful is if we drafted a "Common FUR problems" document that our NFCC workers like Δ could link to that would offer tips to users whose images have been removed from articles. Would you be willing to help me put such a document together? 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right"--that's an understatement. In my 6 weeks of editing, I've seen more AN/ANI threads about Δ (why can't he pick a name that appears on a standard keyboard?)/Betacommand than anyone else. From reading these and backlinks, it's obvious this person has a years long history of problematic behavior; behavior that obviously isn't going to change and centers on two things: atrocious behavior and non-free images. Why does wiki continue to endure such behavior? It seems self defeating to me. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just my view: I like 28bytes' suggestion on something being drafted up in laymen's terms that's easy to understand. There are folks here (including me) who have been here for years that have trouble wrapping their head around our legal issues. WP:NFCC, WP:PLAG, WP:COPY etc. I understand the wording in places like that is by necessity very legalistic, and each time I read through them I get a bit more out of them ... but I digress. Just from my experiences ... Delta is passionate about these things, and they are extremely important. I know Delta may not be a "chit-chatty" "how's the wife and kids" kinda guy, but he knows this technical stuff inside and out. I've never seen him fail to steer a person in the right direction if asked about a computer, programming, technical, or wiki kind of question. He's given me some very sound advice on several occasions (although I doubt he'd remember). All I'm saying is that maybe it's time to give him a bit of room, and a little bit of help; instead of the constant "why can't you be nice" let's poke the bear and see if he'll growl stuff. Let's not forget that he's done some great stuff here, give credit where it's due.

I do understand the hard feelings from days gone by, but it sure seems to me that he's been doing his damnedest to comply with the community. Honestly, do you think he'd still be here if he didn't honestly care about what's best for the 'pedia? ... OK .. I'm done running my mouth now ... have a great weekend all. — Ched :  ?  05:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ched hits the nail on the head here. Delta is very knowledgible and skilled, especially in the technical areas and in NFCC issues. However, he is not very good at communicating with people who are less knowledgable in these areas (read: just about everyone else) and invariably this leads to conflict. The trouble is that the image policy is complex, especially for new users, and Delta expects all other users to be as fully versed in the policy as himself, and he has (to my observation) shown no interest in educating users in the policy, if they can't figure it out he seems to have little patience with them. At some point dealing with Delta's interaction styles we all begin to feel like King Cnut facing down the tides: No matter how much we want him to be more accomodating towards users who do not understand NFCC policy, he's just not going to. We'd have a better chance of getting the tides to stop comming in. I don't know exactly what this means or how we should proceed. On the one hand, he does needed work. On the other hand, the manner in which he does this work causes much consternation, and has for many years. I guess I am saying, I want Delta to continue to do his work, but I want him to be better about working inexperienced users through the minefield that NFCC policy is; helping users who are using the wrong template, or misspelling things, or whatever do it right. Most users want to do it the right way, and are willing to learn, and I just want Delta to take more interest in teaching them. Ah, well, the tide is coming in again. Pardon me while I tell it to stop... --Jayron32 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, and that's the entire point of this. He didn't get it before, the community finally got fed up and kicked him out..he was let back in under heavy protest, and heavy restrictions, and he still doesn't get it. I'm seeing absolutely nothing different about his behaviour now than I saw 3-4 years ago. From the unhelpful and repetitive reverts of a confused user (sock or not is irrelevant, there is no evidence anyone involved knew that at the time), to these kinds of statements directed at users he's in dispute with [52], to ignoring the community by violating his sanctions both by starting large projects without first proposing them, to blowing through his edit restriction so many times I gave up counting, and having 3 blocks stick, and one questionable one reversed that some people supported. That's all happened in the last 5 weeks or so. As a member of the community, it just boggles my mind. As a community I think we need to draw a bright line and say: He gets it and we all forget about it and move on, or he doesn't get it and we all forget about it, and he moves on. I don't see any other way we can move forward. Users have, in the past, left the project because of him, because of the way he conducts himself with what he does. The conduct has seemingly not changed, as such I can only worry that we'll again lose users because of that conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you declined to respond to my offer above to help draft a document that would help these confused users you speak of, I'm forced to assume you're more interesting in bashing Δ than in solving the problem with confused users. As such, I'm closing this thread. If a new incident arises that needs administrative action, feel free to open one. And if you should decide to reconsider working on a guide for helping users identify and fix FUR problems, you know where to find me. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow up 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Despite that lovely assumption of bad faith, I wrote that on the way out, and didn't see your small comment tucked away in the middle, the problem is in fact not confused new users. Do they need help? Yes. Should we make a document clearer for them? absolutely. But all we're doing is treating symptoms. We're not taking care of the problem. I am not bashing Delta. I was clearly outlining how I viewed the situation, and the giant issue I'm seeing here. The problem is clearly, and has been for 3-4 years, Delta. Other users seem to handle NFCC without generating the problems he does. When it comes down to these situations, it takes two users. The person adding the image, and the person removing it. And as Delta has said, there is only one constant. Throughout all this time, and all those users, we can't try and shift the blame to them. They are new users and we expect them to make errors. It's how we respond to them as a community that is important and the way he responds isn't. As for actually writing the document, am I good choice to do so? Probably not. I'm hardly the expert others are at NFCC, and you'd be far better off getting someone who regularly deals with NFCC stuff and is known for interacting well with users to help you write something, but I do think the document is needed. The last time I took part in an NFCC discussion was probably years ago, heck the last time I even uploaded an NFCC image was over a year ago.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes' suspicions echoed mine, as you continued to defend that user despite its own behavior, and it looked like your agenda was to gripe about Delta. The right response to Delta's standard-form FUR edit summary should have been, "What does this mean? I don't understand", and NOT "dont u dare mess with me". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr has also posted on my talk page, so I have replied there. Short version: no, Δ isn't a particularly good coach for new users struggling with FURs and NFCC, and hammering that point home doesn't really help anything. What would help is a simple troubleshooting guide, which Ched and I will work on this week. Everyone with experience or interest in this area is invited to join us. 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Just point us to the right link. While you're at it, someday, something in plain English about how to upload a free photo would be good. It seems like every time I go to upload a photo I've taken, several layers of complexity have been added. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do; as soon as there's a link, I'll make sure it gets advertised. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond being a bad coach. Users have stated that they have either curbed their editing or stopped editing because of the interactions they've had with Delta. That is a huge problem for the project, and goes well beyond simply creating a "NFCC for dummies" guide. Is that needed? Yes. But it doesn't solve the actual problem. Delta knows that he has the issues. He's known for years. Yet we still see him getting into the same situations. No one has a gun to his head forcing him to handle NFCC issues. At any point he can walk away, and there are times when he should. If he's been reverted a couple of times, he needs to kick it off to a noticeboard and let someone else handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we still debating over this when the original account in question that Crossmr tried to defend is blocked indef for socking? It sounds like a kangaroo court to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it being a sock is irrelevant to the actual issue. There is no evidence Delta knew it was a sock. The account in question was making a trivial error in the FUR (the edits were otherwise fine and appropriate) and the issue is the unhelpful and blind reverting. This could have been any old new user. Let's not forget just shortly there after he got involved in an edit war on rd232's talk page that some admins thought he should have been blocked for (and one did block him before realizing there was a declined 3RR request already on it, but others had posted supporting it), and hardly an isolated case. While he's often right in the removal of the images, it's how he removes them, and sometimes when he's not right that causes issues, but he seems to treat them all the same. Let's take a look at the history of this talk page which also occurred at the same time: [53]. While the removal is mostly inline with policy, his final removal, where he just quotes policy, with no explanation [54], is not actually removing an image. There is no image on this page [55], so I don't see how a link to an image violates NFCC. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't even looking at the page and just saw his edit had been undone, so he responded in kind. While it's not a 3RR violation, he's edit warring without carefully checking his edits, because he removed no image from that page. He also reverted 6 times over at [56], which again may have been inline with policy, but he only used a helpful edit summary the first time. There is no evidence there the user is banned, and it's the exact same behaviour. While in this case we're not dealing with a FUR that has a typo (it was actually missing in at least some of the images) Delta handled the situation identically.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, Actually if you take a look at the diffs you can see that the files where added back in (almost correct syntax), not using the standard [[:File: link but the actual media usage of [[File: so it is fairly easy to miss that the magic word __nogallery__ with a file would break it. I was using diffs and saw a [[File usage which normally represents a file being used and reverted. I am getting sick and tired of you assumptions of bad faith, and insults. And yes I suspected that Tamimo was a sock, because I still had Rang_Badalti_Odhani on my watchlist. Im tempted to start a request to have you topic banned from me due to your repeated hounding. The reason that I kick up so much dust while enforcing NFC is because most other NFC enforcers do as much as I do with regards to missing rationales/overuse. Just ask User:Beetstra most people do not listen and blindly re-add their files without fixing the problem, Beetstra has actually placed several blocks for this due to users not listening. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Crossmr seems to be on a mission of some kind here. The editor Tamimo's being a sock most certainly is relevant to the overall picture. The thing is, though, Tamimo asked you why you kept deleting his image, and your explanation wouldn't necessarily make sense to a newbie - because, as I said earlier, the standard explanations are not plain English. They assume the user already knows what the jargon means. It's true the editor was a sock and acted like a junior-high-level jerk. But even so, he deserved a newbie-level (i.e. straightforward) explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the crux of the problem with delta. Which has been explained how many times now? @Δ: Dude, how many times does someone have to say what is substantially the same thing (or block you) before you start saying "humm, maybe the problem actually isn't with everyone else. Maybe I'm actually taking the wrong approach."? Despite protestations from your supporters, it's not wheter you're right or wrong, it's how you play the "game"!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes is working on some better explanations which will help alleviate the issue greatly. As for Crossmr's hounding of Delta, it is becoming farcical at this point. To the point above me, Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game. Aggregating sources and building articles out of them is the exact same skills (analysis of statements and context, critical thinking) that are required to read the policy links and come to some understanding of them. I would hazard a guess rage-quitting over Delta corresponds greatly with editors of temperment and attitude ill-suited to producing a reference work in a collaborative environment. In other words, if it wasn't this it would have been something else sooner or later. -- ۩ Mask 06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me. "Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game"? If that's what you got out of my comment above, then you're an idiot AKMask. As for crossmr... he probably is hounding delta, but delta brings it on himself. You and his other advocates only make it worse because you're enabling his poor behavior. Anyway, none of this really matters to me, so... whatever. You guys deal with this, I'm done with it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Idiot (or moron, as you used in the edit summary) is far from the worst I've gotten on here. I'll chalk it up to you being upset consensus is not with your approach. -- ۩ Mask 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright Delta, I'll believe you. I know you're making edits that you believe will help the project, but you have to realize that the people who speak out against you are doing the same thing. Personally I'm quite disgusted when I see that a user has stopped editing or mostly quit because of interacting with you. can you please consider kicking off difficult users to someone else? To the noticeboard, to another user on the talk page, just anywhere else? Heck you know what, if someone reverts you more than twice on a page, put them on my page and I'll take care of it. Just anything to stop this relentless hammering of new users. The project won't get sued in the short time it takes for someone else to get on it. Go ahead and close this, some people have once again disagreed with the way you do things, some have supported it, and we're obviously not going to get anywhere, even though I thought we might earlier.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And I will say that contrary to the allegations and assumptions of bad faith that have been made, I don't hound your edits. I do defend my point, and don't simply walk away because of a little opposition. I've only posted 2 topics 8 days apart on two separate incidents and in the case of the second, I first ran it by Jayron32 who suggested I post it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support a 1-minute block People in this thread seem to think that WP:3RR says nothing about WP:NFCC other than it's ok to keep reverting past 3RR to remove it. In fact, it states: "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption" (emphasis mine). Δ needs to be less combative. While a 1-minute block wouldn't stop him from doing anything of significance, it would be logged and discourage edit wars in the future. Δ should get other editors involved instead of just getting into revert battles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  That wouldn't accomplish anything. His community ban didn't change his attitude, why would a one-minute block do so? Resolute 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  Sigh. Δ does such good work in other areas too. Why is it some people (Δ isn't the only one to be sanctioned in the past) become so obsessed with this particular area of Wikipedia? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's policy, and there's no figuring wikipedia policy. They allow any moron to edit, unregistered yet, while just about any website on God's Green Earth that allows user input requires registration; and meanwhile they have a much stricter fair use policy than the law requires. Although, as cases like the Tamimo affair suggest, maybe the one necessitates the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  A 1 minute block will register a "foul" has been committed. Unless we note this, behavior that runs right up to the border of what is acceptable will continue to be swept under the rug/ignored. Sure, he does good work in other areas too, but that doesn't excuse his bad behavior. It sure can mitigate "punishment" (example: a court case in which a billionaire philanthropist kills someone accidentally in a bar, the courts are likely to rule more favorably in the punishment phase than a coke dealer on his 5th conviction for manslaughter...but both are still guilty and deserve to face rehabilitation). People continue to be opposed (not obsessed) to such behavior because it is the point of contention that causes the most trouble. He could largely walk away from ever editing a single image again and, instead, focus on improving core articles. Instead, he continues to address areas where he thinks there are problems and handles them in a hostile manner. Tothwolf, I'm not so interested in sanctions in the past (if there are any). I'm only interested in the sanctions he's under now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Blocks are preventive, not punitive. 1-min block definitely falls into the realm of being punitive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  At the same time, as I tried to point out on your talk page, such "annotation blocks" appear to be controversial. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

DC connector

This section split from #Follow up 2. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I privately queried Δ about this removal of File:Powerpole.JPG from DC connector this last Thursday. It was clear that the FUR template had the article name wrong (DC Connector instead of DC connector, which has since apparently been corrected [57]) but when I pointed this out to Δ, he then began to argue that his removal was not due to the typo in the FUR, but instead that the image was replaceable and that it violated NFCC. I explained to him that this particular image would be next to impossible to replace given this type of connector, but I got nowhere and finally had to give up trying to discuss this with him. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ happens to be right. This is an article of electrical equipment that exists in the real world. It is not a statue or other artistic work. Therefore, any Wikipedia editor can photograph one of them and release it under a free license. Further, the image wasn't tied to the text in any way. It's completely replaceable. I'm sorry that you're wrong, but that doesn't constitute poor behavior on Δ's part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you or another editor actually put your hands on one of these and photograph it? This sort of argument has come up before for other images and doesn't hold up when you can't actually obtain one of these to photograph. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• For transparency, I'm noting here that I've undone this edit by Hammersoft which was made without an edit summary. If this image could be replaced by a free image I would be all for it, but when one cannot actually obtain the item to take a photograph, it is impossible to create a free photograph of the item. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is that a current piece of equipment? If so, this is not like trying to get a free photo of the Unibomber. Couldn't someone just go to their local hardware store and take a picture of one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's funny you say that because a very old painting of Kim Jong-il was deleted for that very reason. You know, because every wikipedian has a special forces team at their disposal to break into north Korea.--Crossmr (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• As I understand it, no. It is a proposed standard for DC power distribution in data centers. The connectors are highly specialised and are not readily available (meaning one can't just go out and buy one), otherwise we could create a free photograph of one. I would actually love to replace this image with a free photo too, the quality of this one is not that great. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I give up [58] I'm tired of this sort of bullshit. No, it isn't available, although the manufacturer would probably be happy to custom manufacture 100,000 pcs for you. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, here is a random though, email the company asking for a image released under a free license. Most companies would jump for the chance for some free advertising on wikipedia. But no, instead of taking a few minutes and attempting to get a free file lets just ignore the m:Mission and and use a non-free file. Or try emailing someone/group that installs these, or has one in their facility. With a little leg work getting free versions of files isn't that difficult. Yes no free version exists now, and if we dont attempt to get one, one will never exists.... ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just spent a few minutes, drafted and sent an email to Anderson requesting a freely licensed file we can use. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Gosh, so why then Δ couldn't you have done that in the first place? Is it just far easier to just remove the image [59] without any sort of notification to the uploader, or perhaps bite a newbie editor such as Webwat, as some others have done with templates on his talk page? (It would be nice if people would be nicer to new editors such as Webwat.)

  While most manufacturers are not going to be willing to license product photos under a free license (legal worries, concerns of competitors using their photos, concerns that people may think their designs are free, ...), you are certainly welcome to try. Here is a link to the section of their site for these style of connectors and there is a customer service link at the bottom of this page. Maybe you can obtain a photos of these custom connectors.

  As I explained to you previously Δ, you aren't going to find anyone "out in the field" with these connectors, period. The only people who might have them are either the original manufacturer (although they would likely be more than happy to manufacture and sell you a large order), or previously, one of the demonstration sites (which likely no longer exist given how long ago this was). As far as I'm aware, despite the standards, no one is using these connectors in production devices. See these links for more information: [60] [61] [62] [63] (this pdf file being the source of the photo in question) Note that these documents have been cited elsewhere, too. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)...and on that note, a much better version of the original photo can be found on LBL's site here which is linked from the FAQ here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be blunt, it's not Delta's responsibility to do that. I have to say I'm quite impressed that he's going above and beyond the call, to model the way for future newbies (and old-bies, like me) on how to go about getting, or trying to get, a free image. Perhaps that kind of info could be included in the simplified instructions that 28bytes is developing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• True, and to be fair I wrote the above reply before Δ replied a second time here. I also just now noticed the note Webwat added to File talk:Powerpole.JPG. Others might find it worth reading. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. It indicates a willingness to work with us, and that's good. It also occurs to me that a willingness to work with Delta, instead of beating up on him all the time as some users do (and which I used to do also), would be more productive for all concerned. Let's hope all this discussion results in a good step forward for all of us. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• He also asked about the ".jpg" vs. ".JPG" stuff, which is one of the technical oddities about this site. The file could be renamed, although perhaps it would be better to see what result Delta gets from his e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we do keep the file and rename it, it would be best replaced with this version anyway since it is higher quality and does not have the artifacts introduced from being included in a PDF and then extracted.

  Given the image was created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is funded by the United States Department of Energy, I've been wondering about the copyright status of the image too. LBL publishes a copyright statement here, but it directs inquiries to the page owner.

  Because these are custom connectors, I'm still not sure that APP is going to be able to help us, but LBL might. This page has some contact information and this page gives a contact email for high resolution video. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Crossmr

Crossmr (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly posting to several different venues and talkpages trying to sanction Delta and attacking anyone who tries to close down the threads above, including: Fastily's talkpage, mine, FPS's, 28bytes's and Sven Manguard]'s, as well as the Edit-Warring noticeboard. Despite having two final warnings about his continuous hounding of Delta, from two administrators, he continues to post about Delta, rather than working on some useful articles. How many more warnings does he need before he stops? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta has taken steps to improve the fair-use message he was leaving. To me that shows a willingness to work with us. Crossmr needs to back off a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I 'backed off' a day and a half ago now. The last two discussions that were petering out had nothing to do with Delta at all really.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see here:

• Regarding your page, I was not the only one who thought it was a mistake for you to close it. Baseball bugs also said that he was going to open it again if I hadn't of
• Regard fastily's page comment, I was seeking clarification on his why he made the decision he made, and I was not the only one. A group of admins later blocked Delta over that edit war, but then it was overturned because they didn't know there had been a declined 3RR on it.
• Both Future Perfect's and Sven's talk pages are replies to comments on my talk page. I am allowed to reply to people who write on my talk page right? Both of these discussions are not even really about Delta, they are more about the discussion and their edits and my edits.
• Future perfect's warning is nothing more than baseless personal attacks. Which he was asked to support with diffs and refused, and for which there is no basis to support his claim that I was either forum shopping, nor persistently badgering admins about how hard they sanctioned Delta [64]
• As for the 3RR noticeboard, I posted my interpretation of policy and the situation surrounding it, one someone else had already basically stated. I didn't even address delta by name or ask for a specific action against delta. I was actually speaking to Mickmacknee's edits more than I was speaking to Delta's. I still don't see where I'm prohibited on commenting on an open thread.
• and Beestra's warning? Well His warning is based on nothing more than his view that two people can't have a conversation about someone on a talk page without notifying them, otherwise it's uncivil. I asked him to cite the relevant policy that stated that, and I still haven't seen it.
• and 28byte's and I's disagreement was based on a misunderstanding between us. One we've already drawn to a conclusion, he thought I'd ignored him, I thought his close sounded spiteful. If you note above he came back to the thread and we had no problem continuing our dialog.
• Just for clarification where was it that you notified me about this? You know, as required by the page header above, since I'd already stated above that I was done with this discussion, and in fact stated that in a couple places (since you went to all of them and checked). it was only by chance that I caught this. just so we're clear here:
• You disrupted a discussion by closing it, that another user agreed was inappropriate
• You started a thread a day and a half after I clearly stated I was done and made no further comments about Delta here asking "when I'm going to stop"
• You failed to notify me of this thread as required by the noticeboard

I guess I could turn around and ask you the same. Oh an my continuing to post [65] has nothing to do with Delta, and it's about Future perfect's unsubstantiated allegations. I recommended on your talk page that you should read things more thoroughly, I'll repeat it here. No where in that post was I complaining about delta, I was going over my edits to clarify them with FP.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so there is no further confusion, I consider this conversation about Delta done. I considered it done a day and a half ago (other meta conversations aside that weren't directly about Delta). While some others also have yet again taken issue with the way delta edits, it's clear once again we'll have no consensus. Hopefully Delta will improve his process and we won't ever have to have this conversation again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Crossmr, you reported ∆ to Rd232 for typing an all-caps edit summary - unlike typing 'fucking twat', typing in all caps can be a good faith mistake (forgetting to turn it off) - I agree, it was unlikely here, it turned out that it was not a case of forgetting to turn it off, etc. But still, there was a good faith explanation possible, which you simply ignored). You did not ask ∆, you just went to Rd232 and reported him for incivility (and also there you did not show that you considered it could have been just a plain mistake). To me, that show a lack of assuming good faith on ∆. Then you do go immediately to an admin, you do not notify ∆, you do not talk to ∆ about it. That is, just by common sense, uncivil. We do not have policies and guidelines for it, but if editors come complaining to me about another editor without talking with that editor first about the situation, I do say "did you ask the editor", "did you try to talk to the editor" - similarly, if someone reports an editor to AIV, and the editor did not get any warnings before, then the vandalism should be pretty grave otherwise it will simply be ignored (I hope).

We expect ∆ to be civil, ∆ has been very civil for thousands of edits, except for some (one?) case(s) where he was treated with continued incivility, rudeness etc. He was blocked for that, and ∆ did not complain, no-one complained that that was a improper block. Yet, ∆ is confronted on a daily basis with unnecessary incivility (like this remark about ∆, by you, to Rd232, what was the problem to first ask/remark to ∆ first, or to notify him, even if you were (or turned out to be) right, Crossmr? - especially since this was not a clear cut form of incivility, people do forget caps-lock sometimes ..). If we expect ∆ to be civil, then I also expect editors to be civil against ∆ - if ∆ is uncivil, well, he is under civility parole, he will run into an immediate block then. But I will, increasingly, be warning editors who are uncivil against ∆, I will ask them to take care, to try and assume good faith. And just as single cases of incivility by ∆ will result in immediate blocks of ∆, I will block (and have blocked) editors who are repeatedly incivil against ∆ (of course, after significant warning). You did not, by policy or guideline, have to notify ∆ that you were talking about him somewhere else, but that does not make such behaviour civil. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S., you've got my name spelled wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I made that comment based both on the fact that it was all caps, and the fact that he made that edit summary before he'd communicated to the user that he didn't want to receive talk back messages. I'll also point out that nowhere in the message did I ask for any specific action against Delta, nor at any time did I recommend he be blocked or banned during the discussion. As I've already said, Rd232 was seemingly handling all things Delta at that time, and I commented on it to make him aware of it. only after I discovered what I felt to be a further example of uncivil behaviour directed at the same user did I suggest a warning a most. If I wanted to make a formal complaint about him, I would have brought it to AN/I (which would have no doubt been drama inducing) and notified him as I did here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So that basically confirms that you ignored the fact that it could have been a good faith case of forgetting to turn off the caps lock .. ánd you think that talking about editors around their back is a form of civil interaction between editors, Crossmr. I am disappointed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Who was talking behind his back? As Delta stated, he has the talk page watchlisted. He was the first person to respond to the comment a very short time after I posted it. He'd posted to the page a mere hour and a half before I had and responded only 22 minutes after I did. The discussion was no mystery to him. For all the time you've spent insisting that you think I was somehow assuming bad faith for commenting on a sanctioned user without first talking to him, you might want to remember that in assuming good faith yourself you have to remember that I felt I was making edits that were for the best of the project, and as the policy states ..there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose., and yet I've almost lost count of how many times you've said it. You are right though that this entire situation is rather disappointing. You might have a case to make if I'd made this comment in secret somewhere insisting repeatedly that he be blocked immediately, but that is not the case.--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Declared good-hand-bad-hand account

North8000 (talk · contribs) appears to be operating a good-hand-bad-hand scheme with TheParasite (talk · contribs). The latter's userpage states, "Most of the time I am North8000 who tries to contribute and be productive. But I have a split personality [...] When this personality comes out, I just want to pick at, delete, criticize and tag other people's work rather than doing anything useful [...] I am so expert at quoting and misusing Wikipedia policies [...] If you anger me I will go after you and win."

While this sort of thing could potentially be humourous, it doesn't seem to be so in this case. A recent example of pointless disruption took place here: [66] [67] – which I only realised was a 'joke' by accidentally clicking on the link to one of the userpages.

The editor has declined my request that they voluntarily stop this disruptive editing so I am reluctantly bringing this here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, one of the accounts should be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. If TreasuryTag hadn't stumbled upon the person's userpage and brought it to the attention of the disucssion's participants, it would have appeared (and did appear to me) that they were two seperate accounts joining in a discussion. This clearly violates WP:ILLEGIT. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Another instance of using both accounts in the same discussion without indicating they are the same person: [68] and [69]. This and the above incident are the only times the second account has edited outside of its own userspace. The only purpose of this account seems to be to add support for the other account's comments. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true./ I will prepare a thorough answer in the next few minutes. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TheParasite has only had 2 brief edits (outside it's talk page) in it's history, and both of them essentially a brief disagreement with me, and both obviously there only to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me. I prominently declared this in both directions. So it is not disruptive per that definition, nor agreeing with me. So, all of the above accusations of going against policy or guidelines are not correct.

But I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that. I'm leaving now for about 6 hours and won't be able to participate or do anything further until then.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stop with the split-personality. It's a pity that you couldn't have so agreed about half an hour ago when I asked you to on your talkpage, though. Also, if the only purpose of the account was "to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops..." etc. then that is obviously disruptive because it serves no valid purpose related to building an encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation[70] GB fan (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident where I provided a profuse and detailed explanation. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:GHBH and it is silent on the issue of whether it is only talking about "undeclared" bad hand accounts (which would make it a "sock puppet") or both "declared" and "undeclared" bad hand accounts. However, I would ask North8000 to say how he thinks that creating a "mirror universe doppelganger account" contributes to building the encyclopedia. I would also ask him to review WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the dangers of picking an alternate account with a vastly different name from your main one; at least I had the sense to make the signature of mine really obvious. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In my case I would think that Ron Ritzsock is obvious enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although it also isn't a bad-hand account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other alternate accounts that have been used by this editor?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A WP:SPI may be in order. Phearson (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not for fishing --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am sure that there it was not the intention of North8000 to be deceitful, and I for one accept his explanation that the secondary account was duly disclosed on its userpage. However, to a participant in the village pump discussion in question, it would not be immediately apparent that the sock is the same editor as North. It would be preferable if he stopped editing from the secondary account, or at least did not use it at all to participate in community or content discussion. I do not agree that an SPI is warranted here, because this seems more like a misguided than a deceitful use of a secondary account; but I do think that administrative action would be necessary if North does not voluntarily abstain from using the account. AGK [•] 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your assessment of my intentions is very accurate. Recapping my earlier note, I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that.

I think that persons throwing around inuendos, making clearly erroneous accusations without/ before carefully reading the guideline, mis-characterizing it as a bad hand account, and leaving out key information is the worst thing happening here. When I accidentally edited as both North9000 and Goober9000, (ONCE, and about 8 months ago) I immediately took ownership (I think I also then double signed the edit) and explained the situation right there by the edits. I also left a detailed explanation of the situation and how the error occurred at the top of the Goober9000 page for 5 months after that, (check the history) and after that left a briefer note which remains there. And then 8 months later somebody left all of that out and just wrote "Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation".

Further, the message at TheParasite is to call attention to a very serious problem in Wikipedia, and I feel that the manner chosen to do it at the TheParasite page is an effective if unusual way to do it. There are very destructive people like the TheParasite roaming Wikipedia. The two times that TheParasite has ever edited outside of their talk page is when this problem was germane to the discussion. North9000 was arguing for things which would help solve the problem, and then TheParasite briefly chimed in opposing me, in essence saying that they wanted to keep the status quo. And as if the name alone "TheParasite" wasn't a dead giveaway. With an inexplicable and unexplained goofy comment like TheParasite made, and a name like that I think it was very clear to most that I obviously wanted people to go to TheParasite's page, but somehow that also got "missed" and left out in the above.

And finally, the "shouting from the rooftops" was explicitly "where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me"; referring to how prominently I indicated on both user pages that both accounts are me. Then TT chopped off the operative "that it's me", then "forgot" this and made the comment that the shouting from the rooftops was "disruptive". Disclosure of the alternate account was certainly not disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But having an alternate account designed to imitate the behaviour of a destructive editor in order to make a point seems to be a classic WP:POINT violation, so I for one welcome your pledge to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 08:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wp:point says to not do disruptive behavior to make a point, and then goes on to give examples, all of them involving editing articles to illustrate the damage that can be done by the issue in question. It does not say that "reverse psychology" is disruptive behavior, it is pointing out not to do disruptive behavior in reverse psychology type situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline plainly covers the creation of an alternative account simply to act like an asshole. Whether or not it is specifically mentioned on the list of examples is irrelevant. Assuming that you understand that, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks, which, unlike my conduct, IS a violation. And my point was not that it wasn't listed in the examples, my point was that the behavior has to be disruptive on it's own right in order to forbidden by wp:point, and the examples give a general idea of the nature and severity of behavior which would be considered that, and mine (two brief comments on TALK pages) was not even in the ballpark on either of those metrics, much less both of them. As indicated, I wanted to retire that alternate account anyway and have done so. If there are no further incorrect accusations or insinuations of mis-behavior, then we're done here. If there are, please be specific and lets review it here. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that you may be the one in the wrong here? Our "incorrect" accusations that you created an alternate account solely in order to act like a "destructive editor" (your words) clearly have to conclude that your actions were disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You must understand and I take behaving properly and nicely very seriously. And that includes reading the behavior-related rules precisely and complying with them. I see nothing anywhere that defines the types of things that I did as disruptive. Perhaps you feel it is disruptive even without that. Perhaps we could agree to disagree on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Wikipedia has a relatively high percentage of users with difficulties judging social interactions and getting jokes. I believe we have a great deal of tolerance here for them, but making innocuous behaviour illegal just to make it easier for such users is not a good idea. Just like we are not removing all the markup in articles to make it easier for screenreader users. Hans Adler 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It is an old example, and this editor and I have a history, but this archived talk section off the editor's main talk lists a couple of cases where I suspected meat or socking (especially the instance noted here). Sometimes he takes personally things not meant to be personal (like this AfD which pretty much started our history) or questions the pshycological state of other editors, but can at other times be a decent enough editor. Novaseminary (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whole new topic (if we want to get into it) but I can provide extensive evidence bearing out anything that I have ever said about this editor. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000, Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? -- Atama頭 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Condensing the full disclosures and declarations on my account pages and above, North8000 is my main account, Goober9000 (who has only made one edit outside its user space, by accident, fully explained, and triply taken ownership of) I keep for logging in at insecure locations, and TheParasite (who has only made two edits outside of it's user space) I'd guess you'd call humerous; I was planning to retire it to simplify things and now have done so. So, all of my alternate accounts put together have made 3 brief edits outside of their user pages, total words for those edits = about 1/100th of the above discussion, and now they are down to just Goober9000. . North8000 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(This is just a copy-paste of the question asked by Atama (talk · contribs) but since you didn't answer it, I assume you didn't see it.) Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He replied that he considered TheParasite a humor account, and used Goober9000 for public logins; both of those are listed as acceptable uses. Regardless, he's said he intends to retire the TheParasite account, so assuming he does, are there any outstanding issues to consider? 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully answered the question, I don't know why it was repeated. Also as indicated above a couple times, I already retired TheParasite. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, though the "humor" usage is a dodgy one; I know that we allow some accounts for humor but it's on a case-by-case basis, for example using a sockpuppet to insert humorous misinformation to BLP articles would count as "humor" but I'd block someone for that as soon as I saw it. Either way, though, the disruption doesn't seem to have been that extreme and TheParasite is being retired so that's not a concern for me. Goober9000 is clearly linked to North8000 and has a legitimate use so that's not a concern either. If those are the only alternate accounts then I think North8000 isn't doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK. -- Atama頭 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

False and misleading

Resolved

 – We have no power over Spanish Wikipedia - and Jaimesaid needs to be thankful we don't. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulse and misleading accusations from NEREO, CHUCAO, Jcestepario are to much!.They act coordinated, probably the same person, or VandalBOT, Sneaky Vandalism,Template Vandalism, Harrassing. Leaded by NEREO without boundaries.They put violent notes under a copyrighted maps and in history as " Falsification" under the template and other discrediting notes in Wikipedia to my articles Jaime Said. They put "false data" and have taken all my work down. They threten me as I try to recover the work that NEREO and his team deleted. He has obtained for the second time to Blocked me for 3 month. He has spreaded in the spanish secctions Frutillar, Patagonia, Puerto Montt, Valdivia, Lago Llanquihue, Lago Ranco, Chiloe, Puerto Octay, Monte Verde all Chilean Territories of Patagonia, deleted all my work, changed to his point of view and construct HIS Argentinian view of Chilean Patagonia with a campain to discredit my work as Historian. Please VIEW HISTORY of the pages mentioned--190.96.40.109 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)--Jaimesaid (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This complaint was originally left at the vandalism noticeboard. I dropped a note at their talk page asking for some clarification. Larry V (talk | email) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nereo (talk · contribs) and Jcestepario (talk · contribs) have been notified. I can't find this "Chucao" fellow, though. Larry V (talk | email) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any editing to topics related to Patagonia by these accounts appear to have been a couple of years ago, certainly in the en-WP. If there are edits on other language wiki's then there is nothing that can be done here. Of note is that there appears to be no block history at en-WP relating to User:Jaimesaid, and I wonder if the references to "spanish secctions" (sic) refer to that project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Does there appear to be any history between Jaimesaid, Nereo, and this "chucao" user at es.wp? If so, that may explain quite a bit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be rather extensive interaction between these users on the Spanish Wikipedia.

• Usuario Discusión:Jaimesaid (signs his posts as "PATAGAU")
• Usuario Discusión:Nerêo
• Usuario Discusión:Jcestepario
• Usuario Discusión:CHUCAO

Jaimesaid has been blocked twice over there for disruptive editing—once on April 27 for two weeks, and again on June 15 for three months. Larry V (talk | email) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected this had something to do with es.wp. Marking resolved as we can't do anything (and it'd be a bullet in the foot if we could anyways). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's actually a pretty neat idea that (according to Google Translate) their ANI is 'Noticeboard for Librarians'? -- ۩ Mask 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(Take all this with a grain of salt; my Spanish is rusty.) They call their admins bibliotecarios ("librarians"). It looks like they used to call them administradores, but they voted to change it. There may have been confusion about whether administrador was a technical role (i.e., "syadmin"), or whether the term too strongly implied a hierarchy of editors. They decided bibliotecario more accurately described the role. Larry V (talk | email) 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wran

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, User:Wran has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his/her position on what details about the alleged assaul victim should be given in the article, culminating in a statement that I am "clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion". [71] A previous attempt to reason with Wren on his/her talk page resulted in contributors being described as "fascists". [72] It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at minumum a topic ban for Wren is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must include everything that is sourced or stand accused of 'tyranny' and 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one: [73] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [74] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I add that maybe Wran should read WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And WP:Point and WP:Boomerang... Kevin (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Has Wran understood the warning [75] he received from LHvU? He appears to be continuing to edit war on the DSK article. [76] Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned not to attempt to add her name in to the article and not to personally attack editors, I don't think that means he can't edit or add in the other info (obviously not past 3RR but otherwise). I've just read through all the relevant talk page info and this stuff is a bit more complicated that what's been presented here. There are good points on both sides and I can see why Wran is frustrated. Personally, reading that article, I would expect to learn something about the accuser (not the name, but from what I read Wren specifically said they don't want to include the name), and as of now I think that information is lacking. It shouldn't be presented the way it has been, but I think something should be there and I think you guys all need to calm down, take a step back, assume that the other side simply wants the article to be the best article it can be, and work together. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle content disputes. I brought Wren's behaviour up here after he/she started describing contributors as 'liars' and 'fascists'. Of course it is 'more complicated' if you want to go into the minutia, but that isn't the issue - what matters is Wren's abusive language, and combative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no excuse for that and he has certainly been unpleasant.N^oformation ^Talk 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this Wran fellow in all the back and forth between Mac and WW1. Was he the one calling for the alleged victim's name to be put in? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just a lot of bio detail, see diff here. But this issue is more about behaviour than content. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is speaking of making "repeated personal attacks on contributors". He refers to "talk-page etiquette".

Here he speaks of "abusive language, and combative behavior."

People should not criticize other people for faults that they have themselves. I'm finding AndyTheGrump leaving edit summaries reading "is there any article that Bus stop won't troll?"

Here, at Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, he tells another editor, User: FatTrebla, in reference to me, "Then again, I very much doubt that was what Bus stop intended. Instead, he was looking for another way to describe his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. WP:AGF does not extend to allowing Bus stop to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."

Opinion is approximately evenly divided, in my opinion, as to the advisability of including other characterizing details on the individual accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Anyone really wanting to understand exactly what this issue is about has to read this section of the DSK Talk page (Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Should we characterize the accuser?). I obviously support more inclusion of characterizing details of the accuser. But it is not just my argument. You will find many cogently presented arguments by a variety of editors for not blanking out all references for characterizing facts relating to the individual that is filing charges of sexual assault against another individual.

There are also clearly ownership issues going on at the article, as has been pointed out by User: FatTrebla. It is understandable that frustration can lead to harsh words such as User:Wran is being accused of. This issue is far from being resolved. Resolving this issue is not accomplished by topic-banning your opposition as AndyTheGrump calls for here. That only exacerbates the problem. I recommend continued dialogue on that article's Talk page. I would welcome wider input from other editors there too. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, Andy the Grump is not the only editor to believe you have a POV agenda to "ethno-tag" people, as can be seen in this TP discussion over at the main DSK article. There are four editors (myself included) who disagree with your relentless insistence on categorizing him as a Jew.

I would note too that you have not edited the DSK sex assault case article in the last month and seem to be weighing in here just to "stir it up" a bit as this concerns Andy the Grump (who is, by definition, a grumpy old sod).

As to ownership, which of the 9 or so editors who oppose this inclusion is owning the article, or is it a collective own or tag-teaming as Wran calls it? Or maybe, it's just like-minded individuals around the globe interpreting WP policy and guidelines in broadly the same way and acting in a consensual fashion to keep the article neutral and balanced? Just asking. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tying these two threads together, "relentless insistence" is a fair description of Wran's behavior. And I believe the wall of resistance he meets from other editors reverting him (myself included) is what incites him to increasingly inflammatory remarks on the DSK Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How did we get to "ethno-tagging" again? I haven't edited or watched this one at all, I'm just on AN/I for a visit. As a content issue I don't see how that's what this dispute is all about. Please don't expand the dispute, best to narrow and diffuse any disagreement. My very quick read is that both ATG and Wran have been somewhat uncivil to each other, ATG more emphatically so (in my opinion), but neither as much as the other would think. Plus Wran won't let go of a content position that is against consensus and problematic from a BLP position, so I might be exasperated too if I were trying to argue against it. That's all in due course, and no need to feel bad about any of it. From experience, these things seem a lot worse in the moment when they involve you then they look from the outside. Best just to step back, take a deep breath, and both sides try to de-escalate rather than match every accusation with a come-back. Just my quick opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The ostensible foreground, law, is merely background for the DSK legal article. The topics of sex, race, religion, money and power are salient. Keeping the actual foreground topics in the background is trying. Explaining BLP to 'information must be free' types frays tempers. The Grump did not dump, "...why should any of us be arsed to hand you out a reach-round? Jerk it yourself," on to Wran's talk page. A different exasperated editor left that there. How that one stays out of trouble astonishes me - breeding? Being restrained by the rules in the clutches of flaming temptation is troublesome. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wran now soapoboxing in the article

This seems to be a clear attempt to escalate the issue once more: [77]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned many times that just because X-language Wikipedia does something does not mean we have to follow suit as they are separate projects. Is there an essay or something that one could link? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A more global version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? GiantSnowman 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks to me like Wran has a real agenda going on. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Al-Andalusi in 'Asma' bint Marwan

The article is about a female poets who were executed by the order Muhammed (Muslims prophet) because she critisied Muhammed in one of her poets. Al-Andalusi has a very disruptive edits in this article trying to push traditional religious views and undermine academic and modern historian views and any view which is not in favor of traditional Islamic views.

If you look at his talkpage you can see a long history of his disruptive edits in Islam related articles. Here is some of his disruptive edits in 'Asma' bint Marwan article:

• Deleting sourced materials belongs to a wellknown professor and historian: 1 and 1
• Disruptive taging: He keeps adding tag where quotes are provided in footnotes and in article body: 1, & 2, & 3.
• Serious violation of NPOV: Pushing religious POV of Hadith Mullahs views and represent it as the fact and universal accepted views where modern historians and academics views are missing: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, or see this edit summary,

• Try to undue historians and academics views by different ways such as renaming the section name to undermine the importance of the views or pushing modern scholars views to very bottom of the article to undue these views, e.g. out of several similar edits: 1 Penom (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add Twinkle: potential abuse. He used WP:TW to revert my edits just recently[78]. The TW page says Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. He was warned before on his talkpage for abusing TW by other editors. By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism--Penom (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the substance of the dispute, but he isn't accusing you of vandalism, and he *did* use an edit summary. If he was using Twinkle to accuse you of vandalism, he would have hit the button that said rollback vandalism, and it would have been reflected in the edit summary. It is true that it is generally considered wrong to use twinkle on nonvandalism edits without using an edit summary, but that's not because doing so equates to accusing someone of vandalism - it's because Twinkle (and hg/rb) allow for high speed reversion, and when dealing with good faith editors using an edit summary decreases the chance of it developing in to a revert war. But - he used an edit summary anyway... Kevin (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the dispute, I've notified the editor. I haven't investigated this in any depth, but the removal of a section pov tag and sourced text here [79] given the pov concerns expressed on the talk page suggests that there may be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to emphasise that, you were supposed to do that when initiating this discussion as it says in the orange box when you edit this page and also in the header Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Without saying the accused editor has no fault, I do agree with their view that saying "One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam" in wikipedia's editorial voice is very poor writing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank user Dougweller for notifying me on the issue, as Penom should have probably done either on the article's talk page or my talk page. That being said, I believe all the claims raised by Penom here are a distortion of what actually has happened, which could be easily checked against revision changes and their summaries. FYI, user Penom has made 5 edits to the mentioned article since raising this issuue, which clearly shows his interest in resolving the dispute.

Background: I rewrote the article back in February that addressed all concerns raised on the TP: mainly the inclusion of the 2 accounts that appear in the Islamic sources (one by Ibn Ishaq and the other reported by Ibn Sa'd) and the presentation of the views of mainstream hadith scholars on the alleged incident: We have statements of outright rejection by Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201 CE), Ibn ʻAdī (d. 976 CE) and the modern authority in hadith, Al-Albani based on their studies of the isnads of the reports.

Penom doesn't like the "rejection" views, claiming hadith scholars are not historians. On the TP, he writes "it's the view Muslim authors who as can be expected and without any surprise reject the story" and then on my TP writes: "nobody needs to know about hadith here". But this is extremenly ironic and contradictory as I pointed out on the TP, that he trusts the 2 accounts reported Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, reputable Muslim scholars and hadith compilers, but rejects that of Ibn al-Jawzi and Al-Albani. This is the core of the issue, and all his subsequent edits has never addressed this contradiction.

Addressing the points one by one:

• Antonio Elorza: My edit summary and TP comment were very clear, quote is needed, the unquoted "essential background for the terrorist side of Islam" as is stands is not neutral. Being "wellknown professor and historian" is not relevant at all.
• Disruptive taging: Same as first point, full quotation needed in the article in accordance with NPOV, and not just in the footnotes.
• Not true. The statement is clearly attributed to hadith scholars: "classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story"
• Clearly, views on reliability of the event take precedence over commentaries on the alleged incident, no attempt to undue any opinion as he did.
• Twinkle: User Penom says: "By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism". I don't think he knows what TW is. Besides, all my reverts included an edit summary, and I've never accused him of vandalism.

Also, notice his use of Mullah and his statement on the article's TP: "Hadith and Isnad are Islamic dusccussions in Taliban schools", which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor.

Thanks to the admins. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I request admins to have a look at th Al-Andalusi talkpage. Several other editors are complaining about his Tendentious editing pattern and his effort in Pushing his POV. He frequently deletes warnings and negative comments but his talkpage history is full of such comments.
• For the information of admin Mullah is a general term used for Muslim theologians by Muslims and "Taliban school" is a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools and have no prejudice. Besides, I found Andelusi comment on me ("which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor") very inappropriate.
• I must add this user WP:SYNT here ([80]). He cited numbers of hadith scholars and concluded "Classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story" which is clearly WP:SYNT.
• This user fails to accept that Islamic theologians views and secular academic and historians views belong to 2 different domains. Each one have different research methodologies. Both views should be covered but each view can only represent itself not the other one .

Penom (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the false accusations of enforcing a view never stop. I do not think anyone here buys your claims that since I have received feedback on my TP, then I must have a history of doing something wrong. Have you gone through each and every post on my TP to make such claims ?

Secondly, "Taliban school" is NOT a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools as you ignorantly claimed; the word for a person who uses this term to refer to anything that is Muslim is "nut-job". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that MOS:ISLAM states that "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding {{Hadith authenticity}}." So ignoring Isnad/authenticity information is not an option on articles about hadith. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Waqi. Asma execution is not a hadith. Is an incident.

To admins. Please look at the last incivil comments of Andalusi: "ignorantly", " nut job"Penom (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion

Debresser has nominated a category for deletion again before the rfc has reached a satisfactory conclusion. I will not let him entice me into an edit war again, resulting in getting me sanctioned. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to the RfC? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was closed on June 4 by User:RFC bot in this edit. In addition, the category has been empty for over a month.

User:Chesdovi's revert of my speedy delete nomination was out of procedure in any case, since the way to contest speedy deletion nominations is to press a button and write on the talkpage, not to remove the template. The problem here seems to be that Chesdovi refuses to accept that a vast majority of editors disagrees with his point of view, rather than that there is still active discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor It appears the following occured.

1. Chesdovi and Debresser had a dispute over the appropriateness of adding articles to Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis compared to making specific century subcategories for Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine (the issue being whether it is appropriate to call medevial Jews rabbis living in the Palestine territory of the Ottoman Empire as "Palestinian").
2. This led to Debresser removing the category from articles.
3. Supreme Deliciousness tried to deal with the dispute between the two of them, and started an RfC at the category's talk page on May 5th (I invite any reviewing editor/admin to read the talk page to see how that turned out).
4. Three or four other editors (besides Chesdovi and Debresser) got involved, all who sided with the view that the category was inappropriate. (The main policy-based argument that the reliable secondary sources need to call these people "Palestinian" to allow their articles to be categorized as such, with a sprinkling of arguments on the same line as WP:UNDUE.)
5. The RfC eventually turned into Chesdovi showing evidence of some Jews calling themselves Palestinian prior to formation of the State of Israel, and Debresser pointing out reasons why those exaples were wrong or not helpful, and that the majority of reliable sources do not use that term.
6. The last comments during the RfC were on May 24th (ignoring comments made by a sock).
7. The RfC bot removed the RfC tag on June 4th.
8. On June 16th and 17th, Chesdovi and Debresser had another debate over new sources provided by Chesdovi.
9. On June 17th, Debresser tagged the category for speedy deletion because it had been empty for weeks.
10. Chesdovi removed the tag (incorrectly, as he was the article's creator).
11. Debresser restored the tag.

Now that the chronology is set out, here are my comments. The RfC was requested, and editors responded to. By the time the RfC closed, most of the editors supported a policy-based argument that there should be a requirement that reliable secondary sources have referred to these type of individuals as "Palestinian" before their articles could be categorized as such. (I would also point out that WP:UNDUE applies here as well.) That appears to be the current consensus, notwithstanding Chesdovi's disagreement. Debresser and Chesdovi can keep arguing back and forth indefinitely. However, the RfC closed, a consensus was determined, the category has been empty since the RfC closed on June 4th, and therefore it is correct that the category should be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the conclusion Singularity42 has reached.

Biosketch: "I have to concede that Chesdovi builds a more compelling case per Wikipedia's guidelines."

Redaktor: "I don't understand the objection to the word Palestine in this context. The region has been known by that name for close on two thousand years."

Dfass was opposed but did not respond to my last reply and had previously stated: "Perhaps we just have different perceptions of how this term would actually be interpreted by readers."

Jztinfinity seems to be neutral.

Supreme Deliciousness insists individual sourcing.

Debresser and IZAk oppose.

There was no concensus anywhere that agreed only to add sourced "palestinians". Neither was there consensus opposing the designation altogether. If Debresser thinks "there is still active discussion" why did he nominate the category for deletion? Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I got this right? The editor who nominated it for deletion emptied the category and used the emptiness as an argument in favour of deletion? Don't we rather frown on that sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was outrageous! Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you use it as a sneaky end-run around a consensus that you didn't like, fair enough. However, if there's a consensus that pages which formerly belonged in the category should be removed from it, and that results in the category being depopulated, and that sticks, then it makes sense to remove the category. The questions here seem to be:

1. Was there a general consensus that the category should contain only those rabbis designated as Palstinian by reliable sources?
2. Did editors act properly in regards to editing the articles formerly under the category in question during and after the RfC?

If the answer to both is "yes" then there's nothing wrong with an involved editor having been responsible for the second category deletion attempt. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to DuncanHill). No, I think you're mixing up the chronology a bit (although it appeared a bit confusing to me as well until I shifted through the history of both the category page and the talk page). My read is that there are two seperate parts to the history:

1. Pre-RfC: Debresser empties the category, other editors tag for speedy deletion, speedy deletion put on hold due to RfC about whether category is appropriate or not.
2. Post-RfC: RfC ends in a concensus that the category (which has happened to remain empty during the RfC) is inappropriate (at least, that is my read on it - Chesdovi thinks I've read the discussion incorrectly), and after a couple weeks of no discussion, Debresser restores the speedy tag.

I don't think what Debresser did is incorrect, provided the RfC consensus is that the category is inapproriate. Singularity42 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a bit of back 'n forth at the beggining of this, but as far as I cn remember Debresser de-categories 150 pages and then went ahead and nominated the cat for deletion. See history here. Also Pallomine was a sock who "appeared" to save Debresser the trouble of nominating the other cats for deletion. The problem is that the discussion died down without a clear conclusuion. There was not enough outside input. The reason why the cats remained empty during the rfc is that Debresser would not allow them to remain! Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Chesdovi created these categories of his own initiative. He was reverted. He insisted. Consensus was established. Time passed. Now we clean up. Chesdovi obviously is not happy about all of this, but that is the way of things. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has acted as the sole protagonist campaigning against my changes. He was so sure that the whole community were aginst them aswell. Yet when it came to it, only IZAK provided him with any substantial backup. No one seems that interested, even after notices were left at umpteen pages to try and garner input. So we are left with Debresser pushing for his view of not accomodating my category names. Chesdovi (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what the big fuss is here. Regarding Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, if there are 16th century-era rabbis who are themselves also Palestinians, then the category can be used. I mean, we have Category:People from Nizhnekamsk which at first glance doesn't seem like an important category until you see there are 225,000 people living there. If it wasn't a very active RfC, then we don't really have a good opinion either way and we can't judge properly based on that RfC. Is having one dissenter (not saying that's the case here, just in general) agreeing with the nominator enough to pass the RfC if no one else supports? I mean, using my own example, no one's given an opinion on my AfD in over a week, it's just getting relisted even though it clearly fails notability policy but as soon as one person agrees, it gets closed - or disagrees, it gets closed and kept. Funny how we work around here! CycloneGU (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The big fuss is that editors are suggesting that there was an RfC which said that we shouldn't describe 16th century-era rabbis who happened to live in what is currently Palestine "Palestinians" unless reliable sources do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically object to the manner in which I have been quoted above. It's true that at that Category Discussion page I said Chesdovi (talk · contribs) built the more compelling argument. But it was more the product of WP:TOWEL than of a truly cogent position on User:Chesdovi's part. A more recent comment of mine (though admittedly perhaps ill-formulated) leaves no room for doubt that I oppose Chesdovi's campaign to turn everything Jewish in historic Israel into "Palestinian." This is a serious issue, and it isn't being dealt with in a duly serious manner.

CycloneGU (talk · contribs), the big fuss is that the word Palestinian has clear connotations today that are being overlooked by Chesdovi. To call 16th-century rabbis "Palestinian" is to impose an ethnic identity on them that's completely foreign to how anyone at the time would have referred to them. Ultimately, that is the problem here. The adjective Palestinian is not normally construed as meaning "in Palestine" but rather as "of Palestinian ethnicity" or "relating to the Palestinian people." There was no Palestinian people five hundred years ago, and Jewish rabbis in Palestine certainly did not share the same ethnos as the Arabs in Palestine. Ultimately, yes, Chesdovi has been able to summon an impressive volume of documents indicating that the word Palestine has been applied to Jews in Palestine from hundreds of years ago. But he's ignoring the ambiguity of the word and being selective about which definition he would like to embrace, when simply saying "16th century rabbis of Palestine" or "16th century Land-of-Israel rabbis" would avoid the ambiguity of calling these Jewish rabbis/synagogues etc. "Palestinian."—Biosketch (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Bio for explaining his position. There is more at play than meets the eye here. It is quite clear that the term Palestinian can and is used to describe people "from/of Palestine", just as we have French Tosafists, or German rabbis. Are those tosafists ethnically French, or rabbis ethnic Germans? Unlikly, but we refer to them as German and French becasue they lived there, an by calling them French we understand that they came from France. By calling rabbis Palestinian, all we are doing is highlighting the fact that they came from Palestine. I have yet to truly undersatnd the great problem here. There may have been no Palestinian people as such 500n years ago, but there was a region called by that name. That's why this category is so vital here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a region called "Rome" as well, but its precise geographic boundaries, political influence, and ethnic makeup has varied somewhat over the years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point being what? Not to have Category:Roman people by century? Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That Category:Roman people by century is populated by articles on people who are uncontroversially "Roman". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying the use of Palestinian is a problem here because it is "controversial" - read "unacceptale for right-wing zionists who baulk at the "P" word? Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely why we don't do it. Labels can harm people. We should be careful where we use them. This applies to Israel/Palestine as much as (if not more than) it applies to other particularly troublesome labels on Wikipedia, most notably Ireland or pretty much the whole of the Balkans. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean exactly, but we do have Category:Ancient Irish people which no doubt includes people from Northern Ireland too. And is this really about “harming” people? This is not a BLP issue. The only harm here is that Wikipedia is being be censored to pander to people’s personal POV. We cannot help it if Ameer Makhoul lives in in Israel. He is categorised as an Israeli Arab whether he likes it or not. If these rabbis lived in Palestine, they are Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make sure we're not getting off-topic here into a content dispute; ANI isn't to re-hash the RfC. I think the following questions need to be answered here:

1. Did the RfC establish a consensus about whether the category is or isn't appropriate, or is more input required before a consensus is established?
2. Was Debresser right with the most recent tagging of the category for speedy deletion?

As already indicated above, my answers are (without repeating my reasons) 1) Yes, there was a consensus from the RfC, even if there were only approximately five editors who participated (although Chesdovi disagreed with the results), and 2) Debresser was correct in the most recent tagging of the category for speedy deletion as a result of the RfC. Singularity42 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case it is clear to all that there is no consensus to create and populate the categories Chesdovi is pushing. The discussion has ended June 4, and the categories have been empty even longer. I propose an uninvolved admin close this discussion and delete the categories. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should the opinion of one user, Debresser, override mine? For a month the categories were untouched, until Debresser noted them and acted without consesus to immediately revert 150 pages and nominate for them for deletion. Dbresser also objected to Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine, claiming there was no such place ever called Palestine! There is simply not enough serious objection by enough people not to have these categories. (We must remeber that MailkShabbaz also took a neutral postion, although he did not comment at the rfc). It is clear that the reason given about confusion over "ethnicity", while understandable, is unfounded as backed up by a plethora of RS, and that initially Debresser called the category "antisemitic"! As I said, there is more to than meets the eye here. Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There was never a problem with Category:Palestinian Christian monks. How strange. Chesdovi (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we'll get to that :) Joke... Debresser (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I get that you're joking (really, I do), but I must also point out Category:Palestinian Jews. =P CycloneGU (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at that category. It contains only those people who either identify as Palestinian or who lived in what was uncontroversially Palestine. The argument being made here is applying those criteria to Category:Palestinian rabbis depopulates it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dolovis and mass creation of BLPs

About a month ago, Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned about the non-usefulness and BLP implications of creating hundreds of one-line stubs for (often marginally notable) living ice hockey players. As a result, the user lost his autopatrolled rights and some of the articles were deleted and later restored. In the past few weeks, Dolovis has created a few hundred more in the same copy-paste style (such as Petr Mocek and Marek Drtina). The created articles are still nearly identical, make no attempt to summarize the subject's career and have the same database website as the only source. Several users have raised the same concerns again on Dolovis's talk page, and on Talk:HC Litvínov.

It must also be mentioned that the stubs have one more thing in common; they are titled without the appropriate accent marks, which is not the usual practice with personal names that have not been anglicized (and is even against a consensus established at the WikiProject Ice Hockey). The creations follow an RFC and several move requests such as this (disclosure: I have opposed many of them) that Dolovis created earlier, expressing his/her disagreement with the use of diacritics. The user has also reverted others' page moves of his stubs citing WP:BRD. However, Dolovis states that the "creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion."

Whether this is a case of living people being caught in a POINTy campaign or not, the matter needs to be resolved as Dolovis has still not addressed the BLP concerns and continues the creations, requesting that AFDs be created. This is not feasible due to the sheer volume of articles and because this is not a question of notability but of repeated poor-quality work on living people, so I'm bringing this here to get opinions from uninvolved editors. If there is agreement that these type of creations need to stop, some kind of topic ban may be necessary. I'd add that even the existing articles for European ice hockey people of no recent international interest don't seem to be very well watched, so I don't see how the mass creation of new sub-par stubs would improve the encyclopedia. The article on Pentti Matikainen remained vandalized for two and a half years until a Finnish newspaper ridiculed it: "Wikipedia shoves Pentti Matikainen". Prolog (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's POINTy: the user simply disagrees that these stubs are useless, and of course that isn't helped by the likes of DGG encouraging him. Nevertheless, there's a difference between "useless" and "disruptive". If these articles are getting vandalised due to lack of attention, the real root cause would seem to be that the notability threshold for hockey biographies has been set too low to be be able to practically enforce BLP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also advised him to complete at least some of the stubbs. We need articles on people who are certainly notable started. We also need them finished. When there is something controversial, there might well be an objection to stubbs. But for these there isn't , so calling them a BLP problem. And ues, he should use diacritics. But Wikipedia is known for the people willing to fix typographic errors of this sort. I'll take another look at the actual articles tonight. If they are getting substantially vandalised, which can happen with sports figures, that might indeed be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that they will be vandalised. They are too obscure. Most of these guys have never played outside of the Czech Republic, and this is an English language encyclopaedia. Except for the very small number of bilingual users that we, no-one will have heard of these guys, and certainly won't go looking for their articles to vandalise. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Dolovis. The tough thing about these mass article creations, is that they're being mass moved (via WP:HOCKEY's dios compromise) to diacritics titles now. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion, and the introduction of that red-herring into the discussion is regretful. The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. End of story. Dolovis (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• The subjects of these article pass WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. Dolovis hides behind wp:nhockey saying that the subjects are notable. However, wp:nhockey says that the subjects are "presumably notable", i.e. not certain but likely. Most of the subjects fail the other criteria spectacularly: all pass criterion 1, but almost all fail 2 through 7. Some of the subjects are truly notable, e.g. Michal Travnicek. But Dolovis didn't take any time to mention his AHL career, his international career, his three year suspension; that was done by a user that came across the merger discussion. Instead, Dolovis prefers to create a steady stream of poorly sourced, single sentence, cut-and-paste BLPs. Granted, some of these articles could become decent BLPs, but Dolovis point-blank refuses to expand them, while the vast majority will never be improvable. H's created an article on almost every player that played in the Czech league this year. Dolovis is more interested with this "articles created" count than he is with quality. I personally pleaded with him twice to expand these BLPs but he didn't. Even after the merger discussion was opened, and Dolovis had seen that three or four editors had raised concern, he carried on churning out this stub-spam. The hockey notability criteria needs to be rewritten. I'll ask a rhetorical question: How can someone that played a single match in Kazakhstan's top league be worthy of an article when some that has played 99 games in the AHL isn't? — Fly by Night (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If people want to change NHOCKEY, or other notability guideline, that's always a possible approach if there's consensus. I have no opinion on that sport specifically, but I've seen enough problematic athlete articles at PROD patrol that I tend to think that notability for athletes might be a little too broad. And there have been discussions at AfD where it has been accepted that for some very small countries the presumed equality of all countries does not apply (I think they were with respect to football.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Some background:

• Dolovis had previously been creating hockey player articles, but not at the same rate, and many of them did not have diacritics in their names which he could have stripped.
• On 17 May, Dolovis started a huge discussion at WT:ENGLISH#Use of diacritics in biographical article titles. The user got little support for the contention that we should strip all diacritics from titles, but the support that he did get was very vociferous and unrelenting – leading to a contentious situation.
• On 19 May, Dolovis notified more than 100 editors personally of that discussion. [81]
• Around that time, Dolovis was already moving articles from diacritics to non-diacritics versions.
• Around 2 June, Dolovis was engaged in a number of requested moves between diacritics and non-diacritics versions. Some of them had (or still have) no consensus, in some the diacritics version won.
• Oddly enough, on 5 June, Dolovis created a player article with Å in the title (but others with o or a instead of ö or ä). [82]
• On 6 June, Dolovis (who had twice been blocked for socking) creates an SPI case against two users who disagree with him about diacritics.
• Around 9 June his article creation activity increased (more than 20 articles, some Scandinavian ones correctly with diacritics, some Slavic ones without, and a number of articles where the question doesn't arise). 10 June: >30 articles. 11 June: 28 articles. 12 June: 14 articles.
• On 13 June he created only few new articles but reverted numerous "controversial" page moves back to non-diacritic versions.
• 14-17 June: roughly 30 articles created per day.

Apart from the mass creation of BLP stubs of little value, there is a general pattern here of trying to fight our current practice of using diacritics in titles (where appropriate) by fighting over individual articles. While there are only few users who feel strongly that diacritics should be removed, this is not the only user following this strategy, see e.g. Talk:Julia Görges.

The disconnect between our naming convention (WP:ENGLISH#Modified letters doesn't give very clear guidance either way) and our daily practice (diacritics are used unless there is clear evidence that the bearer has dropped them, as happens frequently when people move to the US) has led to an unstable situation that may soon erupt similar to the hyphen/n-dash thing. Hans Adler 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the sock puppet issue. I remember a while ago that I brought the case of one of Wikipedia's top 10 most active users to this page. He was making one sentence articles about obscure places in Russia. All using article creation tools. After some theatrical performances a check-user stopped by to say that s/he'd blocked the user as a confirmed sock. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply Comment: The sock puppet allegation raised by Hans Adler was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. [83] It's unfortunate that this was not logged in the SPI somehow. I should have checked the details before accusing you in this way. While there can never be certainty, your explanations sounded sufficiently convincing that I guess I would have unblocked you as well. I am striking my erroneous comment. Sorry for the mistake. Hans Adler 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response by Dolovis: The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and to demand that an editor who creates valid stub articles to change the way they work may be construed as a Wikipedia:No-edit order. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore presumed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. The ice hockey project has delivered a clear consensus stating that playing just a single game in the Czech Extraliga is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and yes, I fully expect that all of the articles are likely to be expanded. These ice hockey players are all notable professional athlete's who are playing at an elite level in a premier league. Any editor who feels otherwise has the right to follow the deletion process and nominate that article for deletion. It is also disturbing that in this instance new articles have been challenged very early (such as User:Fly by Night tagging articles for merge just 3 minutes from the article's creation[84]) before any editor could reasonably have had a chance to expand the stub articles. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy or consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I told you at talk:HC Litvínov. I tagged some articles so quickly because I'd seen all of the articles you had created the night before, e.g. Lukas Rindos on the New Pages list. I had been monitoring your stub-spam and edit history for the best part of a day. It was only when you started a new flurry that I decided to act. That's why some were tagged 3 minutes after creation, some 30 minutes after creation, and other 23 hours after creation. My edit history and your edit history tell the full story; so it's pointless cherry-picking examples. The merger guidelines say that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Looking back at Dolovis's other creations, say for example Philip Kemi or Ziga Pance, we see that other than some BLPPROD's and general housekeeping (renaming, adding categories, page moves) the articles haven't been touched for more than six weeks. The same is true for almost all of his other stubs: they haven't been expended. As such it is unlikely that many of his stubs will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time; unless he does it himself which he refuses to do.— Fly by Night (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It was for the mass creation of these marginally notable players that I removed this user's WP:AUTPAT rights a while ago. I believed these needed to go through the usual WP:NPP process and had some concerns in general about this user's mass creation and contention over diacritical marks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Toddst1 has demonstrated a COI against me ever since I posted this message to his talk page. It was only after that posting that Toddst1 removed the auto-patrolled rights. Dolovis (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So what do we do? Dolovis seems to be a loan voice. Seven or eight editors disagree with what he's doing, but he doesn't listen. Most of those seem to be admins too. It's clear that he has no interest in improving anything other than his "articles created" count. I suggested putting these players into Squad articles, and then branching out with solo articles if and when a subject becomes more noteworthy and interesting. All of the same information would be there for a user, the only problem is that his "article creation" count would suffer. I put it to him that that depends on which is most important (creation count or usefulness to users) and he didn't reply. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems that he wants to get as many articles as he can without accents so that that implies a consensus. So it's much worse than creating stub-spam with little regard for quality; it seems he's trying to push his agenda by building up a majority of articles without accents. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a sanction such that Dolovis (talk · contribs) be placed on a new article parole where any new article relating to Hockey must have at least 3 WP:RS used as properly cited footnotes. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Then we'd get three different links to stat pages. Personally, I'd like to see him add just one non-trivial source in addition to the stat page. It isn't that hard to turn a microstub into a regular one with a few sentences. You know, something that actually benefits the reader. Resolute 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• All of his articles rely on Criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY, which is a very poor criterion. I would ask for the subjects to meet at least two criteria from WP:NHOCKEY, and have a paragraph each explaining how, why, and where. Or that the articles be worthwhile BLP's in their own right. If we just ask for one reliable, non-stat-page source then he'd probably quote some small town Czech newspaper: ex-plumber signs for local hockey team. In the mean time, we need to reform WP:NHOCKEY; like I said earlier, one game playing in a Kazakhstan league gets you an article, while 99 AHL games doesn't; even though most AHL players would be consistent MVP's, and hall-of-famers in the Kazakhstan league. But to be honest, I don't think anything will achieve what we really want. We want interesting, accurate, complete articles written for the good of the readership and for the good of Wikipedia'a reputation. I don't think we will ever get that from Dolovis. His repeated efforts to ignore, side-step, and wikilawyer his way out of fulfilling requests and heeding criticism have proven that beyond reasonable doubt. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• No. If what he's doing is wrong, then it's just as wrong whether he does it once or a hundred times, and so the relevant policies ought to be updated to reflect that. Singling out one editor is not an effective solution. --causa sui (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Speaking of policy, how does WP:BLPPROD fit into this? Can't you just BLPPROD all the articles and handle it that way? --causa sui (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No because a {{BLPPROD}} is for "any biography of a living person (BLP) which lacks at least one source." Dolovis always links to the same statistics site which gives the team's statistics for the season. So a BLPPROD is not applicable. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe this is an indication that BLPPROD in its current form is inadequate, and the bar should be raised? In any case, I stand by my original point. If existing means of handling this are inadequate, then we need to give ourselves the tools to handle this generally, not single out one editor like we're playing whack-a-mole. --causa sui (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• BLPPROD is a bright line, much like 3RR. It is perfectly possible to find exceptions to the spirit of BLP which "pass" BLPPRODUC just as it is possible to see clear edit warring which doesn't quite get to 3RR. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No. Wiki-policy states that Any registered editor may start a stub article. Contributors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource, and creating valid articles that can be expanded is an encouraged activity. The articles that I have created all conform to notability policy, verifiability policy, BLP policy, and stub policy. Editors cannot and should not be expected to create finished articles on the first draft. Many of the articles that I have created have been quickly and significantly expanded by both myself and others. Why should any one editor, who is editing within established policy, be singled out for sanctions? If there is to be any proposal for sanctions it should be a Wiki-wide policy that all editors must abide to. If there is a new consensus saying that BLP articles now need three sources, so be it; but to force one editor to edit to a higher standard than other editors is not fair or reasonable. Fly by Night's real concern seems to be with WP:NHOCKEY, and if he feels that Czech Extraliga hockey players should are not notable then he should raise that issue with the ice hockey project. Dolovis (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please, don't put words in my mouth. My main concern is your mass produced stub-spam, and the way you wikilawyer, and hide behind wp:nhockey. If you refuse to stop then a change to wp:nhockey is the next best thing. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• No We already have a policy on how many reliable sources are required to create a valid BLP stub: one., not three. A suggestion that more might be needed is a proposal to change BLPPROD, not to mention WP:V. Does anyone really want to re-open BLPPROD? All good faith editors are equal, and the degree of evidence that lets you or me create an article lets anyone else do it also. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not quite right. Editors who are acting in good faith are sanctioned all the time, as one's good faith does not have to be questioned for one's actions to be found to be unproductive. That we encourage everyone to create articles does not preclude our finding consensus that a given editor's actions are unproductive, and taking one single, short, statistical reference (a team sheet stat) and using it to create twenty BLPs is precisely the sort of thing that we could consider to be unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • DGG, this thread isn't about BLPPROD. BLPPROD was suggested as a solution, but wasn't applicable. We're trying to find a way to stop Dolovis writing mass produced, poorly sourced, one sentence, BLP stubs that he refuses to update. Please take a look at Toddst1's proposal at the top. That was the real point of this thread, although we seem to have lost our way down side roads. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree to Toddst1's proposal; although it needs to be made water tight. Also propose review of WP:NHOCKEY so it can't be used to justify such junk. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy specifically for hockey? ROFLMAO :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst Dolovis creating microstubs does not appear to be against policy, he should be encouraged to try and create as complete an article as he can, even at the expense of slowing down the rate of creation. If the sources are available, it is quite possible to create an article that is near GA class from the start. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No Every person is expected to bring a different set of skills to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, pretty much the whole thing, Dolovis has done less than nothing wrong here. He's added valuable content to Wikipedia. We should be thanking him for the time and effort he has put it to expanding the encyclopedia in appropriate ways, not looking to sanction him! --Jayron32 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I take you haven't looked at his 100+ stubs then?
    • I have looked at some, and I don't see anything wrong with the subjects of the articles. The number of stubs is not terribly concerning to me. That he leaves it to others to expand them is also not a concern, Wikipedia:Editing policy specifically encourages people to leave for other jobs they are not good at themselves. --Jayron32 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So you will have seen that there are dozens of BLP stubs that have not been touched for six weeks. You will also see that the WP:MERGE criteria says that short articles that won't be expanded in a reasonable amount of time should be merged into a broader topic. The fact that almost none of these stubs ever get expanded means that down the line they should be merged. Given Dolovis's track record, these articles should not be made, because they will inevitably be due for merger. These players should be included into Squad Articles where the single sentence articles are condensed into something more interesting and valuable. Please take some time to do your research. Don't just look at a few. Look at his edit history over the last two months. All of the admin, and non-admin, objection hasn't appeared from no where. I raised concerns and many users came out to confess their problems. Once again, please do your research; then you'll see. Please don't skim read, do no research, and then just argue to save face. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

        I don't see the problem. If you think that many closely related articles should be merged into a larger article, whether or not the articles are new, there's nothing stopping you from doing that is there? Why do you see a need to stop someone else from editing as they want to edit? Is there any actual BLP related issues involved here, or is there just some nebulous fear that there might be some issue eventually?
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I TRIED! I tagged 16 of them for merger and Dolovis objected. I asked him to expanded them, and he refused. Some other users arrived to voice their concern about his editing patterns, and then we all came here. Please read the whole discussion. This is becoming a farce. You're the second decent editor in a few hours that's made a comment that shows they haven't been following this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I know you're acting in good faith; it's just the thread's too long. No-one's bothering to read it all but they're still adding their (uninformed) opinion. Basically Dolovis was creating 20-30 one sentence, single source, BLPs, that scrape through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth, each day. I suggested a merger per WP:MERGE -- please read rationale 3 -- (he has stubs from six weeks ago that haven't been touched, so it's reasonable to assume that none of the 100 new ones will). But he objected to the merge. He was asked to expand them and he refused. There's also an on-going problem about accents in people's names. It's possible that he is pumping out all of these BLPs, without accents, to push his point which goes against the consensus on the hockey project. So we're trying to find a way to get him to write decently sourced, worth while, informative BLPs that don't go against well established consensus. But whatever we do he hides behind the presumed notability of crietrion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY (even though they all fail the other criteria) and wikilawyers like hell.— Fly by Night (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I really don't care about a user creating accurate stubs about subjects who appear to meet the notability guidelines, especially when all the substantive content of those stubs appears to be adequately sourced. We have truckloads of BLPs with grossly inadequate sourcing, and a Wikiproject with active members devoted to papering over sourcing problems by adding a trivial source or two to unsourced BLPs and moving on. We have hundreds of porn BLPs laced with kayfabe. Speaking of which, we have hundreds and hundreds of BLPs on performers in the wrestling industry which hopelessly conflate the performers and the fictional characters they portray in scripted entertainments, which we don't even acknowledge to be scripted entertainments. Then there are all the Bollywood/South Asian cinema related articles whos contributors don't seem to have read BLP, NPOV, RS, and V. As far as priorities go, dealing with the "problem" of accurate stubs about people who meet notability guidelines should be right down there with en-dashes versus hyphens. Humbug. Humbug, I say. Grumpy Old Man Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Clyst

Clyst (talk · contribs) keeps making short pages about unnotable English hamlets, even after being warned. Can someone please take action? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I've notified Clyst of this discussion, which you should have done.
2. English hamlets are not unnotable. Places of human habitation are inherently notable.
3. I've requested that Clyst tries to include more information in his stubs. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can any real place be unnotable? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a very strong personal viewpoint on this topic, some Wikipedians disagree with your sentiments. see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability; Wikipedia:Inherent notability; and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Existence. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some really small hamlets are better covered as a section in the artcle covering the village/parish which they lie in, but the general principle holds AFAIK - see WP:DEFACTO. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the same token there is hardly clear consensus that articles about places where people live should not be included. This discussion should take place on the relevant policy talk pages: there is nothing warranting summary sysop action (ie, blocking) here. --causa sui (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean the part that says Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low.? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• there are no non-notable English hamlets. There are certainly claimed hamlets that never had a real existence; I recall our deleting a few that turned out to be just manor houses. There may be some for which there is no evidence they did or did not exist, but given the Ordnance Survey, it is probably easier to determine the real existence for England than for anywhere else in the world. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Can someone actually point to a guideline or policy page which explains the above rationale (that every single collection of two or more houses in the world constitutes an article-worthy entity so long as it can be pointed to on a map), rather than just an essay? I'm having a hard time believing that this is as rock-solid settled as it's being made out to be, largely because it's utterly incongruous with the (definitely) settled consensus that existence is not notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The problem is where you would draw the line. If you say that some hamlets are notable and some aren't, what definition are you going to use? If hamlet X with six dwellings is notable and hamlet Y with two buildings isn't, what about hamlet Z with three houses and a duckpond? It's far, far, easier to say that any named place is effectively notable (with very few exceptions as mentioned by DGG above). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

    • I don't see what's wrong with requiring reliable secondary sources which do something other than name it and place a dot on a map. Plenty of hamlets presumably have such things. I do not understand what is so wrong with asking users to provide them when creating articles. It's what we do with literally every single other subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

      • I have no objections to reliable sourcing that the place exists, but, as with secondary schools, consensus is, and has been for a long time, that existence is notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

        • As before, I'd appreciate a link to some firmer evidence of that if possible. And "all secondary schools are notable" is still quite a leap from "all named groups of two or more houses are notable" anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

          • I think the point is that it would be difficult to find an example of an existing settlement that is not covered in any reliable third party sources. Of course, the above examples are British and therefore have hundreds of easily found sources, but I am sure that even the most remote village in, say, China, will have been written about many times, even if those sources are more difficult to uncover. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

            There's a difference between "covered" and "covered in passing" or "covered as a statistic" though. Two houses at a bend in the road somewhere may very well have been mentioned in a dozen places, but I'm sure every one of us is mentioned in plenty of school reports, church records and so on as well. There must have been a real discussion which led to the aforementioned consensus and I'd simply like to know where it is, if only to further my own understanding of what's settled consensus-wise around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

            • That's a good point. If the notability threshold were "Any mention, even a brief one, in a reliable source" then we could write articles about every person in the phone book just the same as we could write articles about every group of houses named on a 1:25000 map. (Not very long articles, or encyclopædic, though). However, that is not the notability theshold; the GNG actually says something quite different about sources and notability. bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

<=== Wikipedia:Common_outcomes#Geography_and_astronomy is an essay, but then, WP:N is a guideline. There is no policy on geographic notability, but the first link I provided is the current consensus. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, well, count me as very wary of taking this as settled. In this particular case, I don't believe that Clyst has done anything wrong: each article has sources (albeit primary ones), the places are villages rather than hamlets, and six new articles is hardly some ANI-level epidemic. I think we're safe to close this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename through protection

For the June 4–16 RfC closed by Jehochman, see Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content.

I recently renamed Campaign for "santorum" neologism shortly after Jehochman (talk · contribs) had renamed it to Santorum Google problem and move-protected it as part of closing a RFC on the article. He stated that he considered it an interim move, and that discussion on a final title should continue. I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title. I reviewed the then-day-old discussion on the renaming issue, found that there was one title that appeared to me to have significantly more support than the other proposals, moved the article to the title above, and posted to the talk page indicating that my rename was also an interim title, and that discussion should continue. Since then, I have been urged to self-revert, but I have refused, feeling that this would be acting against consensus.

I have no interest in criticizing other people's actions at this point. What I am asking for is an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and see if there is enough support for another interim move, either back to Jehochman's original rename or onward to another title, and if so, to perform that move. I would also like people to stop pestering me to self-revert, and attempt to influence consensus for their preferred title at the appropriate venues, which do not include my talkpage.

Thank you. I haven't notified anybody because I'm asking for an evaluation of the discussion, not any editor's actions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do think it was partly premature to rename it (since there wasn't a clear idea what to name it to), and also I think it was premature to again rename it. I think the one thing all the editors can agree on with that article is that there is almost no agreement on what the name should be. The status quo gets a big nod, but the BLP issues were getting a big round of support also. Any name with Google in it is problematic, especially with BLP or defamation associated with it. The problem is that any super accurate title becomes a little ungainly. "Dan Savage Campaign to Start a Crude or Sexual Neologism about Senator Rick Santorum" is just too long. So I think the best you can do right now is get close until someone very crafty comes up with a better title, or just give it an ungainly title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, I see consensus to revert Sarek's move through protection; an act which spawned objections from a large number of editors, even from those who supported the actual name that Sarek chose: here and here. There was no consensus for Sareks move, it was a unilateral move apparently based on Sarek's own opinion - there was no time given for a true consensus to emerge. This move merely undermines an RFC closure, a fellow admin, page move protection, and the progress of the discussion. I ask that an uninvolved admin reverse Sarek's move back to what the RFC closer Jehochman did. Dreadstar ☥ 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why would we "forget" page-move protection when I pointed it out in my original post?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Jehochman's Santorum Google problem was a good stop-gap solution. Renaming the article so soon after his RfC closure, through move protection, was not helpful in my view. I'd rather we go back to his title. Sorry, I am sure you did it with the best intentions, but what the article needed at that point was a period of calm reflection. (Personally, when Jehochman closed the RfC, I breathed a sigh of relief and thought I could spend a day or two not thinking about the article. Next thing I knew the name had changed again.) --JN466 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 There was never going to be consensus on the name of this page, the "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" about sums it up, the word is a neologism ("is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"), SarekOfVulcan made the call, a very tricky one, lets WP:AGF on behalf of all administrators who make such calls and move on to the actual article it's self. Personally, I see the article as a continuation of that campaign and would support the whole scale culling of the article but there are enough editors invested in this to drown out my voice. Mtking (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Can we please avoid discussing what the name of the article should be here? I was asking for someone to go _there_ and look, not for people to fork the discussion into yet another venue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Why not, do you Own that name? Worse than I originally thought... :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • What part of "Uninvolved admin please review the discussion I haven't participated in" equals "I own this article"? Please, enlighten me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Be nice, both of you. I think Sarek was simply saying that he'd prefer this discussion take place at the article, where it can have a stronger impact. -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was not making my point, let me put it another way, ask 5 administrators and you are likely to get 4.5 different answers on this one, you made the call and whoever made the call at least 20% of editors on the page would be unhappy with it. Mtking (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sarek, just self-revert already and let another admin handle the next page move if and when there's clear consensus for one. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment. Sarek himself summed up the problem in his post above: "I felt that this was a bad title choice ..." Therefore he moved it. He had no right to edit through the protection Jehochman added just because he personally felt the new title was a bad choice. The RfC had been open for nearly 14 days. Jehochman's closure was a compromise and should have been respected, at least in the short term. If Sarek wanted to move it, he should have started a formal requested-move discussion, with notification and seven days for comments, so that people had a chance to express their opinion. As things stand, he edited through protection to impose his own preference, and he ought to self-revert. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please note the point in the sentence where Slim stopped selectively quoting me above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The quote I selected sums up the problem. You wrote: "I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title." But there was also discussion on the page that indicated people were supportive of Jehochman's title as a compromise. You had your own opinion and therefore you noticed only the posts that confirmed your opinion.

  What is required in a case like this is handling by admins who have no opinion, or no strong one. We had that in Jehochman, so there was no need for a second admin to step in. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek should self-revert to avoid any further drama and allow proper discussion. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there was really no consensus for the first rename either -- the one to "Santorum's Google Problem". Plus it potentially makes it appear that Google is personally intentionally inflicting damage on Santorum, which may or may not be true, but is not supported by any Reliable Sources we have. The Sarek title is still not perfect but its less bad than the other. If anything related to reverts should happen, it should be all the way back to the status quo title. Otherwise leave it at Sarek's until people can actually come up with a new title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There was broad consensus on both sides of the merge debate that the old title reflected neither the article content, nor the weight of the sources, nor BLP policy. Jehochman read that correctly. As for your concern about Google, terms like "Google problem" or "Google bomb" are what this sort of thing is called; these terms don't imply any culpability on the part of Google, they just indicate that someone has manipulated their search results. --JN466 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is fiction. The RfC proposed, in effect, to delete the article (via merging without preservation of a redirect). That proposal failed. Jehochman renamed the article (an "interim" solution) despite the fact that this was not part of the RfC. That name has no more support than Sarek's -- or, rather, demonstrably less support than Sarek's. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. Renaming was indeed part of the RfC. See the link at the top of this section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite there being an RfC, there were other discussions on the page at the same time for other ideas because the RfC was simply too limited. I agree with Nomoskedasticity that neither rename really has consensus, although I like that it isn't named what it was, if a non-Admin had done this, it wouldn't have been allowed to stay. THAT SAID... I think the new name will ultimately prove to be less of a headache than the status quo name was. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page, during and after the RfC, has for days now focused on what to rename the article to, not whether to rename it from the original title it had when the RfC started. Editors from both sides of the merge debate have been putting a lot of good-faith effort into finding a more appropriate name, for more than a week. Macwhiz did an analysis towards the end of the RfC showing that the point there was most underlying agreement about was a rename. --JN466 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Whereas Jehochman's move was clearly based on a careful reading of the RfC and its ensuing massive discussion, and supported by the majority of those involved in the RfC and its discussion, Sarek's was a rash act based on his preference and a superficial assessment of a day's discussion among a few not happy with Jehochman's closing move. Would someone please do something? Until now, this had been a model of thoughtful discussion and consensus-building. Why should we bother with that very hard process if this kind of unilateral act is allowed to stand? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Let me first say A) I was happy with the RfC close and B) I prefer Sarek's proposed name change to the one from the RfC. That said, I don't think the community had reached a consensus on the name post-RfC (and in fact the RfC closer more-or-less pulled it out of the hat too). I'd suggest Sarek revert and we wait the week or three it will take at the article to find a name. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Hobit. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• First, what Sarek did was like yelling in a church full of little old ladies. But seriously, what's wrong with multiple renames? And if the debate died down (as noted here), it can only mean that this name is near to consensus, or near enough that people don't really care. So... what's the problem? Everyone stop fluttering your fans and saying "Oh my... Oh my WORD" and tell me what is really wrong here besides a breach of underlying assumptions of decorum. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sarek, would you consider it fair for me to characterize this thread as you asking for another administrator to come along and ratify what you did? In that regard, it strikes me as uncomfortably similar to your reconfirmation RfA, where there was some appearance that you wanted the community to tell you that everything you did was OK and you should keep on doing it, an appearance that seems heightened here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I would not consider it fair. I'm asking for the consensus to be re-evaluated at this time by an un-involved admin. If they move it to a different (or the original) interim title, that's fine: if they leave it where it is, that's fine too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• ... but think of the redirects .... errr, ummm ... I mean children. — Ched :  ?  17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png

I've just semi-protected this file against creation (semi-salted?) as it seems to be a popular page for new accounts to create. JohnCD, January and I have each deleted what appear to be test edits there.

What appears (to me) to be happening is that when new accounts reach a page like this, they take the "Click on one of the links in the list on the left hand side ... Then, click on 'Edit'" instructions a little too literally, and click on the image at the top left and edit it.

If there's a better way to handle this than semi-protecting this (e.g. changing the link target when someone clicks the image), I'm certainly open to unprotecting it. And if anyone thinks my theory is wrong and something else is going on, feel free to offer thoughts on that as well. 28bytes (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That puzzled me, but I think your explanation is probably right and semi-protection is a good solution. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to make the images not link to anything, but I forget how. I do know how to change the link target, though: just put link=wherever as the last parameter in the image template.—Soap— 20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we could change the [[File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png]] to [[File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png|link=]] to achieve that, but we'd need to change it in all these MediaWiki files. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's permissible to stop a CC-BY license from linking because it prevents the author being attributed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave an edit notice on that page letting new users know they're attempting to edit an image description page, and they should probably head back and work on an article instead? This feels like it would be helpful. elektrikSHOOS 21:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could do the attribution in a different way, such as alt= parameter for Frank Schulenburg and the license, or perhaps we could create a public domain version of the image that does not need any link or attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged personal attacks (principally by User:Thumperward)

Resolved

 – Nothing here to sanction. Let the AfD finish up. Best to just move on. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought a year ago to debate the propriety of the subject of Lolicon on Wikipedia, an article about comics solely having to do with pedaphilia, in light of the at-that-time newly elevated wp:Child protection guideline, specifically outlawing the promotion of pedophilia. Now I have listed for AfD the article Camel toe as a definition more than an encyclopedic article. Users are now injecting snarky references to my Lolicon AfD nom in discussions e/g here, here and here. Do these constitute a personal attacks?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack in this case. Asking if a nom for AfD is pointy isn't an attack in my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have been polite to inform the other editor involved about this discussion as well. I've done it for you. a_man_alone (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, User:A man alone, but after I re-read your statements, I discoverd that you hadn't actually reference my Lolicon AfD from 2010 so I'd striked my link to it. Still, if you wish, consider yourself informed, in any case. Peace out.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but your comments here certainly imply that you consider me part of the personal attack - "principally by ..." implying that there are others involved, and the link is to the section started by me - as pointed (no pun intended) out by Wildthing, who thought you were indeed refering to my comment. a_man_alone (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing etc. by IP

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

This person appears to be at Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing hir POV, which is that Jews are untrustworthy, gays are pedophiles, the only real racism is against white people, etc. (I can provide examples if you'd like, but you could also just look at hir contributions.) I warned hir and asked hir to find another topic to edit on if zie could not edit with a neutral point of view on social and political topics; this warning was removed with the comment (emphasis added) "user describes itself as a 'queer, Jewish feminist'. Not welcome." One can't really be continually reverting hir until the end of time, particularly because a number of these edits are BLP violations in addition to being flagrant NPOV violations, so a block would probably be helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• A block would be helpful, but the user had hardly been sufficiently warned. I've left them a final warning; it's pretty obvious that this is some serious POV editing, with a liberal sprinkling of BLP violations and a personal attack thrown in. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Any connection to the recently-blocked Petey Parrot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I consider this edit to be a BLP violation, as an unacceptable and unverified injection of supposed ethnicity that seems intended to cast a negative light on the subject of the article. Since I gave the IP a final warning, I have blocked them for 31 hours; I invite scrutiny of this block from other editors. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'm hoping that the user will now realize that we're serious about NPOV and BLP and clean up hir act, or find another subject to edit on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome edit warring

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an indefinite block on Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) for persistent edit warring (this time on Doctor Fate). He has already been blocked 4 times for edit warring and socking/block evasion; the last block (which I made and mistakenly reduced from indef to 1 week, when he evaded the block about halfway through) has left me way too frustrated with this user to deal (from an admin's standpoint) with a clear mind. This user does not get it and will not get it, and it is bloody obvious that he will continue to persist with edit warring. –MuZemike 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, restoring the indefinite block would be correct. User:Brian Boru is awesome contributes to comics articles but he is incapable of dealing with conflict except by reverting others. 25 of his last 50 edits were reverts. He almost never engages in discussion. His first block was in 2008 and there has apparently been no progress in his willingness to negotiate since then. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 3RR report at the edit warring noticeboard concerning his edits at Venom (comics). - SudoGhost™ 19:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was talking to MuZemike about how we would give the editor one more shot through my final warning; however, Brian did not seem to take heed. Blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Permanent end to defunct Northern Ireland flag status

not an ANI issue. Take it back to whatever swamp of pure tedium this normally gets fought over in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In reference to the ongoing request for consensus: Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Request for consensus - flag This matter is rather embarrassing, in that it has been allowed to be ongoing with no such closure. The flag in question has been defunct from the early 1970's and has continuing strong resentment and divisiveness due to its polarised sectarian background. The constant excuses used aren't valid- "because the flag is used by sporting bodies", should never be used as a sole reason for using it on most N.Ireland related Wikipedia bio articles, info-boxes and the like, to do so lowers the factual nature that the site would be trying to portray, in particular to its proper governing admin editing functions. I'm raising this elsewhere to gain prominence to the issue and in particular the fact that with the time stamps, it shows that the discussion for consensus hasn't went anywhere and deserves attention from all angles to put the issue to bed. Eireabu (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Is there some disruptive editing going on? If not, this is a content dispute, not an incident. You'll probably want to pursue some kind of dispute resolution, such as a request for comment or formal mediation. Larry V (talk | email) 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Northern Ireland Flag - Northern Ireland Travel - seems quite simple. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) FYI I have already started a RFC here Should Darts articles use the Ulster Banner to represent players from Northern Ireland? Bjmullan (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Albanian diaspora article

• User Vinie007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accused me of vandalism and reverted my edits on this article Albanian diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) based on my alleged vandalism.

I simply corrected (as a user with IP 178.148.32.118 - i did not notice that i was not logged) previously wrong numbers and matched numbers to the numbers given in refrences of the article.I am new around here and i need help in dealing with biased contributors because i can not find any other reason for my edits be called vandalism. I go to wikipedia every single day, not even questioning data in it because of so many levels of controls and on this article that i was going to use as a reference to a scientific paper i found completelly wrong and innacurate numbers.How is this possible?And when i tried to put real numbers on article i was accused of vandalism!?!? Is that common?

This is my edits in comparison with reverted,someone arbitrarily and randomly put wrong numbers by simply adding numbers 1,3 or 5 to get a bigger numbers.You can notice that half of number match label i lost over half an hour to look into each and every reference link to correct those data. Vandalism is very serious accusation and i think that my edits are not vandalism.I understood that in case of vandalism i can be banned from visiting wikipedia.I think that i am falsly accused. I tried to meet the standards of posting on this page, hope i did everything ok and that you will answer me. TheBigCatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It doesn't look like you have tried to talk to Vinie007, or even notify him of this section, as you are supposed to. I have now notified him. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that from this page. I left the message on talk page of article in hope that he will see it. TheBigCatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You should have left a notice on his talk page. You also should have tried to talk to him about your concerns before bringing them here. I think admin intervention in this matter would be premature. I suggest that you wait for a response from Vinie007 and express your concerns in a non-accusatory manner. -- Donald Albury 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As a fallback, I've issued ARBMAC and EW warnings to both editors. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Where was TheBigCatcher edit-warring? He made a series of good-faith edits, was met with an unjustified vandalism accusation, and was of course entitled to then re-instate his edits. He did so once. That's not edit-warring. If Arbmac warnings are to retain any meaning, please don't dilute their force by slapping them on people indiscriminately like this. Handing out a warning to a good-faith editor who has done absolutely nothing wrong is adding insult to injury. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, based at least on the English language references, the changes TheBigCatcher made did not make any sense, and I can see why they were reverted. The references were changed to out-of-date statistics, and the new numbers did not match what the references stated. (That being said, the old numbers don't match what the references stated, either.) Singularity42 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, TheBigCatcher's changes all matched the sources, except that in the case of Kosovo he seems to have slightly miscalculated (the source only has total population in absolute numbers and ethnicities expressed in percentages); the figure he gave ought to have been derived from that calculation but was slightly off unless I'm mistaken. In all other cases the figures are taken correctly from the sources. In the previous version, in contrast, the figures had be absurdly distorted through earlier sneaky vandalism (especially this edit, but also others), which had randomly increased the figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reactionless drive being use as a soapbox by a fringe proponent

User:CowlishawDavid seems to think that objecting to him using article talk pages to push his fringe concepts constitutes 'vandalism' - see recent talk page history: [85] (I think it is safe to assume that the anon IP is him). Can an admin please put him right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked CowlishawDavid (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Reactionless drive. I considered doing the same for you, but a block for reverting blatant original research didn't seem kosher, especially since CowlishawDavid was previously warned about the problems with his OR. You might want to submit an WP:SPI report about that IP. Larry V (talk | email) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that they know what the deal is, so I left a note on their talk page to warn them that further edit warring, OR, or talk page soapboxing may get them blocked in the future. Larry V (talk | email) 06:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Petty templating and edit warring over an infobox

Over the past several weeks, there appears to have been a dispute over whether or not a particular comedy song (3-Way (The Golden Rule)) should be classified as a promotional track or as an official single. This basically only concerns changing the infobox's template from {{Infobox Single}} to {{Infobox Song}} and vice versa. Tonight, I made an argument on the article's talk page concerning why Infobox Single should be used, used an edit summary that I probably should not have (referring to what I believe are WP:OWN issues amongst a couple of editors on these pages), and also removed a statement that had no real source in the article. This has prompted Tbhotch (talk · contribs) to revert any edit I make to the page as apparently classifying the template differently requires a source, any comment I leave on his page, as well as give me what I consider petty templated warnings meant only for the new members (see [86] [87] [and yes, I know I used rollback on them, but I have a statement on the top of my talk page that says I will do this to such impersonal messages]). I know I should not particularly result to this tactic, but the lameness over which template should be used and the actions Tbhotch has taken just because I switched the template I feel needs a slightly wider audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say 1 word on this: WP:Verifiability. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How does WP:V carry over to what template is used on the article? If it is only an aesthetic aspect, why are you treating me as if I don't know anything about how this project works?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I change the infobox to 1+1 (song) just because of my balls? Is it how Wikipedia works? I don't think so The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Also, it seems you do not understand how the project works ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

I have never seen anything on WP:V that dictates what template should be used. All I know is that this has gotten unnecessarily out of control.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because WP:V is a police that, along with BLP, should be applied elsewhere, that's why it is a policy. The template Infobox single cleary says: "The design and content of all music-related infoboxes should follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy, infobox style guideline and music style guideline. While this document may clarify details of their specific application to the infobox, it is primarily concerned with explaining usage and not with matters of Wikipedia policy and style.". ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bike Shed, anyone? There are far more pressing concerns, even BLP concerns, on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that WP:DEW existed. And I know that this is barely even a molehill. I just was not sure how to proceed considering Tbhotch's actions over such a WP:LAME issue, particularly how he accused me of harassing him in this edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DEW, the ESSAY with no validity, how I forgot that as well. Anyway we are not here due the next edit: Please revert yourself and let me violate a policy, otherwise you are violating "Verifibiality" with the source... wait! I did not provide a source, but anyway, I was correct, please revert yourself, thanks. Are we? ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that essays are not policy. But if you read it you will see why what has happened has been blown unnecessarily out of proportion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should handle this the same way you treat any edit-warring situation, Ryulong? In this case, I agree that the underlying motivation is pretty minor, but it does make a certain amount of sense to reserve the "infobox single" template for songs that reliable sources have described as a "single", and use "infobox song" for songs that haven't been described as a "single" in reliable sources. Your edit has been reverted by multiple editors on that basis. That would imply that the next step is to either leave it alone, or to find a reliable source that describes the song as a "single" and discuss it. Easy enough, no?—Kww(talk) 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kww, I agree that this edit war is silly and it shouldn't have been bought here but thank you for explaining in plain simple English why it may be better to use the "song" template in this article and how WP:V may apply instead of throwing around WP:FOOs and catchphrases. If this were done more often then maybe there would be less edit wars. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was only reverted by Tbhotch who proceeded to treat any of my edits regarding the page as requiring reverts. I've made/added onto a discussion on the article's talk page concerning the issue, but Tbhotch's actions in regards to my edits and what I thought were not valid reasons to dismiss them and revert them I wanted some input on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not obligated to answer you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do however explicitly request at the top of my user talk page that editors such as yourself follow the message in the essay WP:TEMPLAR when leaving me messages as I find it patronizing to be left {{uw-unsourced1}} when you could have explained to me in the first place that you are taking a strict reading of the little box in the documentation of {{Infobox Single}} as well as a general overall strict application of WP:V.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Another essay. I will wonder why you follow vox populi and not rules and guidelines. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because adhering to common courtesy should not be a written rule.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You pretty much are required to defend reversions, Tbhotch. Certainly when I examine an edit war and determine who to block and for how long, I give editors that are discussing their point of view credit for attempting to edit constructively, and look unkindly on editors that refuse to join talk page discussions. Of course, I also look unkindly on people that bring content disputes to ANI. I think I'm pretty normal in that regard. As for who's reverting who, Ryulong reverted Legolas2186, who had reverted Supergamer345. Time for everyone to go to the talk page and discuss things. As I said earlier, while Tbhotch might be wrong in thinking he is immune to needing to discuss things, his insistence on Ryulong pointing to a reliable source that describes the song as a "single" does fall in line with normal procedures, and I think Ryulong should be searching for a source.

As for other things, if I could speedy delete any essay, those that complain about templating regulars would be high on the list of candidates. Disputes about talk page "rules" are about as petty as disputes can get.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I simply prefer not to be treated like some idiot who doesn't know that there are rules to follow. There is a much more wider ranging policy that I adhere to in situations such as this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• What a ridiculous waste of time and energy. Even putting aside the fact that the "single"/"song" distinction makes very little sense when virtually all digitally released tracks are unbundled for sale. According to the relevant article, a "single" is typically "a song that is released separately from an album." This song, without dispute, does not appear on an album. What else is there to discuss. Do we require specific sourcing to put Lady Gaga in the "living persons" category? Whatever you cite, it's out-of-date. There's a point where arguing the obvious becomes unusually tendentious, and we're well past that point here. Only conclusions that should be drawn from this discussion: Wikipedia has too many infobox variations, and people take infoboxes way too seriously. Trouts for everybody. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I believe a more specific distinction lies in whether or not the song charts separately from the album in terms of airplay or sales. But this is still a useless splitting of hairs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• The distinction between "single" and "song" here shouldn't be something that Tbhotch should be editwarring over, and it certainly shouldn't be something he should be Wikilawyering over. Since he wants policy pages, using common sense is an official policy, and I don't see Tbhotch doing a lot of that here. --Jayron32 02:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And are you an admin Jay? Wow, using my common sense, your RFA was poor. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I do not see Wiktionary:improvements or Wiktionary:maintainments. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tbhotch is being out of control here. There's no two ways about it. I recommend that he turn off his computer and go read a book for 24 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not my boss. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but when you get blocked for, among other things, that attitude, you're going to wish you listened to my advice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you threating me with block me? You have nothing. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not threatening to block you. Rather I saying that at the rate you're going at, you're very likely to earn yourself a block in the near future. No one likes being taken to task at AN/I, but your behavior here, as well as the behavior that led to this thread being started, are inappropriate. I'm suggesting that you need to take a break and cool off, let calmer heads prevail, and all that good stuff, because you're lashing out and the only one it's hurting is you. I'm also not an administrator, so even if I did want to block you, I couldn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a heck of a lot of behaviour that's not following the community nature of Wikipedia: WP:TRUTH - and indeed, a statement that they have no requirement to communicate with people who are trying to properly gain WP:CONSENSUS. Sprinkle in some WP:OWN, some WP:DICK, some WP:TENDENTIOUS and I see valid reasons for a short, imposed break. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I wanted to bring this to the attention of the board. Tbhotch has been extremely too confrontational towards everyone in this whole debacle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IP OUTING & NPA on User talk:Guyonthesubway

RFPP semi of talk page for Guyonthesubway (talk · contribs) expired, and outing and personal attacks have resumed, apparently from the same IP user, based on content as I remember it.

• 77.241.230.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 208.54.95.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

See also here — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to see for a peon like me if it's the same kind of stuff (the previous edits were oversighted, unless I'm mistaken). What we have here now (in the history) is weird, and borderline personal attack, maybe, but whether it's really outing or not is difficult to determine. Thus, while I would be more than happy to extend protection of the talk page if there is really outing involved, I can't tell whether that is justified or not. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The most recent bit of harassment looked like it contained an attempt to name the editor's employer, so I revdeleted it. As a fellow peon I can't see how bad the previous attempts were either because they were removed via oversight. But I semi-protected the talk page for a month, hopefully that's long enough for the person to get bored and move on. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't sure how to read that drivel, but better safe than sorry. Thanks Atama. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Klownboy

• Klownboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klownboy Circus of Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Klownboy's article was tagged and deleted per {{db-g11}} as spam, after which he went on a mini-spree, posting a copy of the deleted article (text and images) on my talk page twice, then replacing the {{uw-coi}} warning on his own talk page with another copy, then posting yet another copy on his user page. I shouldn't be the one to further warn or block him, but his activity needs some adminly attention. – Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Klownboy's user page is now up for MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klownboy. — Becksguy (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He/she blanked the user page and thus the MfD template. I restored the page and warned user on his/her talk page. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with a user blanking their own user page? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's silly and counterproductive. Someone starts a discussion to delete the page, and then when he blanks it, effectively complying with the deletion request, you bar him from doing so? He can blank the page if he wants to, it's in his own user space. It renders the discussion moot, unless someone thinks it should be deleted from the page history.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the blank version, removed the inapplicable warning, and commented on the MfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article itself has been recreated (see above) and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE. Blanking of his own user page seem OK to me, although not the other stuff. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the MfD notice on the user page included the text: "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion." The justification for that language is that removing the notice may make it harder to develop a consensus at the discussion. So, if you have a problem with it, the template message needs to be changed. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose "unless it is in your own user space and you created it" would be an okay exception there. Would be a good idea to propose that be added. Anyway, yeah, there's nothing wrong with it being blanked in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And we work on common sense here, not blind literal obedience to the written rule - that particular instruction is not generally applied to the original author blanking their own creation, as that effectively achieves exactly what a deletion request sets out to do in the first place -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Delete all, salt, indef block the editor for disruption. Any outstanding MfDs can be speedily closed, as it seems that the conclusions are already obvious, mostly as a result of this editor's disrupive behaviour. While the film might just about make a case for notability (Troma at least are well-known amongst this delightful little niche), the editor has blown it by their own actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ummm, no. Only in exceptional cases do we consider a user's edits as tainted and delete them without consideration to their merits. While it's likely we're dealing with a non-notable subject here, there is absolutely no need for us to delete it out of process just to spite the user. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Chris, unless this editor has been site banned there's no need to nuke all of their contributions on sight. Even contributions from a banned user can be kept if other editors think they are worth keeping. This sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. -- Atama頭 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks for all the followup / followthrough here. – Athaenara ✉ 17:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ASHOKBINDUSARA

Resolved

 – Editor blocked as WP:SOCKPUPPET. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk · contribs), when they deleted a historian from List of historians without providing any edit summary. I looked at the contributions of the editor in order to see if this was vandalism or constructive editing. While it was not vandalism, the contributions certainly provided evidence of a highly problematic editor. While not being well versed in Indian history, religion and ethnic disputes, it does seem like user:ASHOKBINDUSARA is editing from a militant hinduist viewpoint, and is mainly using WP:TRUTH to back up their claims (literally in fact as can be seen here).

A few days ago the editor was apparently engaged in a dispute on Adolf Hitler's religious views and the editor proceeded to spout this rant on an involved editors talk page:

"go and get some knowledge about the authors who have published the books you dumb christian , oh maybe you are jealous that Hitler was inspired by Hindusim now you will someday say that hp blavatsky too dont have any expertise in the field of aryans the historian who told about aryans first simply means that the latest use of aryan is refers only to INDO-ARYAN people and not to indo-european or indo-iranian. the section just below this on islam contains things which are not given in any book simply a link has been posted and do you want to say that Heinrich himmler didnt have affection for hindu religious writing then you are simply a anti-hindu and weak person and i will ban you next time if you try to vandalize the article , can you give your thoughts on islam section it says something which is not given in any book by any author. Otherwise you are just another dumb christian who dont know to which religion Jesus christ belongs."

dif.

Now the editor has engaged in an edit war (with me, admittedly, but I am not sure if the edits doesn't violate WP:BLP, since they are entirely unsourced) at Romila Thapar (the historian deleted from the list mentioned above), claiming that she is not worthy to be called a historian and she is only doing it for fame (or something or other, I can't entirely decipher the editors intent) on account of the editor thinking that something she wrote is wrong. She is also called a "anti-hindu historian or leftish historian..." and a "fake historian who have never read any books themselves".

ASHOKBINDUSARA has possibly made some good edits, I can't be sure because as stated this is not my field of expertise, but the bias and militant behaviour of them seems to be entirely at odds with the spirit of this encyclopedia. Any inputs from administrators about how to proceed would be nice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have personally read the books mentioned by me and i stand by it, i have given source which are written by noted historians such as RC MAJUMDAR,HELENA BLAVASTKY,JAMES TOD,HC RAYCHOUWDHARI,RK MOKKERJEE. further romilla thapar is often considered as pseudo secular in India by many Hindus, she speak without any knowledge ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you have read the books in question is irrelevant: what I see as the prime issue is the massive personal attack that you made against someone who does not share your view. On top of that, whether or not you feel you have the WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, and not one-sided edits. Wikipedia is a neutral, collegial encyclopedia, and rants and attacks are not at all welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content discussion, so please keep that at Talk:Romila Thapar. My point with this thread was that your bias seems to infringe upon your ability to edit in a neutral fashion. It may be that with some proper coaching and studying of the relevant policies, you may yet become an asset to the project. I haven't got any experience in judging that, but for now what seems the majority of your edits constitute a problem to the netrality and verifiability of this project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The insertions in Romila Thapar do appear to be serious BLP violations about a very distinguished academic. In a 2005 review in the New York Review of Books William Dalrymple explained in detail the political revisionism in the writing of textbooks on Indian history since 1999 [88] adding in a footnote, "Romila Thapar recently revised her Penguin history of India under the new title: EARLY INDIA: From the Origins to AD 1300. The brilliant culmination of a lifetime of scholarship, she brings her work up to date and directly challenges many of the myths of Hindutva. It is, however, written in fairly dense academese." ASHOKBINDUSARA does not seem to be editing neutrally. Wikipedia would take the Penguin History of India as a WP:RS. Those with experience editing articles on India. like Ncmvocalist and RegentsPark, can probably judge whether there are problems involving Indian nationalism, as appears to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think statements like "it should be mentioned that how a leftist historian views are dominated by her disgusting nature of appeasing muslims or lower caste people of hindus" definitely shows an editor pushing a Hindu nationalist POV in completely inappropriate language. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There's more to this than meets the eye, this is standard operating procedure for User:Mrpontiac1 who has caused more disruption on South Asian religion, history, caste and food articles for many years. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1 for the latest report pending CU. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems checkuser came up with ASHOKBINDUSARA being a possible match. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been indeffed as a sockpuppet, so I guess this can be closed now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim of defamation

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs). Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could someone uninvolved take a look at this diff and take appropriate action IAW WP:NLT and advise this user if they feel it is appropriate to do so? Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a specific legal threat, although the language used in the diff is fairly strident. Keeping in mind that the absolute defense for libel is truth, what are they claiming was defamatory? Is it something that can be supported under WP:BLP? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the defamation laws in the UK or how stuff talking about people in other parts of the Commonwealth are dealt with, but could anything written by someone in the UK about people in India be a violation of those laws? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I *assume* that Fraudly is worried about my observation here and perhaps the rest of the Talk:Enthiran discussion which may provide an insight to their issues. Fæ (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The important part of NLT is "threat". Making vague intimations that it would be in someone's best interests for them to disengage from a topic or revert all their edits due to some perceived legal problem definitely falls under that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The edit seems like an obvious threat that if the edits are not all reverted, the user is in violation of some law and will be prosecuted and/or sued. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like all bluster to me. There's nothing defamatory about wanting to verify data or mathematical calculations. Uncomfortable for someone, perhaps, if the verification shows other results than what someone wants. But not defamatory. That said, I see Tnxman307 has already dealt with the WP:NLT problem. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats and block evasion- not a good combo. TNXMan 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that combo may fall under the "kiss of death" heading... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Badrinath (film), a page targeted by this user, has had a new account suddenly show up making substantially similar changes such as inserting it being declared a flop without citing a source, and changing income numbers without changing sources. -- ۩ Mask 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot or not?

Resolved

 – Account blocked by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else please check this diff and see if that was an actual bot edit? If so, I'd call it a very ill-behaved bot. If not, there's an impostor running around somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ETA...based on this diff, I think there's a serious problem. I haven't looked at the other edits committed by that username yet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of typing up a report myself but got multiple edit conflicts. At any rate, the account is now blocked. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it's an unauthorized bot per [89] and [90], and the block is most certainly valid. –MuZemike 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user as a vandal account with misleading edit summaries and impersonating ClueBot. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)