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

Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

untimestamped as not really ongoing anymore. Fram - Talk

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When an apparently reliable source is cited in a nonEnglish Wikipedia or even in a different article in the English Wikipedia, is verifiability satisfied just by copying the information and listing the cited work as the reference, if the present editor has not seen the source himself, to verify that it supports the statement? Is there any way of citing it as having been copied but not accessed by the present editor? Many print references have little or no content viewable online, and many newspaper and journals are behind paywall and not readily accessible to the present editor who needs it as a reference for some statement. Can Wikipedia editors legitimately translate foreign Wikipedia articles and just copy the references, without having checked the content of the references? Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it says "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2." Is it legit to do this and say "German Wikipedia, article XXX" where the example says "Name of encyclopedia I have seen?" Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A short and sweet answer: no. A Wikipedia (any Wikipedia, including this one) isn't a reliable source. What you are proposing is a route to circular referencing. If you haven't seen something, you shouldn't cite it, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So what is {{Translation/Ref}} for? It's used on a very large number of pages. If the discussion above were actually correct, all of these would need to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is for when you have copied and translated material from a different-language Wikipedia, in order to prevent plagarism or copyvio claims. I don't see how it has anything to do with finding sources for the content copied and translated.--Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course one shouldn't cite it directly. But I AGF on the part of people who add references to WP articles, on any language WP. If references have been added to the xxWP, and I translate the article into English, I copy the references as a first step. (The next step is trying to find references that may be more appropriate here if they exist, although of course references in any language are acceptable if they are the best or the most accessible.) Removing references when doing such a translation is singularly unproductive. Not copying such references over would be akin to moving a page here and removing the references because one had not verified them. In both cases, the references are checkable by those who want to check them. The requirement is Verifiability, and that means not adding new material without knowing that it can be references; it doesn't apply to such routine things as copying with attribution or translation. Of course we don't cite the other WPs as sources, but we can and should use their references; I don't think there's a burden on the translator to reconfirm them. We are an encyclopedia, not a scholarly publication, and we do not do source-checking in the sense a scholarly publisher would. Anyone who thinks we do is misunderstanding.

The problem, rather, is material that is present but uncited on another WP. The deWP has the well-known practice of not specifically citing material which they consider any user can find in an ordinary library in standard sources (I doubt its their formal policy, but it seems to be their practice). I try to find at least one usable reference when translating these, even if I cannot fully reference the material at the timer. Again, I AGF for the contributors there. This is particularly applicable to at least the de and fr WPs , where I know by experience they have a very low frequency of containing unverifiable material--a frequency much lower than ours. I'd even say a frequency much lower than ours even when our articles purport to have references and theirs do not.

Removing uncontroversial material because of a temporary inability to reference it is not in my opinion constructive in any context--with the obvious exceptions of certain sorts of material in BLPs, etc. We will have quite enough to do if we all concentrate on removing the controversial or unlikely or POV or clearly outdated or apparently dubious material, and checking any references they might seem to have, which in my experience are rather likely to be unreliable. After we've all worked on this and solved the problem several years down the road, we can work on the remainder. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is precisely in doing what DGG is saying to do-- copying text from a Wiki, translating it, and then copying in the citations without reading the sources. You can't translate an article without reading the sources to see if they're correctly represented. The whole notion that you can just translate an article and then copy over the sources is beyond belief. No, the German Wiki is not a reliable source, and any article that is translated should be done by someone who is actually reading the sources from the article they are translating. Otherwise, they are adding content to en.wiki without knowing if it meets WP:V-- merely assuming the text was correct on the other Wiki (and not a copyvio). I don't understand why anyone would encourage editors to translate articles without consulting the sources. Sources carried over from another Wiki by a translator without reading those sources is as good as nothing; our core policies on neutrality and sourcing should trump the desire for content (I know they don't always, but anyway ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images

A little background: Talk:Muhammad/images is a special talk page created to deal with the large number of editors who come to complain about showing depictions of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, due mostly to religious considerations. Consensus has been decided on multiple occasions that images of Muhammad are acceptable on the page, this has been truly exhaustively discussed in the past as you can tell by the large disclaimer on the top of the talk page, and by reading the archives. This does not mean that consensus cannot change, but it's unlikely and doesn't seem to be happening now.

Furthermore, WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous when it states "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

User talk:Ludwigs2 has made it goal recently to strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims. It is true that some sects of Islam consider it unethical to depict Muhammad as I'm sure most people here know.

It has been explained ad nauseum to Ludwig that policy does not allow us to consider religious beliefs when writing this encyclopedia and his response is that we should invoke WP:IAR. I explained to him that IAR still needs to be determined by a consensus and that he cannot unilaterally invoke it to force a POV into the article. His response was that other editors are abusing the rules by enforcing them and if we stop abusing the rules then he will stop IAR.

This conversation has been going back and forth with the same points being explained by several editors many times, and it has now crossed the WP:TE line - the entire page is one large WP:BATTLEGROUND at this point, with several WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues such as accusing all the other editors opposing removal (which as far as I can tell is all other editors, though there are editors who would like less images for various reasons) of WP:OWN and expressing disbelief that the people he's dealing with can think the way they do and still be normal adults.

I'm asking that an uninvolved admin assess the situation and determine if Lugwigs2 requires some kind of a warning or if I'm being overly dramatic, and I thank you in advance for reading the talk page thread because it is a bit long.

The relevant thread is here. I'm not posting diffs because the entire thread demonstrates the points I am attempting to illustrate, as it's not a single comment that is at issue here. There are other threads involved in this discussion, but this is the most recent and best highlights my complaint.

N^oformation ^Talk 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This was bound to hit the AN/I fan sooner or later, just one massive Facepalm. If I may offer a pre-rebuttal to what Ludwigs2 is like about to touch on here, neither I nor IMO anyone else asserts ownership of the Muhammad article. I have said "images will not be removed this article" as a simple acknowledgement of the slim-to-none chance that it would ever actually happen. It's like saying "Ron Paul will never be President" or "the Bills will never win the Super Bowl". One is not staking out an aggressive posture against either scenario taking place, but is rather acknowledging the likelihood of occurrence, or lack thereof. It has also been endlessly frustrating to deal with a user who demands existing policy be bent in an absolutely wrong direction to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. And not even a specific someone, all of this is in defense of nebulous "some people out there don't like this article" sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have said similar and have elaborated in the same way. The article can certainly change if a consensus to do so is formed, but it will not be done based on religious considerations and the chances of the article being depiction free are slim. This is not asserting ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the term you're looking for is "Slim to none, and Slim left town". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A very very tiny portion of the diffs of behavior related to this can be found here[1] (this was for an AN/I or RfC/U I planned on filing but am still working on organizing and moving the diffs over from an offline copy). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I am aware of this thread, and to clarify some misperceptions in Nofo's presentation. beyond that I will allow administrtors to review the material before commenting further.

comments on Nofo's summary:

• I am not trying to "strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims." As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, I want to undertake a frank evaluation of the value of these images to the article to see if keeping them is worth all the immense amounts of trouble that they cause. as Nofo noted, there is a special subpage (with 16 archives) all focused on these images; one would expect the images to be of vital importance to the page for all of that conflict, yet as far as I can tell they are at best decorative illustrations. That struck me as nonsensical - why cause this much trouble over eye-candy?
• Nofo and Tarc have (understandably) downplayed the extent of wp:page ownership. I have had at least four editors (including one admin) tell me bald-face that the images will not be removed under any circumstances, and that any discussion of the matter is unacceptable (two most reacent examples [2],[3], though there are dozens) I have consequently been forced to turn to wp:IAR simply to get any sort of discussion going.
  • The IAR justification, incidentally, is over the misuse of NOTCENSORED: the policy is being used to retain images that have no particular value to the article but are highly controversial - effectively offending a significant population of our readers and damaging the project's reputation without any overriding encyclopedic reason.

please review the talk page at your leisure; happy to answer any questions. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. this has been cast as being about me, but there are at least two other editors in the discussion making similar arguments to mine who have not been notified. I will leave notices in their talk (I don't want to involve them unless they choose to participate here). --Ludwigs2 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is so very not true, and I can provide faaaar more diffs to prove it's not than the tiny handful in the link I posted above. Shall I? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I very clearly said "without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed" in that diff, I seriously doubt anyone will read that as ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors insist on calling the Bible stories fairy tales, without concern for offense to Jewish and Christian believers. What's so special about Muslims, that they should be catered to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fairy tales? In mainspace? Do we? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Example? I rather think we tolerate highly biased articles making out that Jesus' existence is uncontested historical fact and stuff like that. Not that this supports Ludwigs2's case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: when it comes right down to it, I don't really care who gets offended, so long as the project has a valid, encyclopedic reason to do the offending. If we need controversial material, we use controversial material, but do we really want to be throwing controversial material in our readers' faces for no reason whatsoever? see the recent foundation resolution on controversial content. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, at AN/I, you actually decided to make such a claim, even though diffs to prove your true motivations and feelings on this matter are right here for all to see? (to everyone else) This is why I think nothing short of a topic ban is going to stop the tendentiousness, disruptiveness and editing in bad faith (not to mention erroneous claims of being attacked while attacking others). In my opinion, that entire comment shows a bad faith response as can be noted from over a dozen diffs showing (in his own words) it is not his true motivations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that depictions of Muhammed are usually verboten, their mere presence is of major educational benefit here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument, Bugs. Here's a gratuitous and excessive counterexample of something that is offensive but we have no educational mission to include. The concept that we should include offensive material just because no one else will host it is jaw-droppingly silly. SDY (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's a ridiculously, jaw-droppingly silly, and thoroughly bogus comparison. Unless you're aware of some American law restricting depictions of Muhammed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you think we should include kiddie porn if the laws of Florida didn't say no? Maybe we should include the goatse.cx image for its "educational value"? Including gratuitous offensive images is tasteless and crude: if they have clear educational value that should be easy to defend. Including them for the sake of some twisted sense of entitlement about freedom from censorship is not writing an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For quite some time we did include the goatse.cx image, first the image itself, and then a screenshot of the website with the image clearly visible. The arguments for the inclusion of that image were much better than those for the Muhammad images, and it didn't get finally removed before Jimbo got involved. Hans Adler 07:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's an alternate universe where kiddie porn isn't universally condemned as wrong and depraved, and is instead accepted, and if there's a wikipedia in that universe, they'd probably have kiddie porn in their article. The comparison is way too weak because of all the fundamentally unique issues that apply to child pornography that don't apply to almost anything else. Interestingly, I don't particularily think that a category exists whose members are "child porn, goatse.cx and the religious prophet Muhammad". N^oformation ^Talk 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images that might be taken as extremely offensive, perhaps? The complete cultural blindness of this site is shocking sometimes. We have very different ideas about encyclopedias. Regardless, this isn't the place for this conversation. SDY (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "cultural blindess" - good thing too, if it weren't culturally blind, it would be a very shitty encyclopedia, especially with all the various interests that have tried subverting article after article. My time here at RC has proven that to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no way I'm reading through all the material here, major case of tl;dr, but I would suggest to Ludwig that his reasoning is dubious when he argues that a possibly valid reason to remove images from said article is simply because they are causing more trouble than they are worth, when it is he who is causing most of the trouble. I agree with the original poster that an uninvolved admin might perhaps need to have a chat with Ludwig and possibly issue a warning. This discussion has truly been done to death at a variety of locations on wikipedia, and I really think it's time for Ludwig to let this issue go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a read through of the entire section myself to get to grips with the situation. Wrt to the point raised re ownership, I didn't see any particular signs of it. I read the various "these pictures will never be removed" comments as "these pictures will never be removed based on the position you are taking". Frankly speaking, all I read was the same argument repeated over and over again until it was escalated into heel digging and declarations of applying IAR ad nauseam until the pictures were removed for the sake of the sensibilities of religious hysterics. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this was brought here. Ludwigs2 is not just repeating the same arguments over and over again. The most recent round of discussion was kicked off by the resolution recently passed by the WMF on controversial content. Raising the issue here on Wikipedia with what are very easily our most "controversial images" was fully acceptable. In response, Ludwigs has been met with abuse and vitriol. Ludwigs eventually decided to pursue an RfC (supported by myself, Anthonyhcole, and others); a number of regular editors (Tarc is the worst, but also Robertmfromli) have made strong attempts to stop the RfC. When a group of editors attempt to assert that their understanding of policy is so obviously correct and their opponents are so obviously wrong that we shouldn't even ask for the community's input, that is the very definition of ownership. Now, I will admit that Ludwigs2 is on the extreme end, and the chances of his preferred outcome (i.e., no pictorial images whatsoever) is essentially a no-go, but Anthonyhcole has done a very good job of pointing out that there is a middle ground here that needs to be considered (i.e., that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE). WP:CENSORSHIP is fine, but it is being used as a bludgeon on that page, as if its very existence means that anyone who even considers removal of any images there is nothing other than a Sunni apologist. My opinion is, once we settle on a wording, we need to let the RfC run. If it turns out (as is likely) to support the extremist "all images are good position", then fine--of course, Ludwigs2 and any other editor must be free to pursue further dispute resolution. That has really been my position all along: that a group of editors are essentially trying to prevent dispute resolution due to their sense of their own unerring interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian: Me? I tried stopping the RfC? Are you truly serious? I kindly ask you to review the page history. I was willing to give up[4][5] because of Ludwigs2's actions, but I *NEVER* tried stopping it. The exact opposite is true. *I* restarted it THREE times[6][7][8] and *I* made the only proposal that had any chance at getting any images removed (other than you tacking virtually the same proposal onto proposal #5). So, would you like to retract that claim that I tried stopping the RfC? And apologies for the bolded text, but your claim is so vastly different than what really happened. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Qwyrxian: Apologies for any tone you may read into that. That page is a massive mess, and I am sure you simply missed the things I pointed out above. I am upset about such a claim being made against me, but I know (from seeing you around for a long time) that it's nothing more than not having gotten a handle on that massive walls-o-text talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content discussion. There may be a middle ground and that's fine but in the meantime Ludwig has made personal attacks, assigned motives to other editors and yes, has repeated the same argument regarding offending Muslims over and over again to the point of WP:TE. He is yet to make a policy based argument against WP:NOTCENSORED, which specifically rules out using religious belief as a valid criteria of building the pedia. Instead he invokes IAR, which he would not need to do if policy was on his side. Yes there have been edits by editors who share my view on the images that made me cringe, I didn't find their behavior bad enough to take to AN/I, but if you do then by all means open up a case. However, in what you wrote above all you did was point to the behavior of others and not that of Ludwigs. Please see some of the diffs below. N^oformation ^Talk 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I have absolutely no problem with an RFC nor do I oppose changes to the way images in the article are handled, and I don't think other editors do either. The problem people have is that we cannot make a case based on Ludwig's reasoning that it offends religious beliefs. Other arguments are fine. I brought this thread here so that an uninvolved admin can step in and calm the waters - not to stifle discussion or stop DR. N^oformation ^Talk 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I find Ludwigs2's arguments quite sensible, and am more inclined to the view that there are a number of editors opposing Ludwigs2 who are overinvolved on that page, and who are turning this into a battleground over principle. I am still trying to get up to speed with the subject matter, but as far as I can make out, pictorial representations of Muhammad have never been as common and widespread in Muslim traditions as pictorial representations of Christ in the Christian tradition, for example; so the basic situation is a completely different one. We should focus on the most common types of representation (calligraphy etc.), just as we focus on the most typical depictions of Jesus in his article. Even among such pictorial depictions of Muhammad as did exist, the majority showed him as a flame, or veiled; yet most of the pictures we feature are those of the rarer naturalistic type – so they are both unrepresentative and more likely to cause offence. If we keep in mind that we should balance educational value and potential offence, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have far too many naturalistic images of Muhammad in the article. Perhaps one veiled one, and one showing him as a flame, might be reasonable, because these are the common styles. It might also make sense to look at how other encyclopaedias are handling this; Britannica for example does not include any images of Muhammad at all, as far as I can see; neither in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia articles on Muhammad, nor in the Macropaedia article on Islamic art (which is mostly non-pictorial). We'll probably need an RfC on the content issue at some point, and that should be well-prepared, and underpinned by serious research. --JN466 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many arguments to be made on the article's talk page, but one of them is not that it's against Islamic tradition. And again, this is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content dispute. N^oformation ^Talk 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has only happened on this page this past week, I see lots of "I didn't hear that" and aspersions from the other side as well, rather than an effort to seek compromise and consensus. I think everybody on that page needs a cooling-off period. (By the way, note WP:NAUSEUM.) And to address the point of tradition, I think we can agree that naturalistic depictions of Muhammad are rare, and nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is represented in Islamic tradition. --JN466 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A small portion of Ludwigs2 behavior and comments

• Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[9]
• Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[10] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs.
• One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[11] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[12] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual".
• Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[13] - continues to do so, such as[14]
• VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[15] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial"
• He suggests an RfC[16], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[17], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[18] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[19]
• (Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[20][21][22]
• Advises he will continue[23] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[24]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[25][26][27]^{(and plenty more)} that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [28][29]

Added by ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to limit this discussion to Ludwigs2's behavior. We *really* don't want to hash out the image controversy here as it's one that will never achieve consensus anyway. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It achieved consensus long ago (that a few images stay) and has had it ever since. What it will never achieve is universal agreement, but that's not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. N^oformation ^Talk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well, but in fairness to Ludwigs, we need to limit it to everyone's behaviour, even if I echo others in believing that he himself is responsible for nearly all of the conflict. Now, onto the point, I won't repeat everything RobertM has said, but I have a collection of links myself that echos those. The one I will leave is typical of his behaviour on that talk page: "...the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice." This was from last weekend, but he has made several similar accusations of bigotry and racism, the most recent of which I saw was from yesterday. That is pretty much his MO. We need to remove images of "the prophet" because some Muslims are offended, and therefore anyone who does not support his goal of censoring the article must be a bigot. He has been tendentious in the extreme and routinely makes bad-faith arguments against his opponents. Resolute 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cannot but agree that Ludwigs has been speculating on the motives of editors at that page and he should stop. Ludwigs2 is by no means the only offender. I would very much appreciate it if all the editors on that page would apply WP:TALK. It is extremely tedious trying to engage in rational argument when every fifth paragraph seems to be about editor behaviour or speculations about motive, from every direction. It draws out the process and just makes people dig in their heels. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole recent discussion on that page seems to have degenerated into battleground mode. I would not want to lay the responsibility for that at any one individual editor's doorstep. --JN466 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are on our 5th attempt at an RfC (which ironically he proposed and tried to circumvent). I even proposed an RfC that actually had a chance of getting an image or three removed (the "all or none" ones we know wouldn't change anything, and Ludwigs' written or implied as "none or none" ones weren't going to happen). If that's not a compromise, I don't know what is. Worse yet, there isn't anything else that can be compromised on in that venue. The rest require policy changes or policy addendums - where, on well over a dozen occasions, Ludwigs2 was suggested to go. We can't change nor ignore WP:CENSOR. At least 4 times, a viable compromise in the form of an RfC that may have removed some images was proposed.

And finally, the rest of us don't really need to cool off. We just don't need tendentiousness and every RfC attempt turned into a circus of repeated IAR claims and repeated claims of (grossly paraphrased) "ooh, you attacked me again!" I disagree with various of your points, yet you and I are going back and forth in good faith with points and counter-points and listening to each other. Same with other editors.

Yes, it's been difficult for us to ignore Ludwigs2, and I think all of us have tried, and most of us have failed... but ignoring him doesn't work either. And I've got pages of history in the talk page archives - plus the current page - to prove that. Simply responding to each other (as you and I have been doing) results in walls of the "Policy Whack A Mole" game, accusations towards other editors, single purpose IAR rants, and so on. I'll gladly do no more than provide a link to the Village Pump each time from now on, so the rest of us can discuss... but, at this point, the number of accusations and attacks on editors from him has gotten ridiculous, as has the tendentiousness and disruptiveness. I personally think he's long overdue for a topic ban. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, this is a complex issue. It will take time for calm rational discussion to arrive at an idea of the best way forward, if indeed anything needs to be done. There is no hurry. The only problem I see at that page is a tendency for many editors, of every persuasion, to allow themselves to be sidetracked into ad hominem. You can ignore ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, you are correct. And my apologies, if my frustrations at others ever got misplaced and misdirected at you or anyone else. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My OPINION: Summary of this whole event

This was intended to be part of the AN/I I held off filing and was to go with the diffs I provided above and below. It has been modified to note the two locations of the diffs, as I never finished moving them from off-Wiki to my userspace)

(diffs representative of most or all of this are already posted here) When it comes to removal of the images, whether one or all or something inbetween, there are two camps involved:

1. One camp which wishes to discuss the merit (historic, educational and artistic value to the article) of each image (or the images as a whole).
2. One editor (Ludwigs2) who wishes to see them all removed based on religious objections to them. It seems that if those in "Camp #1" make what he perceives are compelling arguments, he tries that road for a short period of time. Everyone else starts discussing such with them in good faith, but as soon as it looks like there is pressure against any part of any such proposal, he tends to revert to various policy Whack A Mole type arguments based on religious objections to the images for summary removal of all of them, including suggesting an RfC that asked or implied (paraphrased) "remove all for this reason, or remove all for this reason".

It is at that point where things continue to spiral out of control. Multiple attempts have been made to restart discussions, but the end result is always the same. I can provide diffs to various such conversations where those at odds with Ludwigs2's actions were working in good faith with those in "Camp #1" - and where he sidetracked things for his single minded objective. Due to his preliminary support of some of these (before he reverts to his true objective), a person only giving the page a quick read may come to a grossly wrong conclusion about his objectives as he himself (diff below in response to Anthony, many more available) had admitted is his goal.

This is just my perceptions of the matter, with diffs in the section above I created, as well as below to support my interpretation. Your's may vary (or not). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My take on this whole thing is that Ludwigs2 wants a clear interpretation of the ArbCom resolution reflected in Wikipedia's existing policies. As a precisionist Wikipedian myself, this is something I agree with. The problem is that Ludwigs2 picked the wrong venue, perhaps to use as a test case, but nevertheless it's the wrong place to build a consensus regarding fundamental interpretations of policy.

At this point, after the same arguments have been stated over and over again, I would agree that Ludwigs2's persistence in the wrong venue has crossed the line into tendentiousness. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the fact that the resolution was already incorporated into WP:CENSOR with the religious censorship section left intact as the community's interpretation. I'd gladly see through such an endeavor for clarity, if you believe such is really needed. On the other side of the coin though, Ludwigs2 (I have the diffs, and can provide them later if you would like) started out at that article by removing images, caused drawn out debates about removing images, tried policy Whack-A-Mole to remove images, tried RfC attempts to remove images, tried a Village Pump proposal to remove images (was that one another end run attempt at an ongoing RfC?), and when pushed, repeatedly admits it's religious based objections at the core of his argument - hence my interpretation of his motives is different. Even with the very very unamibguous wording that was left in WP:CENSOR, it seemed more Policy-Whack-A-Mole time again. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading much of the discussion (there's a good chunk of my life I'll sadly never get back), I have to concur with RobertMfromLI's summary--Ludwigs2 does keep reverting back to the same argument over and over. If Ludwigs2 wants to use that argument in the upcoming RfC, that is fine; however, there's no point in continuing to bring it up over and over again when xe knows that the current local consensus is opposed to that position. Right now, Ludwigs2 should be focused only on helping phrase the RfC itself, then xe can add whatever additional points xe wants to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question (sorry it is my first AN/I) should we continue to report any behavioral problems or should we let the matter lie while people look things up? Since I have noticed several times since we started this that personal attacks are continuing. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

• Topic ban? Ludwigs2 seems to be behaving no differently on this article than he has on astrology, pregnancy and acupuncture. (On Men's rights, it seems that his presence provides a useful counterfoil to some of the newly arrived editor-activists.) Almost all his contributions to the discussion on the image subpage appear to be outside wikipedia policy; and he still has not succeeded in finding a way to engage with other users who do not share his opinions, without causing offense. In this case, he has been shifting between several different lines of argument in a way which makes it very hard to see whether he has any coherent objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. My suggestion is that, since he seems intent on producing more heat than light and at the same time causing offense, his presence on that talk page is purely disruptive and not a net positive for the project. Perhaps the best way foward is for Ludwigs2 to be topic banned from all discussions of images on wikipedia for a preliminary period of six months. (On astrology, he was topic-banned for six months.) Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, Support VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT I tried avoiding going to this forum for quite some time (hence I never even finished adding diffs to the report I started in my userspace), but I think we are at the point this is the only viable option. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• After a bad faith RfC just created today,[30] I am now inclined to change my "Sadly, Support" to "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" - as pointed out by another editor, the RfC is biased to the point it is worded similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?" This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ludwigs2 is needed to balance the POV of that article. It is striking how the illustrations of our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only inconsistent with Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers. That should give anyone just a moment's pause for thought about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we have achieved that lofty aim. --JN466 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• As a brief aside, I've paused for a moment, and come to the conclusion that we're not necessarily hearing from a representative portion of the Muslim community, since we tend not to hear from Muslims who actually like the images there; kind of a "planes that crash" problem. I won't try to bring the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images here, but to briefly state; I know many Muslims personally who feel it's a personal choice whether or not to be offended by pictures of Muhammad, and that a secular encyclopedia should show depictions of him because that will lend itself to better understanding of the subject. To the topic at hand here, I'm not making a decision on whether I want to see an editor topic banned at 3 in the morning, so I'll weigh in later on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Blade, the point is that we should pick typical, traditional representations of Muhammad, that a muslim would recognise as typical representations, just as we do in the article on Jesus. We simply don't do that. Ludwigs2 is aware of that, but he is being stonewalled, and unreasonably so. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • Jayden, Ludwig wants to remove all images of Muhammad because some Muslims find them offensive. He doesn't want some, or one, he wants none. I don't think a single other editor is opposed to removing or changes images in general, it's just that we're not willing to have no images. N^oformation ^Talk 07:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Actually, Ludwigs has repeatedly stated his true intent is to get all the images removed - that is why various of us are working in good faith with those discussing what you are talking about above - they don't want summary removal. Big difference. Does he make a few good points? Yes, and I've given him credit for them. But he then returns each conversation to efforts to simply summarily remove all images. Would you like diffs? If so, how many? Five? A dozen? That page is a convoluted mess, but you'll see (if you spend an hour or four reading it) that the rest of us are discussing every such issue in good faith, whether for or against the images. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, he has signed up to this

1. No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written)
2. No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad
3. We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up.

so he's happy to have images that add real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, Anthony, that is not a true representation of events. He himself admits "as I have said several times, I currently believe all images should be removed"[31] - but then follows that with "but I'm open minded[...]". Though he proposes things to be discussed that have some merit, he keeps returning the conversation to one of removing ALL images (how many diffs would you like?) - and then admits he will continue to push the issue until it happens (buncha diffs above). That's editing in bad faith. One cannot say they are open minded (and even get off to a good start on some topics) then try to turn it back to that singular motivation. That is what numerous of us are upset about. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think he agrees with me and many others that none of the images of Muhammad presently adorning the article are appropriate, due to their lack of relevant educational value, so they should all go, but is OK with images of Muhammad in a (yet-to-be-created) section on images of Muhammad. That's my reading. I know you and others read his position differently. I've been assuming you're misunderstanding his position. Time will tell. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Anthony, here is his reasons: religious offense[32], religious offense[33], religious offense[34], religious offense[35]... (pretend I posted about 10 more - or I simply can if you like). Every time he is pushed for justifications, he reverts to the religious offense argument - with a massive dab of WP:IAR thrown on top to ignore WP:CENSOR's section on religious beliefs. You've had to have seen those arguments. That is when things fall apart again. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yes. He believes since they're offensive to many readers, we should withhold our usual tolerance for educationally valueless images in this case. We tolerate images that breach WP:IUP like that on articles like Jesus because they're pretty, but, if I understand him correctly, he argues that images that add nothing to the readers' understanding and offend many people should go. But he's open to using images of Muhammad where they have some didactic purpose. It's not contradictory to argue against gratuitous offensiveness but go along with offensiveness when it's the inevitable byproduct of a greater good. The doctrine of double effect applies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is not really the place to discuss content. The concern here is about conduct. An ArbCom case on images, proposed by Ludwigs2, was recently rejected by arbitrators. Ludwigs2 does not appear to have dropped the idea. [36][37] [38] Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It was rejected as a content rather than conduct issue, but I recall that several arbitrators went out of their way to state that a wider community discussion about the general topic of controversial content was necessary. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (correct venue) Suggested and ignored numerous times. Some of the diffs above, 10-15 more if you like. I'd even help with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't followed Ludwigs' behaviour at Astrology so can't speak to that. We are in different camps on Acupuncture, and his argument there could be better focused, but we certainly don't need to be protected from him there. At Pregnancy, he is arguing for a view that, the last time I looked, was in the ascendancy. At Muhammad, his behaviour would be fine if he could just learn to not speculate about others' motives or respond to ad hominem.

You're right, Mathsci, he does have several lines of argument, and one of them is that we should not use controversial images in an article when (a) they have little real educational value or (b) an uncontroversial picture would do just as well. I agree with this line, and believe that (a) applies in this case, but believe it represents a novel position, and is something that should win community approval elsewhere before it can sway a content decision. But he also argues that the images lack educational value, and so violate WP:IUP, and, on various grounds, that they violate WP:DUE. On these last two points of policy, there are many others, including me, who agree with him.

His failure to observe WP:TALK has been well and truly matched by many others who oppose him on that page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If uninvolved editors who have reviewed the WP:NOT RfC and recent threads at Talk:Muhammad/images decide on sanctions for all parties involved in ad hominem discussion, I'll change my vote. Banning only one editor in this situation would be highly unbalanced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support with reservation Outside of controversial pages Ludwigs is a great contributor, but he doesn't play nice with others and cannot accept when consensus is not in his favor. He acted this way on Astrology and was topic banned for six months so I don't know why it would be any different here. But long term what's the solution? Drama seems to follow him where he goes and simply topic banning every time he gets to this point is inefficient. Perhaps a third solution, such as mentorship, would be beneficial here. I don't want him topic banned, I just want him to accept that policy as written is not in his favor and to stop acting as though IAR will function without consensus, but if he is unwilling to stop then I reluctantly support he be topic banned from the Muhammad article in regards to images. I've seen other instances of him invoking IAR when consensus and interpretation of policy didn't agree with him and frankly it's annoying and unproductive. Honestly I jumped the gun in supporting a topic ban. Ludwigs' is a good editor and generally makes great contributes and it's not fair for me to condemn him so strongly. I think think admin intervention is necessary but this goes too far for the time being. N^oformation ^Talk 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(to Noformation) Eh, it's only a topic ban (not a site ban). He can continue to be a great editor elsewhere. It's preventative (not punitive) in order to end the disruption to what are probably attempts at good faith proposals to review the images (and their value) one more time. I'm not sure what other administrator intervention is possible other than a topic ban? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just think it goes too far. If this AN/I was focused on behavior and not on content then I think Ludwigs behavior would have been more strongly rebuked and that he would back off from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and be willing to adjust. Unfortunately all the content is distracting from the issue. When I filed the report I made the mistake of asking people to read over the thread rather than providing diffs of specific NPA, AGF, etc, violations, which had the effect of getting people to take sides in the debate. I'm not sure where to go from here tbch. N^oformation ^Talk 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to see a topic ban either, if it can be avoided (which is why I started and never completed my filing). But, perhaps like you, I cannot think of any remedy other than one. And rebukes don't seem to work well - I'm dealing with such an issue on two other articles, and multiple admins have stopped in with rebukes which end things for a few hours to maybe a day - then edit/revert warring begins anew. I think each article has passed six such edit/revert wars. Until it's made abundantly clear that such rebukes are serious by stopping one dead in its tracks with a temporary block, they are going to continue. I suspect the same will happen here. One of those editors (in my other "situation") is also involved in this article, btw. Though admirably not engaging in such behavior on it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this will take a couple days to settle out and when it does I reserve the right to change back to support. I'm hoping that now that uninvolved editors are weighing in that it will be a bit of a wake up call. We'll see if anything changes on the talk page. N^oformation ^Talk 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ludwigs2 has done the right thing on that page, and has been behaving far better than most of his opponents. While Noformation's behaviour on the page is definitely not the worst, it's bad enough (especially the ridiculous interpretation of boiler-plate language in WP:CENSOR as a strict rule that we may not ever consider religious offence internally for editorial decisions except to prevent legal action against Wikipedia), and it's mind-boggling that this editor has the extremely poor sense of reporting Ludwigs2. Hans Adler 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Watch where you point your finger. I have done my very best to be civil and follow talk page guidelines. If I have done something outside of policy please provide a diff or don't label me as "not the worst." NOTCENSORED is unambiguous in regards to religious considerations, it clearly states that Wikipedia is not part of any religious groups and thus we do not follow their customs - that's about as boiler plate as it gets. N^oformation ^Talk 08:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an absurd misreading of WP:CENSOR, and it can only be explained with your desire to insult or a severe reading comprehension problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for fighting your cultural war against Islam, or religion in general, or whatever it is. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where it's demonstrated that I was uncivil or violated any policy. You have painted my conduct in a negative light, so back it up or strike your comments please. You are now ascribing motives to me when you have zero idea what I believe about Islam. I have done nothing to deserve such accusation aside from disagree with you. Expressing my interpretation of policy and my take on an issue is not a behavioral issue and is not against any policy. And again, not considering religious belief is not the same as deliberately insulting religion. All gay people offend a portion of Christians by virtue of being gay, that does not mean that they are obligated to hide their sexuality. In the same way, we are not obligated to consider people's personal beliefs and that is why not censored specifically says "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." and "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." N^oformation ^Talk 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler's statements seem to be at odds with the history of Islamic art, as presented for example on the website of the Islamic collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Even in Vienna, Hans Adler had the opportunity to see the al-Sabah collection from Kuwait in the Kunsthistorisches Museum this year including a page from the manuscript of Nizami’s “Khamsa” depicting the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to Jerusalem.[39] Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the that. I have found it odd that this has become such an issue when there hasn't exactly been a huge backlash against WP by the Muslim community - to me it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Personal experience wise, about half of my dad's side of the family is Muslim (the other half Hindu) and this subject never came up for me when I was growing up. I know the edict exists, but as far as I know it is not in the holy book, but it's rather a modern movement. In my personal opinion, I think that people in the mideast who flipped out about this a few years ago wrt the Danish cartoons were manipulated into doing so for political reasons. I also find that people in the west tend to misunderstand life in the East - I guarantee that this is a bigger deal to people on this talk page than it is to the majority of Muslims in my fatherland, but I suppose it's anecdotal and I could be wrong. N^oformation ^Talk 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Filling a page with undue weight images just because some Muslims are offended by them and you know you can get away with it is the really offensive thing here. This is what angers even the most liberal Muslims, who would not normally mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad. In fact, it angers even me as an atheist living in a traditionally Christian country with many (mostly liberal) Muslims. It's absolutely despicable behaviour. Hans Adler 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So now I'm not only anti-islamic but I also am the one who filled the page with images. Please provide diffs of me adding images to the article and please provide diffs substantiating your previous characterization of me as an editor - any WP:TALK, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL diff will do. Never have I expressed a desire to offend anyone, I have only said that religious considerations should not be relevant, this is not the same thing and not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Please stop attributing motives to me and strike your comments - you clearly do not have the diffs to back them up otherwise you would have posted them already. Your credibility goes down the drain when you make claims you cannot back and when you're unwilling to correct incorrect statements. N^oformation ^Talk 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Noformation. He's done nothing to warrant such claims. And I can provide over 4 dozen more diffs to show Ludwigs2's behavior that you think is "the right thing". Yes, I know you think my behavior is the worst (or is it Tarc's? someone else? who won?), but again.... dozens of diffs. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't decided between you, Tarc and Kww. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, at no time has my behaviour been inappropriate or problematic. We disagree on things, but that doesn't provide reason for you to disparage my behaviour (or to refer to me as unethical and autistic, either). I don't bring up WP:NPA often, but you are getting there.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your massive IDHT behaviour and refusal to accept that there is a valid dispute has certainly been very inappropriate and problematic. Not sure if or when I referred to you personally as autistic, although there have been situations in this dispute where autism spectrum conditions are the only remaining explanation of an editor's behaviour that is compatible with good faith. Hans Adler 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you're as bad as he is with this repetitive IDHT quoting. I hear you both just fine, I just disagree. Strongly. The established consensus is that images of Mohammad are of encyclopedic value to the article, and that religious concerns cannot be taken into account when deciding to remove or retain images. Sooner or later, those who agitate for change again and again in the face of considerable opposition wind up like this. Ludwigs is heading down into ChildOfMidnight/Grundle2600 territory. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, Hans. You believe that religious sensitivities should be taken into account in our editorial decisions. You are wrong, and no amount of listening to you will make you right. That doesn't mean that I don't hear you, it simply means that I believe that you are fundamentally and unalterably wrong. I assume that you can accept that someone can in good faith believe that you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we, those of us involved on Muhammad, stop adding to this thread for a while. If we want uninvolved editors to offer their advice about this situation, the least we can do is cut down the amount of tangental reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. A cursory glance at the scores or hundreds of posts by Ludwig on the image talk page indicates obsession with maintaining a minority position based upon IDONTLIKEITSOIGNOREALLRULES. This is a secular encyclopedia and we should not set the precedent of putting content into a fundamentalist religious straightjacket, as the majority have consistently argued. ArbCom has refused to hear the debate as a content dispute and at this point the disruption needs to be terminated. Ludwig on his User Talk page indicates he sees a ban as inevitable and thinks it's some sort of game. [It's on some other User talk page, factually correct but sourced wrong, nevermind.] Time to end the distraction with a rapid topic ban. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as there comes a time when you gotta stop beating the dead horse. PS- This goes for all the editors who continue this 'delete images' campaign. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Muhammad and and all Islam-related image discussions. I see no alternative. The user keeps advocating a position incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. We're not talking about removing some gory or porn-y pics here. He advocates removal of all human-like images Muhammad and replacing them with a flame [40]. (Note the bold font and all caps in the post, plus self-admittance that he's saying the same thing for about the 30th time.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - If Ludwigs is never going to drop the stick (and I don't see any sign that he is), someone will have to take it away from him. His continuous declarations of the majority view as invalid or not reasonably argued by his personal standard are hallmarks of the most disruptive kind of tendentious editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - L2's continuing his behavior pattern after multiple discussions that have pointed out its disruptiveness, and his POV-oriented editing in general, justifies a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Overall, this is a perennial topic that has never garnered wise support to change the status quo. Ludwigs2 tried and failed in March of this year, then came back to try again. Same result. He has said many many times that he will not stop bringing this up until he gets what he wants, so administrative action is necessary to do for Ludwigs what he is unable or unwilling to do for himself. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, sort of. A topic ban on article talk pages only might work best. I believe Ludwigs2 should be free to propose clarifications or changes to Wikipedia policy in more appropriate places such as the Village Pump. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - from what I can see, his editing on the subject is tendentious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, you need to appreciate that our present article fails to show the typical representations of Muhammad, while showing six examples of a very rare type of illustration that also happens to be offensive to many who have grown up in the Islamic tradition. Muhammad is normally portrayed abstractly, and there is a very rich tradition of calligraphy, symbols and pictograms to do that – which we don't show. Examples: [41] [42] The effect of our present article is not unlike the effect the Jesus article would have on the reader if you showed them just one cathedral painting, plus 6 shock images of Christ like Piss Christ and Jesus on the electric chair (also shown in a cathedral, but hardly representative). You could argue NOTCENSORED there, but no one would go for it, because editors would realise that it would just be completely undue to focus on such exceptional images, while neglecting the mainstream depictions of Christ. The problem with Islam, unfortunately, is that our editorship is generally less familiar with it and doesn't pick up on such subtleties. [43] So I don't think Ludwigs2 is being tendentious here; it's his opponents who are, probably unwittingly so. --JN466 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible way. As Anthony has pointed out at Talk:Pregnancy Ludwigs POV is increasingly gaining ground, and he was explicitly asking for compromise which seems to be happening now at last, despite the ideological absolutism of one or two editors. This Muhammad depiction issue is also astounding. I've known about it for some time but purposefully kept a distance. What I'm now reading is a sorry collection of some of the most ignorant arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This is an area that could use some expert commentary because I see a lot of very confused arguments for keeping these images in the Muhammad article as general illustrations. You will find plenty Muslims in today's day and age who are not offended by these images, and plenty others who are. What you wont find are Muslims who find them normative in any way. You wont find Muslims with depictions like this hanging on their walls, filling pages of books in their libraries or hanging at their place of worship. Why? Because depictions of Muhammad are fringe within Islamic history. That's a very basic fact. Sure there are traditions within which he has been visually depicted, and we have an entire article to cover that fact Depictions of Muhammad. But in the main Muhammad entry these images are completely UNDUE and nonrepresentational of the mainstream tradition today and throughout history and across the globe. Outside of the offense issue this whole matter can be resolved by applying WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Expert commentary that has been provided disagrees with your assertions above. See the comments from Johnbod, for example, in the current debate as well as the one from last March, concerning the prevalence of such images throughout history. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is Johnbod an expert in? I'm a scholar of religion and I have taught Western Religion courses. My assertions are based on that. Also, please do not confuse assertions about the art history of the Depictions of Muhammad with the history of Islam. For instance all the "scholarly" evidence I've seen Mathsci produce has been 100% irrelevant to this question. Relevant to the depictions entry yes, or to Islamic art but we are not talking about those entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument above seems entirely based on judgements of an art historical nature to do with the uses to which art is and historically has been put. I suggest you read the Gruber pdf below, where you will find much contrary evidence to your anecdotal OR. You obviously don't know the right Muslims, though I'd suggest some of them turn up now & then on your tv screen. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is where the divide stems from? This is not an article on religion. It is a biography on a person. Why are we treating it like it's a religious article? We don't treat the Edison article like it's an article on lightbulbs. Related to the religion he started, yes. Included in that category because it is relevant to that religion, yes. About that religion, no. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert you couldn't be more wrong. I assume you also think that Jesus and Abraham are not religious topics, they are just biographies? The primary sources we have on Muhammad are religious. The secondary and tertiary sources the article is based on are written by, scholars of religion. I wont deny that there is biography here, but clearly it is religious biography, and clearly it is much more than that. This topic falls within the field of religion and history of religion, and history of Islam most specifically and most importantly. I'm perfectly willing to believe you made that assertion out of a genuine confusion of some kind, but if so please understand that you are sorely out of your depth here, and seem to completely misunderstand how the academic study of this topic is organized. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all out of my depth. It is a biography, albeit about a religious figure. It is not an article about Islam that happens to mention a person. Of course, since his major notability is Islam, it will broadly cover those, including using sources of the appropriate nature. But it is still a biography. It is not Islam which is how it is being treated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my last statement. Religious traditions include all kinds of things, like founding figures. They are part of that tradition, and when what we know about them comes from the tradition, when what people have cared to know about them is related to that tradition, and when scholars who study them are scholars of that religious tradition what we have is, above all, a religious subject. Saying you are not out of your depth only makes your comments seem that much more ignorant. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. We do not treat religious figures with undue reverence in the Wikipedia. We write biographies, not hagiographies. If you don't know the difference between the two, then perhaps we should be talking about the depth of your understanding of the subject matter, or lack thereof. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. That's a very odd thing to say to someone responding to people who challenged his own comment. I explain why I oppose this and people challenge me on it and when I respond to them that's "harassment?" Tarc next time you mean to post something look over the conversation enough not to say something inane. As to the difference between a biography and a hagiography I'm well aware of it, but I'm not sure if you mean hagiography in a technical sense or in the now more common sense. I'm certainly not promoting an uncritical view of Muhammad (common sense) though I do recognize that the "biographical" source materials for Muhammad are mostly compiled by followers of his who, if this is the correct term to apply to Muhammad even, considered him a holy person (more technical sense). That said I quite clearly understand that he's not a Christian saint, and that we're not writing about him based on an actual tradition of hagiography (most technical sense). If you believe that historians of religion only tackle biography in terms of hagiography, or as Johnbod appears to believe only in terms of theology, then you're sadly mistaken. I'll point out to you once again that this entry is written from sources that are almost entirely historians of religion (specifically Islam). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose... and I don't even want to repeat the reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that Ludwig's position may be in the minority doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to it and wikipedia operates by consensus rather then majority rules anyway. The Muhammad image issue is clearly far from a simple one with plenty of people repeating themselves. (I took part in a long ago RFC and I think I said then as others have said now on both sides that the parallels with other figures isn't simply since unlike with many other figures like Jesus, Buddha, in the modern era even people familiar with the subject will often have seen few depictions and not really have much of any preconceived idea about depictions of the person. As I grew up as a Christian in Malaysia, I can definitely attest to that. Therefore the issue of undue weight, historic vs current practice, readers expectations, making sure our use of images is sufficiently educational rather then simply offensive form a complicated mix and simply yelling 'notcensored' doesn't go anywhere particularly since most people including Ludwings aren't arguing for removing the images completely from wikipedia but how many and where they should be in Muhammad as opposed to other articles like depictions of Muhammad.) Having looked at the discussion, I agree with Seb, Griswaldo and others, cutting out Ludwigs will harm the discussion by removing an important counter-POV and I do not believe Ludwigs is being tendentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not assign gross mischaracterizations to our motives as you appear to have (probably unintentionally) done in your first sentence. No one is asking for the removal of Wiqi55, Jayen, Anthonyhcole, Hans (yet), or various others who have similar views. It is the attacks against other editors, the bad faith proposals, the end runs around RfC attempts, the tendentiousness and disruptiveness (which he personally admits to continuing) and such that has dragged him here. A tiny handful of diffs are already included to support this. It would thus be greatly appreciated if you would correct or clarify your mischaracterization. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not changing my comment. As I've said, the issue of something being in a minority or majority is not particularly relevant since we operate by consensus yet it was brought up several times in this discussion as have related issues like how he continues to maintain a POV that all images should be removed or stuff about how editors advocating the deletion of images need to stop, this being a secular encyclopaedia, his view being incompatibile with wikipedia's mission etc. As I already said in my first comment, I've look at the discussion and I see no evidence he is being tendentious much more so then other people on all sides. He is not automatically tendentious because he continues to support a view that is in the 'minority' or mentions that view when relevant. I don't see any evidence he's operating in bad faith either. The fact that he retains a certain POV and continues to express it when relevant doesn't mean he isn't open minded, it may simply be arguments he's seen so far haven't sufficiently convinced him. As you yourself have acknowledged, he is willing to support and discuss alternative options even if they aren't his preference and he retains his preference. Ultimately there are plenty of areas on wikipedia where there is always going to be strong differing views and where any option is going to be opposed by a fair number of people and therefore the issue will keep coming up again and again. Achieving consensus may mean a compromise, but it doesn't mean people can't maintain or should never bring up their primary preference where relevant. As a case in point, I recently participated in a discussion on the move for Burma to Myanmar. I don't believe a consensus is going to be reached for the move, but either way, I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon (although I do think there will eventually be some resolution, at some stage the government is going to be accepted enough that whatever name they choose, most will follow and eventually only a few will try to argue for something else, like with Mumbai/Bombay for example). As for the RFC, it seems premature as there was existing, recent discussion which should have been used to guide an RFC, and it's obviously far better to work towards an agreed wording, so I agree it was a bad idea. That doesn't mean it was in bad faith. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support; mind you, it's not the fact that we fall on opposite sides of this argument that leads me to do this, nor is it the comments by the really involved editors in this dispute. However, I have a problem with being told I have some sort of prejudice against Islam by someone who's never met me based on one comment (it's in one of the numerous diffs above, I can bring it down if necessary; incidentally, people who know me know I've read Avicenna, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyya, and Malcolm X, to name just a few), which shows a serious lack of perspective on the issue (the fact that I don't agree on this issue doesn't make me anti-Muslim). Nor do I take kindly to the constant repetition of arguments that RobertMfromLI described a section above. And if anyone wants to get on me, I have PDD-NOS, so I stand guilty as charged of being on the spectrum; however, I don't see how that's germane to this particular topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am (as far as I can tell) totally uninvolved with this dispute, but after reading the associated talk pages, the horrendously worded RFC, and seeing the number of times this user has brought the same, somewhat disingenuous arguments about this issue, this seems like the appropriate step. Not to mention that, as gets pointed out repeatedly on the images talk page but has gone mostly unnoticed in the discussion of the images here: these images were created by Muslims, so the argument that these images are forbidden is on incredibly shaky ground. To keep using this argument warrants a suggestion that Ludwig drop the WP:STICK. eldamorie (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that these images were created by muslims to illustrate a certain type of book 500 or 800 years ago does not make them useful or obligatory illustrations in the Muhammad article. The fact is that if you want to show how Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic religious art, you need to be aware that "For practical purposes, representations are not found in [Islamic] religious art ... Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) We are showing typical religious art in the article on Jesus, but you seem to be unaware of how untypical our illustrations in the article on Muhammad are. --JN466 17:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• or 800 years ago, 300, 200, etc and still today. While there is certainly far far less figurative art in Islamic art, there is a continuous tradition, including from the 13th century representations of Muhammad, though far less in the Arabic-speaking world than for example Persia and Turkey. There are better sources here than the EB (who anyway appear to be talking about the first centuries of Islam), for example this handy PDF from the leading specialist today, in the leading journal. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• John this line of reasoning wholly misses the point. The argument is not that depictions of Muhammad weren't being created continuously. The argument is that they have not been common within the Islamic tradition as a whole and throughout it's history, and indeed have been explicitly frowned upon more often than naught. Above Robert accuses me of confusing this entry with Islam, but I think that his accusation is backwards. It is you who are confusing this entry with Depictions of Muhammad or even Islamic art, both valuable entries in which depictions of Muhammad have their educational value. But again, the question isn't about banning these images completely from the encyclopedia it is with the use of them in the main entry on Islam's founding prophet, a figure who has been known 99% of the time without visual representation. I don't mean to make this into a turf war, but the fact that art historians work in this area is meaningless to the over arching issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• And how are questions about the commonness of a particular form of art not a question of art history? The history of religion may tell you what theologians said people ought to do or not do, but art history will tell you what they actually did, or do, something general religious historians are not qualified to pronounce on. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• You do not understand what the history of religions covers apparently and that is quite unfortunate. It includes the history of ideas (which doesn't mean only theology btw) but it also covers social history. Your art history sources merely attest to the fact that the traditions of depiction existed and that within realm of Islamic art more generally they were more or less common in certain periods. The fact is that depictions of Muhammad have a negligible influence on the perception of Muhammad that has formed historically inside and outside the Muslim world. This is where the difference between Muhammad and say Jesus or Buddha is immensely significant. The historical perception of those figures has been significantly influenced by physical depictions, which, again unlike with Muhammad, abound historically and cross-culturally. Now mainstream sources in the history of Islam, which are the main sources for this entry and for information about Muhammad are true to this fact. The way we present information about Muhammad should follow these sources, and should not be unduely weighted towards information that is of virtually fringe stature when it comes to the perception of this figure. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I was not aware that depictions of historic events, even made years after the fact, were against some policy or guideline. I guess we have a lot of articles to fix. Wanna give me a hand? As you noted, this is not about the depictions of Muhammad. As I noted, it is about Muhammad - which is a place where one (free from religious beliefs) would expect to find depictions of Muhammad, both singular subject (ie: just him) and event based (ie: in a historic setting). Or are you trying to state that since this image largely touches on Islam it should adhere to religious beliefs and religious actions (on types of depictions)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It should simply show the most common and representative depictions, and they are abstract, not figurative. --JN466 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I assure you the EB is talking about the defining characteristics of Islamic Art generally, and about the lasting impact Islam had on the artistic traditions of the peoples that embraced Islam. I really don't think the wording could be more emphatic: "For practical purposes, representations are not found in Islamic religious art". The images that do exist are appropriate in a curiosity cabinet like the dedicated article we have on them. --JN466 19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, here as elsewhere, EB is not the best source. It is a strange statement, as very many of the best-known Persian manuscripts contain at least one Mi'raj miniature. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find the same sorts of statements all over the place. [44][45]. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica is at variance here with the rest of the literature by stating a well-known fact about Islamic religious art. Yes, there have been limited traditions of depictions of Muhammad, especially in Persia about 800 years ago, but that is all it is. However interesting it may be, I am sure you don't wish to argue that it is anywhere close to being the mainstream form of artistic expression with respect to Muhammad in the overall body of Islamic art. That's calligraphy, hilyes etc. --JN466 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave you Muqarnas (below) & you respond with "well-known facts" from Islam for Dummies!!! Puuurleeease! The idea behind "especially in Persia about 800 years ago" for example, is nonsense. The various depictions of M from the few remains of that period receive a lot of academic attention, as from the founding period of the Islamic period, but there were probably more depictions in Persia from 600-400 years ago, or Turkey in the same period (certainly far more survive), and there are definately way more in Iran today. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to work, Johnbod. I also gave you Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World. And just for reference, Islam for Dummies is published by John Wiley & Sons, and written by a professor of religion. There is academic interest in the depictions of Muhammad, but it is a small specialist academic niche compared to the general field. Here is a bit more on the difference between Islam's and Christianity's approaches: [46], [47]. --JN466 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop - I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam. Your comments are still misleading, and have only a highly tangential bearing on the issue here. If you think you have some "well-known facts" to share with the wiki-world, take it to the appropriate pages. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange indeed that Aniconism in Islam did not contain any aniconic art, but only exceptions to the rule. --JN466 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

John, the article appears to be filled with original research or otherwise unreferenced text. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, your statement (I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam) appears to be false unless you edited under a different name formerly. The edit history shows you merely significantly expanding one or two sections while making other copy and style edits. I did find it an odd claim given how unsourced much of the entry is, though those sections appear to have been in place before you started editing to your credit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this is the same atrocious behaviour from Ludwigs that he exhibited at Talk:Pregnancy. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The biased wording of Ludwigs' RfC on the matter is the tipping point. As I note above, I clearly feel that he is a disruptive force on this topic, but I wanted to give him a chance to participate in an RfC on the matter when it was created. However, he can't even manage to maintain NPOV when formulating an RfC question, which coupled with numerous other examples of problematic behaviour strongly argues that he is not capable of discussing this matter in a non-disruptive fashion. Resolute 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't particularly care about the content arguments, nor have I edited anything Islam-related. However, this is the same behavior that L2 displayed at Astrology, Pregnancy, and a multitude of fringe science articles. The general pattern is that he stakes out a ostensibly reasonable but unpopular policy position and proceeds to accuse those who disagree of ignorance and/or unsophistication and/or bad faith and/or cabalism and/or POV-pushing (list is not exhaustive). Ad hominem rhetoric and textbook IDHT follows. Just yesterday he insinuated that an editor whom he disagreed with was a sociopath.[48] He's been topic banned from astrology.[49] He was warned numerous times for his behavior at Talk:Pregnancy.[50][51][52][53] He was even cautioned by Arbcom to "avoid drama-creating rhetoric" in a recent case.[54] This needs to stop. This is a problem of poor behavior, not content. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Unconvincing, a user is topic banned for serious disruption or to avoid an indef. I see none of that here, the user holds a minority opinion and engaged in legitimate procedures (talk, RFC) as opposed to other illegitimate alternatives. Nobody can be blamed for that; the proposal reads like "This user is shouting to loud and it annoys us" Well calmly engage in discussion or ignore. Tachfin (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I must ask, even by your rationale, may I ask you how many personal attacks and racial/religious type slurs/attacks is the quota that was needed? Lemme know, and I'll change my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support The only time I have had interactions with this editor was when he was complaining that no one was listening to him. When I pointed out that all of his concerns had been listened to, and had subsequently been rejected, he went on to attack me by calling my comment unintelligent. I gave up after that, thinking that there was absolutely nothing anyone could say to this guy, to get him to stop. He will never stop unless he is topic banned, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support While editing may be a bonus from all users the constant regressions into personal attacks and policy whack a mole do not lead to constructive editing. Even when called out on personal attacks he makes no attempt to either apologize to the target or refrains from doing so again. In one case he even called out someone else as using a personal attack and then soundly proceeded to do the same within the same post. Since that point he continues with the attacks. If someone needs diffs I will learn that piece and post them to show the multitude of attacks I have seen but I don't think that is necessary. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. It looks like he bounces from one article to the next causing disruption wherever he goes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "shouting to loud and it annoys us"

• This user was topic banned from astrology for poisoning-the-well comments, including comparing people who disagree with him with the KKK. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Ludwigs2. On the Muhammad issue, we see a repeat of the same behavior, albeit with minor reduction in intensity. Besides the overuse of caps lock and bold in his posts (see diff above for that):
  • He writes about someone disagreeing with him that "people (like you) keep talking crap about me"
  • He writes that until people agree with him (to remove depictions of Muhammad) Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show [55].
  • He writes in a edit summary "except, Robert, no other policies matter to you"
  • Writes about another user "You are not using ethical reasoning - that is a demonstrable fact"
  • He writes about someone who disagreed with him "what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear..."
  • He tells the same user: "keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche"
  • He even admits, after redacting another passage (not one of the above), that "I just can't control my tongue."

These are just the examples that struck me, there are probably more. There are other editors who agree with Ludwigs2 on the subject matter, including Jayen466 and Griswaldo, but these guys seem able to disagree without being so disagreeable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please close the topic-ban subthread

Can an uninvolved admin please close this subthread now? The only people who have commented here, myself included, have strongly held opinions about the content dispute(s) that precipitated the thread. Almost all, if not all the people who want him topic banned, for instance, have diametrically opposed POVs to his. Clearly we are not about to enact a topic ban based on those voices. So have we had enough of this? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with his views. It has to do with DOZENS of personal attacks and tendentiously using the incorrect venue to try to implement policy change to remove the secular mandate in the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR. Your implication, as I perceive it, that this is about the content dispute may hold true to your !vote, but I can assure you, there are numerous others of us that it does not apply to - including the numerous editors who !voted (on either side of this) who were not engaged in this situation at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to close this subtread, when !votes and comments are still being posted, with policy-based supports (14) and opposes (6). Let the process play out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The supports and opposes are not policy-based, they are based on subjective evaluations of Ludwigs2's behaviour on the page in question. Almost all these subjective evaluations happen to be aligned with editors' attitudes to the underlying conflict. This makes them essentially worthless. Hans Adler 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether at this time of year Hans Adler's usually impeccable logic might not be a little clouded by premature doses of Martinigansl ^{please don't click here if you are a vegetarian}. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: Whether the !votes are policy-based are not is something for the closing admin to evaluate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Therein may lie the objections from some to keeping things open until an uninvolved admin does such. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

18/7/1 (on just count)... soon may be the time to end this? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise?

All the participants in the talk page discussion have come here and are basically continuing the same sorts and styles of arguments, it's all just looping. Perhaps I might suggest a compromising position. Someone start an RFC and contact, neutrally mind you, some of the relevant wikiprojects to participate. To prevent a rehash of the talk page, the opposing sides in this debate should state their positions and refrain from substantially trying to sway other participants. Having re-read the discussion, and being totally uninvolved, I can see the arguments of both sides. Run the RCC< don't just talk about it. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs has been asked, many times, to follow the dispute resolution process if he thinks he has a case to make. This user tried out this argument that WP:NOTCENSORED does not protect the image usage in the article, a view that received little support in March of this year. Now he's back again, twisting a foundation resolution that has no applicability to the situation, an incessant 3-week drumbeat.

Those editors who support hosting a Wikipedia article free of religious censorship have no need to initiate an RfC, as the status quo is just fine. Ludwigs will get no relief and will make no headway in regurgitating the same arguments over and over at the article talk page. The ball is squarely in his court to follow dispute resolution if he will not accept the consensus at the article talk. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. There is no consensus, nor will there ever be. There are two camps each with a large number of adherents. One camp favors no censorship, the other favors censorship as a special case. We hear from new members of the latter group almost daily on the main article's talk page generally representing Muslims around the world. Rklawton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but there is consensus. Yes, we see periodic posts that inform us Islam forbids such images. Someone replies with the argument that we are not an Islamic project, often linking to the methods by which individuals can respect their own beliefs by hiding the images for themselves, and they move on. But the "remove all images" camp has no policy backed argument, only the complaint that "I am offended". Simple numbers do not create a no-consensus situation. Otherwise, there would be no consensus on the argument that many athletes are "gay" because fans of rival teams often edit to say so. Resolute 13:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look at the overall commentary on the talk page, the status quo is generally favoured. There is one single regular editor there (Ludwigs2) who supports censorship on religious grounds, and another (Anthonyhcole) who has attempted in good faith to formulate an RfC proposal. Then there is Hans Adler, who shows up from time to time, accuses editors he disagrees with of bad faith (as he has above in this very discussion) then disappears. Pretty much everyone else supports the current situation. Ludwigs has been advised it is up to him to initiate DR, because the rest of us don't see a need. Instead, he chooses to waste a great deal of time for numerous editors by forcing discussion back into circular arguments. Granted, the rest of us keep responding, though I have tried to step back involvement overall. I won't vote on the topic ban proposal, but I will say this: the problem would disappear if Ludwigs were to be placed under one. The "dispute" is that one-sided. Resolute 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No there are other editors, such as Wiki55. Unfortunately all these named editors persist in making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article, such as (above here) "..."that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE)." by Qwyrxian. For the record (and yet again) the 5 Islamic images come from a period of over 500 years (and we don't have a contemporary one available), include at least 2 Sunni ones (possibly all 5 are actually Sunni) and come from Persia (2), Turkey (2), and Kashmir. A very similar spread, if not wider, to the sort of (almost always Catholic) old master painters we use to illustrate Jesus and other Christian articles, ignoring the many Protestants who still regard these as idolatrous. Some editors have been putting time in over a long period pushing the line that all the images are Persian and Shia, and by implication can therefore be dismissed. There is a considerable intra-Islamic component to this dispute, & its a pity that people who ought to know better, like Hans Adler and Anthonyhcole have accepted this line without much examination. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, would you please link to an instance of me making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackmane: I'd agree that an RfC would be a good starting point, but even trying to determine the proper language for an RfC becomes a major point of strife. For instance, every RfC approach I've suggested starts from my perception of the problem - that the images have no appreciable value which justifies the offense they cause to our readers - but any such wording is instantly nixed by Tarc, Robert, and Resolute as being against NOTCENSORED. I could start an RfC on my own (and I will if that's what you suggest), but the RfC will most likely devolve into more of the same dispute as the editors opposed to change dispute its validity (in fact, at least a couple of threads currently on the page show exactly that devolution as we've tried to discuss proper wording for the RfC).

As far as I can see, the page is locked down in such a way that any discussion about removing the images is declared to be against policy. I don't know how to get past that obstruction except to keep trying to talk through it. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have posted what I am coming to believe is the only reasonable thing, which will show good faith on the parts of those who wish the images removed and properly adhere to policy uniformly instead of (yet again) special case for this article only. It's on the article's talk page in a new section.[56] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first item is the "gotcha", i.e. that there's no valid encyclopedic reason to remove the artists' conceptions of Muhammed if you're going to retain artists' conceptions of Jesus, etc. The second item is the "yeh, but" option, which opens a huge can of worms that would abolish the "I don't like it" barrier and turn wikipedia into even more of a free-for-all. So why does anyone think Muslim readers deserve special treatment, while Christian readers can go "freak" themselves? Well, there's no logical reason, so it must be driven by fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the current circumstances, I'm not sure that the recent extensive rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS by Ludwigs2 was timely.[57] It now reads a bit like a personal essay.

• (Off-topic for ANI) In 2002 Yale University Press published the book "Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources" by Eleanor Sims, Boris Marshak and Ernst Grube, academics who have curated the Islamic art collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Hermitage, St Petersburg. It contains several images of the Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the book and its detailed commentary, it is hard to understand how images of this sort could be considered uninformative or without educational value. As the New York Times has reported just recently,[58] the Metropolitan Museum of Art has just reopened its Islamic collection after 8 years of remodeling. On display are Persian illuminated manuscripts, including images of the Prophet Muhammad, visible in the NYT link and here on the Museum's own website [59] (the short NYT audio link for "illuminated manuscripts" is interesting). It is also on commons here and has been used several times on fa.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Bugs) Bingo. I treat EVERY article the same, regardless of my personal beliefs or feelings of offense. And there is not a single mainstream religion or irreligion or spirituality that is not on my WatchList (along with hundreds of sub topic articles).

Thus, all I ask is the same from everyone else - judge every article and article content equally. No more, no less. Which seems to fit with those weird things we have here called policies, guidelines and editing in good faith. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of the Muhammed depictions is actually the same as the importance of the many Jesus images. Whether they look like their subject is not the issue, that's a red herring. What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader. It provides a window on styles of artistic portrayals in various times and places. If that ain't educational, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: re your "What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader". This is precisely the problem: The followers of Islam do not generally depict their spiritual leader, and when they do it's usually symbolically, as a flame or a veiled figure. full-face images of muhammad are a rarity, mostly restricted to a couple of historical periods. I absolutely agree with your statement, but your statement implies we should remove images of the prophet and use the symbolic forms that Muslims themselves use. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Saw", as in past tense. You're describing the present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not just describing the present, but the most prevalent view, historically and currently. Full-face depictions are not common. It's funny: I even offered a compromise on the talk page where we would create a section specifically about the historical depiction of Muhammad in which to put images of this sort (they would be appropriate there, in a section that discusses the controversy of depictions of the prophet), but that got shot down for some reason I never understood. If we go by standards of common usage, full face images are excluded as a distinct minority style; if we go by conventional ethics full-face images are excluded because they offend people for no gain to the encyclopedia. There's no reason I can think of to keep the images (though I'm open to suggestions), so why are they on the article in the first place? Remember, these are simply works of art - there are no known depictions of what Muhammad actually looked like.--Ludwigs2 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that proposal flies in the face of what has deemed to be the standard (per policy and guideline interpretation) on every other such article on Wikipedia. Thus, what you proposed is not a compromise, but a special case exception. Biographies have images or depictions of their subject (and their subject in historical event settings) prominently placed throughout the article. This article already is chock full of special case exceptions that are not warranted, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. I am against adding one more special case exception. Doing so will eventually lead (as you desire) to there being no images of Muhammad on this or any other article. I would bet good money that if (by some remote chance) all images were removed from this article, that you would move on to the other articles next. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Besides the fact that each time you claim you are willing to travel this road, you still end up on your "remove all, they offend" road instead). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but (again) I question this reasoning. It all comes back to the simple problem that Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason. As I keep saying, If you show these images have non-trivial value to justify the problems they cause, then obviously they would be protected. However, every time I say that, you decline to show that they have value and instead asset that it's a violation of policy to consider that.

The arguments you've given in your post above break down as follows:

• my proposal - that we use the most common imagery used by muslims - "flies in the face of" policy (not true; that is actually exactly what NPOV asks of us)
• that other articles show images (irrelevant, since other articles do not have to consider a well-known religious proscription)
• that the ability for individuals to censor the images themselves justifies Wikipedia using the images (patently ridiculous)
• that removing images from this article will lead to removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic and nonsensical)
• that I somehow personally desire the removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic, nonsensical, contrary to what I've said in talk, and a bad-faith personal attack to boot)

Really, please… --Ludwigs2 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" is your personally-held opinion that you repeatedly put there as some sort of immutable fact that us dumb heathens cannot understand. This is really the heart of your problem Ludwigs, and the reason why many are beginning to dismiss your actions as tendentious and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh… Tarc:

• it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers. even if we only restrict ourselves to the most fundamentalist groups (the ones most likely to take offense) that's still millions or tens of millions of people
• There are 16 archives of heated debate solely over this issue on the article - really, you made a subpage just to handle the volume of complaints, and that subpage has 16 archives

That's a whoooole lot of evidence, Tarc: How do you justify calling this my 'personally held opinion'? --Ludwigs2 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers". No it is not. You don't help your case by typing in false statements. It may be that a few current adherents of the religion believe there is such a proscription, but even if there is, it applies to the adherents, not to us. I think a fair number of people have been mislead into thinking there is a broad proscription, and I think they are wrong, but it is not useful to debate how many people (correctly or incorrectly) believe in the proscription, it is only relevant to ask whether a proscription of a religious group has any force on non members of the group. If you answer yes, please explain why, as that conclusion leads to madness.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, we're back to the "religious offense - must honor religious beliefs" rationale. That means WP:IAR is probably soon to follow. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ludwigs, another claim I attacked you? And then another false claim about my actions? I've posted, numerous times, multiple reasons the images have value. Here is a tiny sampling of diffs to prove it.[60][61][62][63][64][65] It is not I who is ignoring anything. And this is exactly the type of thing you do on the article's image talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that the neutral point of view doesn't argue your claim. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" would be useful if you were also trying to include modern (what you describe as common) images of muhammad but isn't a basis to remove current pictures because they were a significant view of what the islamic community was allowed to do. And since the minority of the religion still believes its acceptable to view pictures (you know that 15% of the billion which also falls into millions and millions of people) it would be purposefully ignoring that POV as well. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, let's look at the phrase again, this time with crystal-clear highlighting; "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" THAT part is your opinion, opinion you keep trying to pass off as fact. That a group of people are offended is fact, yes. That we are including the images in the article "for no real reason" is opinion. Are we settled now? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'for no real reason' part is something that is open for discussion - as I keep saying, if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay. However, using policy to prevent wp:Consensus discussion on this issue is the troubling point. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the point; it was open for discussion, and your position was rejected. We don't need to demonstrate what you are asking for. End of story. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay." This isn't the appropriate metric. Do the images cause some problems? Absolutely, they do, as a lot of ill-informed people request removal, and it is a problem dealing with them. But I'm not interested in assessing the value of the images to the encyclopedia and comparing it to the problems caused, I'm interested in the damage that would be caused to the encyclopedia if we sent a message that raising a ruckus is a good way to impose your will. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated why Wikipedia should pervert its own guideless simply because they are in conflict with someone else's desires. If claiming offense works here, what is to stop a temperance group from insisting that WP not have any articles about alcohol, or a child decency group from insisting that pictures of nudes should be removed. There are all kinds of groups who request removal of blocks of material. We politely decline all such requests (except when the material might be in violation of law). If we grant one groups request, we have to grant all group's request, or you have to explain why this request is unique. I don't think it is unique. SPhilbrickT 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To Ludwigs2: did I need to provide more diffs to my own postings of reasons? Should I have included the numerous times other editors have posited reasons as well? You keep acting like we haven't stated reasons (reasons considered valid all across Wikipedia) - but we have. While perhaps seemingly numerous, the number of diffs above is probably in the 15-20% range of what I could provide to prove we have made such points. C'mon... the page is linked to in this AN/I, you know others are bound to figure out that you are incorrect in repeating your claims that we haven't done such. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument belongs elswhere, not at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how we've tried so many times to point that out to the one who has the biggest issue with this. Even some of those who support some level of image removal have suggested or leaned towards such. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Small note: I've struck RobertMfromLI's name from my earlier post. Only one time did Robert ever imply an RfC wasn't necessary, and he did in fact try to restart the RfC several times. I don't know what made me think that he was one of the people trying to derail process in this case; my apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brass tacks straw poll

This poll is not an administrator issue. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate venue, but this page is already becoming cluttered with irrelevent issues. Please keep the discussions on this page relevent to issues which need administrators to protect articles/delete articles/block a user. Admin noticeboards are not for general discussions of either policy or content issues. Let me suggest WP:VPP. --Jayron32 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think we should take this opportunity and address the core issue that is gumming up the works here. Dispense with the following question it will likely end this dispute (one way or another); either it will obviate my grounds for wanting to remove the images or it will obviate the sole argument used to retain the images. The question: Granting that NOTCENSORED necessarily protects controversial content which makes an unambiguous contribution to an article, does NOTCENSORED also protect images that have trivial value to the article? In other words, NOTCENSORED clearly protects images of penises or vaginas on their namesake pages, or the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy); does it also protect page decorations, artistic illustrations, unneeded explications, or other material of negligible content value to the article? I will bracket the above question as a policy RfC a bit later, unless someone suggests that's innapropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is again a biased question (just like your similar RfC proposal). You imply as fact that the images have trivial (even emphasized by you) value (and then go into detail about how trivial they are), thus pushing the conversation to summary deletion of all the images. Once again, in my opinion, this is a proposal in bad faith as it directs only one answer since you already established as "fact" that the images are trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The argument hasn't been about protection of trivial images. It has been about images marked trivial. Also this is the incorrect forum for this question since it should be addressed at the village pump. The actual argument that the images are trivial should be occurring at the muhammad page not here. Effectively this is derailing the entire purpose behind this AN/I. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. (edit conflict) I don't think this covers the issue, Ludwigs2. NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material from deletion, but I don't believe the material in question counts as trivial. The amount of fuss over it certainly indicates that some editors believe it to be non-trivial. --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) FormerIP: if we clear up this issue, then we can actually sit down on the talk page and discuss whether or not the images have trivial value. Right now we cannot even have that discussion, because every time I suggest evaluating the worth of the images with respect to the offense they cause, two or three editors tell me that any such evaluation is against policy. NOTCENSORED is the One Ring on that page; until we clear up this issue the page is stuck. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates up an difficult-to-resolve opportunity for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to attack a perspective non-verbally, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic policy assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN466 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does protects trivial material Support, but this doesn't shield against other arguments. All NOTCENSORED requires is that arguments for deletion be framed in formats relevant to an encyclopedia, and religious arguments are not relevant to encyclopedias. We don't keep images because they offend religious groups, but we don't delete them because they do. Images have to be examined from a purely secular perspective.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant to this discussion due to bias ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This poll is excessively and unduly biased by stating opinions (trivial worth) as fact wrt images on Muhammad) I posit that this poll, as it is specifically directed at this issue (or grossly in the wrong venue) is biased by implying opinion as fact to imply the only answer is to remove the images at Muhammad as all being (implied as fact above) trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - one should not bias such polls (or RfCs) by using their opinion as fact to ensure one specific POV outcome. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who wants a discussion of NOTCENSORED, I've just started one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#What WP:NOTCENSORED is not. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

* Notice: I've decided I'm going to copy this RfC over to wp:NOT, and wait for a result to be reached there before re-entering the discussion at talk:Muhammad/Images. that should end the discussion there for for a while (at least as far as I'm concerned). It also likely resolves this thread, though I'll leave that up to you. I'll post the link to the RfC here after I've made it. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not resolved as long as there is an open question of a possible topic ban for Ludwigs2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

suit yourself - If you want to spend your time trying to find a punishment in a non-current situation, that's your business. Here's the link to the RfC. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs has said on his talk page that for the time being he will stay away from the page, I think this is a good faith proposition and would say that we should give him a chance to make his case in the correct venue before topic banning him. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of his comment. Still, this is not his first time on the merry-go-round, when this blows over it's likely he'll exhibit the same behavior elsewhere. AGF is often in conflict with common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What he said and what he is doing are counter to each other. He has proposed a very biased RfC that basically states the images are worthless, so shouldn't we remove them? He's simply using another venue to get the images removed and ignore countless consensus. Let's see now. RfC last Spring - runs to Village Pump: both RfC and end run fail (him). Proposes RfC this time around, not going the way he wants (removal of ALL images), tries end runs to WQA and ArbCom, disrupts attempts to create an UNBIASED RfC, gets dragged here and uses the distraction to file a BIASED RfC even in light of the fact that the rest of us were trying (through HIS disruptions) to create an unbiased one. (IMHO) This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom declined the case because it was formulated as a request to rule on content (policies). Perhaps a new case request focused on the behavior of the editors involved would be more appropriate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not too sure about that. I'm at over a hundred diffs and counting of bad faith, disruption and more (and I'm not even really trying). Ludwigs cannot come even remotely close, even combining diffs of such stuff for every editor "opposed" to him. Virtually all of the rest of us, on any side of the fence (or even sitting on it) want a resolution to this. Most of us are tired of the dead-horse-ad-infinitum-ad-nauseum responses with a bunch of accusations thrown on top. I'd rather see this resolved than a topic ban. But every good faith effort results in disruption or an end run attempt. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments on ongoing conduct of Ludwigs2

Despite having given assurances that he has reformed, Ludwigs2 has recently continued to ridicule and belittle those editors disagreeing with him. One of the difficulties is that he is being extremely slippery about why he is objecting to the images of Muhammad. It would appear that he believes, for whatever reason, that the courtly images of the Prophet Muhammad produced in illuminated manuscripts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and elsewhere cause offense to some parts of the international Muslim community for religious reasons. However, when pressed on the subject by Kww, he has accused those repeating this statement of "making up cheap lies". In a conversation on his user talk page with Kww he wrote: [66]

"They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective)."

It is an example of Ludwigs2 deliberately misunderstanding other users and switching from one argument to another. Already on User talk:Jimbo wales, he wrote of thise disagreeing with him:[67]

"What's happened here is that some editors have recognized a particular and real threat against the project - censorship by religious groups trying to enforce their particular worldview - and reacted to it in an extreme and uncompromising manner. They are insisting that these images remain on the article solely and precisely because they are offensive - not because they want to offend, mind you, but because they are engrossed in battling censorship and have lost the ability to discriminate censorship from normal editing. Nor is this problem restricted to this article (you can see it play out in multiple areas of the project: fringe articles, political articles, cult-related articles). It's depressing."

These statements are not accurate and are indeed a highly inflammatory way of describing other editors. It creates an impasse for any future discussion. (I personally have not voted in any image discussions but have located commentaries in WP:RS on the historical use of images of the Prophet, written by Islamic scholars from the East and the West.) On the same user talk page, Ludwigs2 later made this personal attack on Tarc, [68]

"Yes, Tarc, and I've been reading this kind of post from you for the same amount of time, and I have to say it hasn't been particularly pleasant. It's just as I said above: all you need is a willing flamingo and a few hedgehogs to fill out your role as the Queen of Hearts. "

These remarks were later redacted by Ludwigs2 after Short Brigade Harvester Boris criticized them.

Ludwigs2's conduct has not reformed and these personal attacks seem completely counterproductive at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am, obviously, fed up with the ad hominem these discussions are steeped in. They make reasonable discussion very difficult. But I would urge editors unfamiliar with this situation to not just rely on spoon-fed quotes in forming a view. The current negative tone of these discussions is set by more than one editor. If you feel like chiming in, at least read through the latest threads at Talk:Muhammad/images. That will give you a good feel for the general behaviour of the Dramatis personæ. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope that Ludwigs2 will get the message sooner rather than later.[69] Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is improving. [70] [71] Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but he seems a wee bit more moderate than in the examples from the past week. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mailinator addresses

Over the past week, I have received about 150 offensively racist messages via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered with Mailinator addresses. Other editors have reported such abuse from the same accounts.[72] These accounts appear to have made no actual edits to Wikipedia, only to have misused the mailing facility. Is there any way to block autoregistration from such accounts, or at least to prevent them using Wikipedia email to send such filth to other editors? RolandR (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All the editors listed in the sockpuppet investigation you linked had their IP blocked and had their e-mail privilege removed, so they can't send you e-mails anymore (unless you e-mailed them back and disclosed your e-mail address). If there are additional sockpuppets sending you e-mails, you may want to list them on that report for investigating. — Moe ε 13:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe; but this was after they had sent 150 emails to me, and a further 150 to another editor. There may well be other targets, about whom we haven't yet heard. And further such accounts can easily be created. It is obvious that the only purpose of using a Mailinator address to create an account which makes no edits to Wikipedia but immediately starts sending large numbers of emails, is to misuse the mailing facility. There should be some sort of filter to monitor and prevent this. RolandR (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just received another 100 offensive emails from a mailinator account. It's evident that this abuse will continue until a way is found to prevent it. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RolandR makes a valid point. There's no reason for us to allow accounts to set a Mailinator email address (or any of the Mailinator alternate domains). Even if a legitimate editor wanted to do so, it shouldn't be allowed, as Mailinator accounts and messages aren't password protected. (Meaning that anyone could reset the password on a Mailinator user's Wikipedia account.) Does a blacklist exist for email domains, or is this going to have to go to Bugzilla? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree I would note it may not be easy. AFAIK mailinator purposely doesn't post a list of their domains to make blacklisting more difficult, although they don't stop scraping [73] [74]. (I also wonder if WHOIS info could reveal most alternative domains.) And there are plenty of mailnator alternatives. Having used such services in the past (not for wikipedia) I can say it's usually fairly trivial to block them. Treating them like we treat Tor and open proxies, blocking them when they are used will probably work in making difficult enough that many will give up but I wonder how long before we get there. It was suggested in the past to limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users or some other status, I don't know if a suggestion was ever added to bugzilla. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After 6 years on wikipedia, I have now just switched off my email -enabling. This after having received some 130-150 emails these last few days, telling me how much the sender is looking forward to killing/exterminating "my kind". See here, & here. I am not very technical, but I truly do not understand why wikipedia empower such people? Discussion/bulletin-boards that I know off, normally have a rule that you have to have posted x number of posts, before you can contact other members directly. This of course does not protect other members fully, but at least raises the threshold for sending the kind of threats Roland, I, and others have experienced. Why cannot wikipedia do something similar? To limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users: I would have thought that should be a minimum. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia already limits mail access to autoconfirmed accounts. The problem is that this still a deliberately low barrier, set only high enough to prevent the simplest mass destruction. It's not clear that there's a simple fix here, unless we want to declare that throwaway email accounts are no longer valid for registration (and then you've opened a fresh can of worms based on where the threshold between "permanent" and "throwaway" lies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought that you had to make a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia in order to become autoconfirmed. But the accounts sending these abusive emails to me and Huldra, and earlier to other editors,[75][76] have not made any edits. As I comment above, a new account making no edits, but sending huge quantities of emails (over 100 to each of us) is obviously here only to abuse the system, not to edit constructively. It ought to be simple to filter this out. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Or rangeblock the underlying IPs if possible, assuming they aren't open proxies, and run a CU to catch any more potential sleeper accounts. Log actions (such as creating a new account) can and do leave a paper trail for Checkusers. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Several IPs made abusive edits to an article, identical in content to the emails I received. So it is possible to identify them, for purposes of checking and blocking.[77] NB we are talking about JarlaxleArtemis here.RolandR (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression from previous discussions autoconfirmed was not required for email access and if we wanted that, we needed a developer to implement it (i.e. it wasn't something that could simple be turned on and off at the current time). Although I may be remembering wrong about the developer part, perhaps that was the CAPTCHA requirement proposal. In any case, if an autoconfirmed requirement for mail is supposed to have been implemented since then or was implemented before then, it's broken, so someone should definitely file a bugzilla in that case. I just created User:lastwhileTA348522 (if your lastwhile was the captcha, TA stands for test account and the number was typed 'randomly'), confirmed my email address and sent a mail to myself (i.e. this account) and it worked. All done in about 3 minutes. BTW, remember an email address is not required for registration, it's only required for password recovery (i.e. to help protect an account), to send emails and if you want to receive emails like when your user page is updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, then. It certainly seems sensible to require it, if only because experience has shown that Grawp will continue to escalate known attacks until technical measures are put in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User Schiavello keeps removing AfD tags and discussions

User Schiavello removed the AfD tags from anything related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination) twice. He also blanked the AfD discussion and removed it from the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts. When I saw it the first time I put a message on his talk page (which he has since blanked) asking him not to do it and then I restored all the pages. He has now done it all again. These are the only edits by that user, so I suspect he's a puppet (sock or meat). Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, hopefully will be blocked soon. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

After doing a related check, the following are  Confirmed as indefinitely blocked user Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs) and have been indefinitely blocked:

• Terminahp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swungtrade1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ilondt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

More to come, as there may be additional socks. –MuZemike 23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed as each other (but not as Cyperuspapyrus):

• Minowafan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WölffReik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Schiavello (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sooo...should these last three be blocked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The first three are a "gimme"; I'll leave for the community as to what to do with the other contingent, i.e. block the socks, warn/block the sockmaster, how long, etc. –MuZemike 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but Minowafan currently has a long list of subpages that are mostly backups of pages deleted through deletion review. Since they are all still categorized, they show up when browsing categories. It seems like the user is trying to avoid being charged with recreating deleted pages by hosting them as userpages instead. What is the relevant policy here? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES seems to come closest. — Edokter (talk) — 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppets should be blocked indefinitely and the sockmaster should be blocked for some period of time. I have no idea what the usual punishment is for this. Astudent0 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Astudent0. I'm surprised that even the sockpuppets haven't been blocked yet. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For the ones that aren`t blocked, normally at WP:SPI they would block all but the master, warn the master in this case. I'll get a clerk to block and tag these. (If this isn't dealt with in 12 hours, someone please file an WP:SPI...becuase I don't want this to disappear without blocks. (I would block now, but i've put my admin tools aside for now) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged both confirmed socks, and blocked WölffReik for 3 days for sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink; ongoing incivility / abuse issues

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

---

Resolved

 – Looks like the issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink. Further discussion on ANI is unlikely to do anything but make everyone more cranky. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have literally only come across Badger Drink in the past couple of days; but see these comments in an ongoing RfA, where he refers to another editor's comments as a "stream of histrionic bullshit", comparing the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", comment struck by author and then going on to comment "I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA".

I see from Badger's talk page and contributions that his challenges with civility are a long-term and ongoing issue, and that prior attempts to address this this have apparently made little or no impact. I regretfully think that, at this stage, an incivility block may be in order. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a collated response to 5 threads challenging his oppose !vote. To me it looks like a bit of collective brow beating because he has highlighted a concern about a very popular but non-straightforward candidate. In the circs., I'm not sure his response is so unreasonable and I'm surprised to see it brought up here. Leaky Caldron 11:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFA's are usually a free-for-all. Incivility reigns. But maybe that's necessary. We're not talking about article improvements here. We're talking about handing power to someone. The process of bringing in new admin's is highly flawed, but it's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary here. Badger Drink used a lot of bad language, but didn't seem to make any personal attacks (except for questioning other users' maturity, but that's hardly rare at RfA). Epbr123 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, incivility at RFA's is useful, as it can demonstrate how, or if, a potential admin will respond to provocative behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"If anything"? No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful. Nice, no. Useful, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A suitable candidate should already have demonstrated that they can deal with assholes in the course of their previous edits. The negatives to nastiness in RfAs themselves outweigh the positives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's no question the RFA process is flawed. It amounts to a popularity contest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an irony in such an oppose coming from a self-appointed attack dog, a caste of Wikipedians whose repeated incivility is primarily overlooked because either they're friends with the right people or enemies of the right people. Nevertheless it's a valid argument (RfA is all about politics, and a bad candidate can easily pass if he hangs around the right areas), albeit one likely to be less effective because of its presentation. Nor was it an especially nasty one, at least not in terms of being directed at the candidate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, if I thought this was a one-off occurrence, I would never have brought it here. I'm not into drama-mongering, and have never brought anything here before. I did check to see whether, maybe, an editor was just "having a bad day" (and that can happen to any and all of us), but it seems it's a much deeper-rooted problem than this. It's not "today's problem" I have concerns with, it's an ongoing history of apparently getting away with too much nastiness. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I alluded to, that's simply a niche which our weird little ecology has created for itself. We have not yet, and probably never will, come up with an effective and widely-deployable solution to long-term incivility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire them out of a cannon and be done with them. I'd support and indefinite block.--Crossmr (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the cannon option may be a bit on the side of overkill! Sadly, far too many people have the illusion / delusion that civility isn't required at RfA; to the best of my knowledge there has never been consensus for this view (nor can I see any "exemptions from civility requirements" in the appropriate place!) However, again, this is clearly not just an RfA issue. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as overkill, I'd also support an indef block. Right or wrong, some people get away with gross incivility because they are excellent contributors and do a lot of useful work on the project. Looking over this user's contributions, he's both uncivil and his contributions don't come close to justifying his disruption. That makes him a net-negative. Keeping him on the project is only a detriment to others. I know it sounds very harsh, but people need to stop treating Wikipedia as though disruptive editors have divine right to edit here. They really don't. Someone's presence here should be tolerated only as long as they serve a worthwhile function... after that they are a liability. Trusilver 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I used a cuss word. Our first grade teacher is going to be so pissed. Grow up. Badger Drink (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems less of an issue compared to the Ludwigs2 issue above. I don't see any admin outrage over that though; is it because it doesn't involve the sacred RFA cow? (And by the way, I voted support in that RFA, but the badgering of opponents did not leave a good impression on me.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I try not to get outraged about anything these days. However, it's at least easier to see the whole picture for a relatively minor thing like this than for some multi-megabyte saga like the one which apparently dissatisfies you. And it's nothing to do with this thread. If we're done here then we might as well close this, as it doesn't appear any immediate admin action is forthcoming. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Badger Drink: The issue here is not the use of the cuss-word, it is the insulting tone of your comments. You seem to be under the strange illusion that because you use cusswords, you are then allowed to be insulting towards other editors. That is a very strange belief, and I would suggest that you stop being insulting, whether or not you choose to use cuss-words. Just because you say "bullshit" doesn't mean that you then get to be insulting without being called to task for it. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "grow up" part is more offensive than the vulgarities. And its occasional use (by whichever user) is almost always ironic, since that's a comment typically made by adolescents. Adults don't talk to each other that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the use of a strange defense by Badger Drink. He's being asked to answer for his behavior. The charge is that he is incivil and personally attacks other editors unneccessarily, and his sole defense seems to be "It's OK, because I used cusswords to do so!" Its not the first time such a defense has been mounted, but it is always a completely rediculous defense. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you can't then say "But it isn't illegal to drive a blue car!" Bringing up an irrelevent fact as a defense for your actions doesn't make any sense at all. I would rather that Badger Drink confronted the issue he is being accused of. --Jayron32 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Confront the issue... like... like... a grownup would? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that this editor has a long track record of abrasive behavior. It is equally clear that there exists an unwritten consensus that nothing ought be done about persistent bad behavior, so bringing this here serves only to poke the badger with a spoon. PS. I thought it was "rat's ass" not "rat's shit"? Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's trying to be original? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Two comments. The post refered to as a "stream of histrionic bullshit" was at least as insulting as Badger Drinks reply, and the OP's presentation of the armless goaltender comment without context grossly distorts it's meaning. Not exactly civil behavior.Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversial RfA, and some of the discussion has become heated. I think just about the worst thing we could do is to start tossing out civility blocks. (Especially one-sided ones.) Warn if necessary but blocking an opposer on the request of a supporter when the supporters are also engaging in heated rhetoric is just going to escalate this unnecessarily. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I personally engaged in "heated" rhetoric, at all. Getting heated is not usually my style. And I can quite easily handle the odd cussword in conversation. It's not the cusswords, it's the generally uncivil attitude, over apparently alengthy period of time. And I did actually find the "grow up" comment rather funny - it's the sort of thing that my youngest son - now a dad himself - used to say to people! Forget that it's anything to do with an RfA - it's not about RfA, it's about incivility and lack of respect. And it's been going on, and got away with, for a very long time, it seems. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly don't think we should be even going down the line of any civility block. Badger Drink is a well established editor and his abrasive tone is well known - and I put myself in the same boat of having an abrasive manner. Telling people to "grow up" is pretty bloody rude however, and Badger would do well to strike that bit - it's a smidge over the top. Nevertheless it is a heated RFA as 28bytes points out (sadly, as one of the noms) and rhetoric is not an uncommon event at these types of things. I'd urge closure of this thread, whilst noting Pesky had nothing but good intentions in filing this at ANI, and Badger Drink would be courteous if he would kindly remove the "grow up" throwaway comment above. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• If his abrasive tone is well known then it is all the more reason to issue the block until we're assured it will become scarce. That kind of tone is entirely inappropriate for working with a community. If he doesn't want to work with a community he knows where the door is or he can be shown to it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur with this. The attitude you are describing basically amounts to "They're not being uncivil because they have a long and well-understood history of being uncivil." (It's a recurring theme on ANI, sadly.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the OP rereads the post he objects to - Badger Drink does not, by my reading compare the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", he uses that as an extreme example. The "histrionic bullshit" comment may be cussing (whatever that is) in grade school (whatever that is) but out here in the grownup's world it is a fairly inconsequential turn of phrase. This looks more like "waa waa waa he's a nasty man" than a serious issue. Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cussing = swearing, profanity = not WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might also take the trouble to explain to User:Pesky why "incivility blocks" are contrary to Wikipedia policy? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In my book deliberately misrepresenting what someone else has written is far more serious than using 'cuss' words. Greglocock (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for my mistake there - I have struck that comment out. It was not a deliberate attempt, simply my misreading of the comment, for which, again, I apologise. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Have not people noticed the very few RfAs in the last months? In the last few weeks, I've had two excellent candidates decline to be nominated because they do not wish to be discussed in the current environment. That the environment is so toxic is the fault of a very few repetitive editors. This is actually, not just potentially, harming the encyclopedia, and should not be tolerated. It is very possible -- and more effective --to oppose someone as strongly as necessary by simply pointing out the reasons calmly. RfA should be a zone for especially polite behavior. I am in principle willing to block for gross violations of NPA anywhere in Wikipedia after sufficient warnings, as I would for any harmful behavior, but i have not done so because it would seem like selective enforcement. Perhaps I should think of it instead as an example to be started in the hope that those admins who similarly care will be able to make it consistent enforcement. If it is necessary to choose where to start, I think the place to begin is with the people who have been here the longest and have the most reason to know better. I've heard it said that content contributors should be immune, but I think it's all the more important to prevent them from wasting their efforts on unconstructive activities. Blocks are preventative, after all--though I know this is an usual way or using the term. I am prepared for the usual opposition from those who will find their preferred activities here hampered, but I'm only wary of the people who know how to say how wrong they think I am in more measured terms: someone might take them seriously. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you. Too many people seem to think "I'm here to contribute content - I can get away with it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There have been many more potential candidates of the right calibre who have respectfully declined to run for adminship due to the environment of the voting page, and nominations have now all but completely stagnated. I believe it is time to begin implementing any reasonable measures to protect the process from any editors who appear to be repeatedly be disruptive to the system, or who come to it in the knowledge that they can be rude with impunity. There is no reason why RfA should be a safe haven from our core policies of NPA and civility, even if tradition seems to demonstrate otherwise. Blocking may cause collateral damage to the project, but a topic ban from RfA could certainly be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The obvious solution is to have only admins make the selections of other admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that, very possibly, one of my biggest concerns here - and it's related to the "long-term" aspect, is that Badger (for whatever reason, and I know we all have Real Life issues which affect us), seems completely unable to admit that there is anything at all wrong with his attitude and (apparently) cavalier disregard for other people's feelings, or to change in any way at all. It's a question of "addressing his offending behaviour" - and he just doesn't seem able to do this. This, for me, rings warning bells of various kinds. WP:CIVIL is one of the foundation stones of this project - the Five Pillars - or at least it is supposed to be. "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree." This is not a newbie who hasn't yet learned acceptable manners - it's someone who really should be setting an example, and clearly isn't. "Old enough to know better." It would seem, just from what I read here, that there are people who think they either they or others are exempt from the requirement to be polite, respectful and civil; this is wrong. We shouldn't ever have the "all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others" attitude. Rules should apply equally to all of us. Nobody should be left feeling that someone else can get away with rule-violation (or even extreme bending) with impunity. It's disheartening to those of us who go out of our way to be civil and respectful even when we are in disagreement with someone, or dealing with a problematic editor. If the attitude here in Wikepedia is running along the lines of "Oh, well, he's Mr X, Mr X can get away with it", then this needs to be nipped in the bud. At a bare minumim, some acceptance by Badger that he is, in all truth, at fault here, and that he is prepared to consider changing in the right direction - possibly even that he is prepared to consider some kind of buddying or mentoring from someone who may be able to bring out some self-discipline in this area, and in the mean time to avoid areas of conflict until he is able to control the aggression of conflict ... those things would be good. But, all said and done - it's one of the Five Pillars. We shouldn't be treating this lightly. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm just going to add this direct quote from WP:CIVIL here: "Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks." (emphasis mine) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be flippant here, but are we really trying to have yet another meta-discussion about WP:CIVIL on ANI itself? Has that ever worked? It doesn't look like Badger Drink is going to be blocked here, or any other admin action carried out, so better that this go to the archive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I understand your comment here; however, just because something hasn't worked in the past is no real reason to give up on it. One of the things that can put editors off is any type of behaviour - particularly from longer-term, experienced editors - which is aggressive, demeaning, belittling, humiliating, and so on. It's precisely why civility is one of the Five Pillars, and our collective attitude towards insisting on / enforcing an acceptable standard of behaviour between editors, even when they find themselves on opposite sides of any fence, needs a brush-up. The longer the attitude of "It'll never fly" carries on, the more our standards will slip, and the more we are likely to put off potentially good editors. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

... and a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, Badger made a thoughtful point in his oppose, which was then validated by several replies. I didn't find that comment incivil, just exasperated. Concerns about a "not what you know but who you know" culture have been voiced over several years here and there. RfA is difficult and this particular one was always going to be a tricky one given the past. I'd say this thread can be closed too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Caliber, sure, I can understand that. As I've mentioned earlier, though, it's not a one-off incident which has concerned me here (I;ve come across plenty of one-off incidents all over the place). When I do come across potential issues like this, I always take the time to try and find out if it was a minor and temporary glitch, or something more long-term and more of an issue, and I think this comes into that category. If RfC/U is a much better place for issues like this, then that may well be the way to go, in which case may apologies for bringing it here. I do think, when all's said and done, that ongoing and long-term incivility issues shouldn't just get brushed under the carpet, wherever they end up. It's really not difficult to remain courteous and civil, it just requires a bit of self-awareness and self-discipline. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Very old AfD's

Resolved

 – All the AfDs are listed in a current log and should be assessed for closing within a week. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a bunch of AfD's which were all started well over a week ago (in some cases over a month ago) by User:Koavf, and have not yet been closed or relisted. They were probably not added to the log. Could someone take a look and close these?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Plus Grand Français
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsere Besten
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Chilean
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le plus grand Belge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velikite Balgari
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest Ukrainians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Like a Girl (Emilie Autumn album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memories of a Time to Come
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triple Album Project (working title)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars and Stories

Thanks. —SW— ^express 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle error, me error All were made by WP:TWINKLE. I seemed to recall that a bot came by and added them to the days' logs, so I didn't think that I would have to manually add them. I guess I was wrong...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check if they had been added to any logs, but if they haven't been closed after a month I think it's safe to say they weren't added. I used to have similar troubles with Twinkle, although I thought that got fixed. I usually just double-check that Twinkle did everything it was supposed to do whenever I start an AfD. —SW— ^talk 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Once an AfD hits a month old it starts popping up in various reports, and if it is not in a current log it will usually be listed. There are no bots that automatically list them, but twinkle is *supposed* to list them if you use it to create the AfD. It is usually a good idea to check to make sure twinkle did it right when it comes to actions that require twinkle to edit multiple pages such as with AfD listings. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a known problem that also effects FfDs. Fastily created a tool that helps track the FfDs, which is at User:Fastily/FfD. His bot updates the page daily. Could a similar thing be developed for AfDs? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, User:DumbBOT used to fix the listings. See User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD (last updated July 2011) and User talk:DumbBOT#User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I find them at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old, though I suspect some editors have additional ways of identifying them. Monty₈₄₅ 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Havengore

• Havengore (talk · contribs) is Refactoring other's comments about his unblock request on his talk page [78][79] then making snarky comments when I warn him about it [80]. I would remove talk page access but I feel involved and would prefer another admin's review. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How odd. Personally I'd be reluctant to step in and modify the block since there are a half-dozen admins already interacting with him there, but his behavior is clearly disruptive (and baffling.) 28bytes (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just too much; he even refactored the {{uw-tpv3}} template message. I've removed talk page access, and I've also left messages on the talk pages of admins who have been interacting with him, saying essentially that they should restore talk page access without asking me if they feel that it will help. The same goes for anyone else who's reading this. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the situation, and baffling doesn't begin to describe the meltdown my brain is having. That aside, this user has only been around for a few days. I'm leaving an offer for mentorship on his talk page. He is still new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. He seems to want to contribute, and we shouldn't throw that away. Ishdarian 07:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost, article Bön, and WP:3RR

SudoGhost (talk · contribs) has violated 3RR on article Bön having reverted my move of the article to the name most commonly reflected by the English sources here, and by twice reverting my updating of the body of the article to change the name within the article from "Bön" to "Bon", to remove excess dead links, and to update the incorrectly cited sources (where publication titles spelled "Bon" were misspelled in the citations as "Bön") here and here, all within a 19 hour period.
The user was notified of this ANI here.  — Who R you? Talk 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, there was no 3RR violation, even taking into account the move revert (which I clean forgot about) although it could be argued that there was edit warring between both parties, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this content, and I have no intention of editing the page further, despite the fact that the most recent edit has broken the article subject's category. The appropriate board for 3RR is WP:3RRNB, not WP:ANI. Second, the talk page discussion has the content / article title discussion, so there's no need to rehash that here. I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit (keeping the category and some lede stuff) when the user reverted the content, ironically after pointing the "edit warring" finger my way. - SudoGhost 06:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that you're both edit-warring, there's not much to be said here. Take it to the talk page and discuss - call an RfC if you must. But, unless you've both agreed on an acceptable action, I'd like it if you didn't make contested edits or reverted each other. Continued warring will result in a block. m.o.p 07:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting to see a claim that "I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit ", when, between the time that I read and responded to the comments on the talk page insinuating that repeated revisions of me were acceptable because he was under the '4 count', and my posting notification on his talk page and posting this notice here, SudoGhost posted this notice warning me of edit warring for my single reversion; but then accusation is often the easiest path.

It's a shame there's no edit history of this partial self revision that was apparently happening; one would have thought, give that there was time to post all these comments on the talk page's two different sections, to revert me, and to comment on my talk page that there would have been time to include in one of the talk page comments some mention of even a willingness to look at the revisions that had been made; obviously that would have completely changed the tone of the conversations from it's previous course.  Up to that point, I had just seen that my edit had been reverted within 4 minutes of my making it (which, incidentally, I'd say had taken me a good 4 hours [on my dead slow system] to check all the linked sources, all the external links, and to review every reference in the article spelled "Bön" [there were I believe 4 and 1 checked out as correct], let alone updating the 100+ misspellings of "Bön" within the article itself).  All in all, I'm at a loss as to why there appears to be such dedication to ensuring that every reference to this is systematically misspelled in Wikipedia; baffling; and, of course, like everyone, I dislike being reverted, particularly in a situation where I've invested substantial time and effort to try to ensure that I've dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's, and with the move reversion, I could at least see a plausible reasoning, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but as for intentionally misspelling something throughout an article... as I said, baffling.

As to whether this should rightly have been posted at WP:AN3, hind-sight being 20/20, obviously I should have; but then seeing as how Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'll leave it for someone (other than SudoGhost) to let me know if they'd like me to copy and paste this conversation over to there (and of course post another user talk page notice for that, since that is the proper bureaucratic procedure); just LMK here.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 07:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Master of Puppets' comments, I'll keep in mind for future edits that proper WP protocol is to repeatedly revert any change made by another user as quickly as possible up the 3 times a day.  Meanwhile, I'll spend the hour adding the RfC and RM templates tomorrow as this has already been a big enough pain in the ass for today. — Who R you? Talk 07:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

...and you'll likely find yourself blocked quickly if you do revert "up to the 3 times a day" ... twice can be considered edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well that is what I thought, but then I can always just link to this conversation where I've been told by a not-just-new-to-this admin that 3 reverts is just fine and I should go work it out for myself on the talk page and waste my time with RfCs and RMs, which of course I'll do; but I'd say I've got pretty good precedent here to say that 3 intentional reverts to prevent correction of things which are clearly shown and explained to be contrary to cited, verifiable RS is deemed acceptable; so why not repeatedly revert someone and just say, I don't agree with your facts, when it means you get to piss the other guy off and force him to waste his time talking to people about something that they aren't going to do anything about (the definition of bureaucracy).  Cheers. — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So your accusation is that I couldn't have been trying to self-revert and instead was edit-warring, because I was too busy discussing? For someone who claims that "accusation is often the easiest path", I'm seeing a lot of rather ironic claims being thrown my way. I'm accused of having an agenda by someone whose editing history and talk page both shows a clear agenda to remove any diacritics from articles for no other reason than that they are present, and I'm being accused of edit-warring by someone who then follows up this claim by edit-warring. - SudoGhost 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• As said on the talk page, I follow the (English) RS; if the (English) RS has diacritics, then I type diacritics, if not, then I'll fight to have them removed.  I do have a problem with the surprisingly large number of Wikipedians who apparently seem to think they're cool or something and think that they should be added because they used them in a foreign language, but I'm looking for the English WP to be in English (you're obviously not).  And wasting someone's time, basically stalling, is not the same as actually saying something intelligent; by repeatedly saying things like, 'the ghits don't mean anything just because there are 300 times as many in the other spelling', or, 'the 3RR rule doesn't say you can't revert three times in a row and what you're quoting is from the WP:EW (edit warring) section' (but of course it is in fact from the 3RR section).  Any a-hole can fart around and waste peoples time with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother; we call them lawyers and politicians (I personally call them the scum of our society). — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you say one thing, then do another, ignoring the fact that reliable sources spell something a certain way because you have an issue with diacritics. Don't like the policy I refer to? Just call into question my intellect, and of wasting peoples time "with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother". That way you can just skirt around that pesky article title policy consensus, right? And here I am bothering you with yet another "lawyering" policy. - SudoGhost 12:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just stumbled across this subpage which pretty much sums up the status of the article (even if the page is 3-years-old). — Who R you? Talk 12:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's so nice that you two are finally having a discussion that should have taken place long before bringing this to ANI. Go; edit; be nice; follow dispute resolution if needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is civil? - SudoGhost 12:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I was just coming back here to add to my previous post to say that the 'scum' comment was very much directed at lawyers, and not personally at you SudoGhost, and that I wouldn't want you to think that I was directing that at you; but I'm apparently way to late for that, so for that alone, which it appears you (understandably) thought I was directing at you, I sincerely apologize.  As I said, the term was not meant for or directed at you, regardless of how I can understand it would have appears so.  That's not to say that you haven't pissed me off in terms of your responses during out talk page conversations and I think that you're intentionally manipulating things to find any excuse around the arguments, but if I were going to call you a bad name I'd come right out and say it (no innuendo or implication involved).  And as I said on the talk page (which I don't know if you've added more to or not; either way), we'll just leave it to the RfC/RM and let others decide.  And since this is obviously a waste of time, I'll just ignore this page unless someone wants to leave a message on my talk page. — Who R you? Talk 13:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The "scum" comment is far from the only personal attack there, I don't see anything there that isn't a personal attack. As for my intentionally manipulating (which again, is a personal attack), do you mean using Wikipedia policy to back up my comments? I'm sorry if that "pisses you off", but if something is backed up by Wikipedia policy, which is a consensus of Wikipedia editors, I'm going to state that. - SudoGhost 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you guys could stop focusing on each others' perceived faults and work on the article instead. As in, discuss content, not the other editor. If anybody's looking for more detail on what that means, please feel free to ask on my talk page. m.o.p 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve added a post on the article’s talk page (∆ edit here) asking the combatants to just get on with the task of presenting evidence for how the RSs handle the spelling, which is how those two should have resolved it in the first place. Questioning whether the other has ever seen the inside of a classroom just results in wasted time at ANIs. Debating How Wikipedia Can Best Lead The Way To A New English Language Of the Future®™© is verboten. Bring on hard evidence of what the preponderance of most-reliable RSs are doing with regard to spelling the word, debate (civilly), be patient so others have an opportunity to weigh in if you can’t agree as to the basic facts, and let the community arrive at a consensus. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, calling editors "combatants" and comparing us to this image isn't exactly helping. - SudoGhost 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, I’m sorry, SudoGhos. The image was intended as a humorous reference to us all—not just you. That’s why it was linked to “as mere wikipedians.” I too clearly am a wikipedian. The intent of the image was to humorously (at least try to) drive home the fact that as mere wikipedians (an all-volunteer army of non-experts in a collaborative writing environment), we can’t possibly pretend that it is within our purview to flout the RSs. Instead, we look to reliable sources for guidance and follow them. How do the preponderance of most-reliable, English-language sources spell “Bon”?

  After seeing your latest rant over there, you seem to have driven the nail in the coffin that the practices of the RSs are sufficiently clear; even The Bon Foundation themselves spell it without the diacritic when communicating in English.

  You seem overly anxious to take offense here now that you are embroiled at an ANI and the combativeness you exhibited here on the talk page shows you might best consider a taking some time to cool off. My message point there was plain as day but you didn’t like the message point. I suggested you two stop acting combative and stop attacking each other. I stated that the dispute is best decided one way: by bringing forth evidence of what the RSs are doing and settle it that way. Your response? To attack me. Your taking a stand in defiance of the RSs calls into question the manner in which you are going about trying to achieve your ends. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you may want to consider than text as read is not the same as words as spoken, because your "suggestion" mixed with your "humor" came across as passive-agressive, belittling the two of us, which was unhelpful, to say the least. It seems you're not reading the talk page, because there is no "defiance of the RSs". There are two different discussions on the talk page, one about Bon as used as the common name (which I am not disagreeing with, something you seem to be confused about), and then there is the discussion about natural versus parenthetical disambiguation, something WP:PRECISE is very clear about, yet there seems to be a communication issue because these two discussions are getting crossed. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be quickly getting embroiled with every editor who disagrees with you on points of fact. You might look into cause & effect. And please take the time to properly sign your posts and properly indent them. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a vague statement that doesn't reflect the talk page, which is perhaps just because the talk page has a lot going on, which understandably makes it tedious to read. There's nothing here for an admin to do, so anything related to the article's subject should be directed there, and anything regarding myself should be presented at my talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP mess

Resolved

 – Solipsism block levied after abuse of email and talk page. Nothing more to see here.

• Cazedessus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Bruce Cockburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first noticed this issue today on WP:BLPN here. User Cazedessus, who is apparently also Camille Cazedessus, Jr., has some sort of vendetta against Bruce Cockburn. The BLP violation was properly removed from the Cockburn article here. However, I decided to add a warning about the insertion of the material to Cazedessus's Talk page (which is an unholy mess). After doing so, I realized there is a huge diatribe against Cockburn on the Talk page interspersed with other editors' comments and warnings, making it difficult to remove. Also, there are personal attacks as well on editors (calling them Nazis, among other things). This isn't just an article issue, it's an editor issue. What's the best way to handle this?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's an editor issue. I tried to engage the editor in discussion when it first transpired at the beginning of the month but didn't get anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Whack the motherf***** already. This sounds like a competence issue compounded by a seething hatred for this guy; Cazedessus has no business being here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. After reading through all that, I've concluded he's WP:NOTHERE and, accordingly, I've blocked him indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger, that's an interesting little bouillabaisse of self-promotion and paranoia. It's best we just seal the vault on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the BLP violations from the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed almost all of the page; only the last two sections of it remain. (The rest of it was BLP vios and personal screeds.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is a competence issue. Caz is not a net benefit to WP. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy, I noticed your removal, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, happy to see a "competence" block, we should see them more often, for example, in cases that aren't quite as easy as this one, and may take more time and research to understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read a new definition of "hate crime" today. [81] Cazedessus may have a good reason to criticize Cockburn song's lyrics, and even cite his own book for that criticism, but he's doing it in a totally tabloid fashion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After doing some searches, Cazedessus' books on Carson are unheard of in Worldcat. They're either self-published or printed by a totally obscure publisher. They don't even seem to have ISBNs. I've removed them from the Carson article. [82] The may belong in Cazedessus' bio though, although at this point I cant even verify their existence. As for the Cockburn song, no secondary source is cited with respect to it being a significant view/presentation of Carson. I propose removal on that grounds, unless reliable secondary sources can be found to testify for the importance of that song for Carson's image. [83] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat is mostly academic libraries and as such might very well not have Cazedessus's books, which sound targeted toward a different audience. Try loc.gov or some kind of science fiction reference. Also, ISBN's were invented in the 1970's or so, and didn't become really widespread til much later than that. So lack of ISBN's on books from the 1970's doesn't by itself indicate obscurity. I have no opinion on the Cazedessus-Cockburn battle but if Cazedessus's books are being excerpted without proper citations, we should fix that (perhaps by removing the material). (Added: Oh wait, I see now that the Carson books were much more recent (2000's), so the ISBN issue is a bit more bothersome). 71.141.89.4 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Worldcat is mostly academic libraries..." Oh really? I don't think that is accurate. LadyofShalott 03:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat is mostly academic libraries... Er, no, at least their own website suggests otherwise: "WorldCat.org lets you search the collections of libraries in your community and thousands more around the world. WorldCat grows every day thanks to the efforts of librarians and other information professionals." And a quick search using a random book from my shelf and my old ZIP Code gets 10 public libraries and 9 university libraries with the first edition of the book. I suspected it's weighted towards academic libraries and because they're more likely to have computerized and Internet-accessible catalogs than many small city libraries. Yes, . Also, if "academic libraries" are not the target of Cazedessus's book, that pretty much denigrates it as a reliable source, doesn't it? --Calton | Talk 12:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• And today, I found an email from our friend Cazadessus sent through Wiki's mail in my inbox:

What exactly is your problem? First I am THREATENED with being blocked (by somebody named Goetz?), then i AM BLOCKED by you. And now I see that all the comic book and movie information that comes from my publications is still included, but no longer referenced to my publications. But Bruce Cockburn's hate speech song lyrics are included in the Kit Carson section, where someone says "(it) that does not present Carson in a positive light." Really? That sounds like "original research" to me. Since I am using my real name, I'd like to have your real name.

(On that last, I don't think so.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks BlackKite. (Funny that he decided to use email seeing as he isn't blocked from using his talk page...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Crikey; a song is fiction. I'm now starting to get real pissed off at the Crash Test Dummies because I don't think Superman ever used "dirty old phone booths" like they claim in Superman's Song. Should I sue? </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Love his assertion that misspelling text avoids the copyright implications; if only we'd realised that before, all the fine folk at CCI could have been editing productively, too. </second batch of sarcasm> Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see he finally turned up at the talk page, essentially accusing us of being out to get him. I'll leave it to another to respond further to him there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert shut him down at the talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Ryan kirkpatrick

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.

Due to the discussion below, Ryan kirkpatrick is henceforth site banned from Wikipedia per the banning policy. This policy makes it very clear that we, as a community, have the ability to revoke an individual's editor status in order to preserve the site's integrity. Given the near-unanimous consensus below, I think the community's decision is clear. m.o.p 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

---

• Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and his merry socks.

Long-term sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick has stepped up his activity lately. This user has - so far - had 53 confirmed sock accounts and IP addresses, with at least another 7 being extremely likely. In addition, he has popped up yesterday and today vandalising his SPI page [84] [85] with WP:OWNish behavior and promises to "not [go] anywere until all my past work is gone". Given all this, I would like to propose a formal and official WP:BAN of this user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See also this edit summary, says it all really. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Another quality comment from him. Apparently he thinks it's OK to set ultimatums. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there is practically zero collateral damage, I'll rangeblock the college he's editing from, as a start (and will mention why on the block log). Black Kite (t) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with that many socks Ryan is de-facto banned anyway, so we may as well formalise the ban to speed up the process of blocking further socks. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously intentionally disruptive to the project. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Obviously. HurricaneFan25 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. He already is defacto banned and I've always treated him accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, provided we are allowed to actually enforce this ban (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:G5 Discussion); if not, then I see no purpose of even keeping him blocked. –MuZemike 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he is adding good images which enhance the project. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you referring to [86]? If so AFAICT he has nothing to do with the image other then putting it in the article. He has had so many accounts I guess it's possible he's uploaded images but I'm not seeing in his main accounts listed above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He has uploaded images - about 10 IIRC; every single one was a copyvio. YSSYguy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Socking above and beyond the norm. MarnetteD | Talk 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Report says it all. --NellieBly (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need that sort of behavior. LadyofShalott 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support His behavior and "threats" are convincing enough for me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per socking, threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is long past due. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per every support reason above, way past due. Heiro 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Dumb question: Who is the sock and who is the master? Ryan kirkpatrick is listed as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay/Archive#24 June 2010, but then about two weeks later an SPI is opened listing Ryan kirkpatrick as the master. This is confusing, shouldn't the ban be for User:Jersay instead of kirkpatrick, and shouldn't the SPIs be combined? Apologies if this is needlessly confusing the matter. Rgrds. --64.85.216.178 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The relationship of User:Ryan kirkpatrick and User:Jersay appears to be unclear. From what I can tell, Rk appeared right after a confirmed Jersaysock was blocked and picked up where that sock left off - but Ryan appears to be from an entirely different country (Canada vs UK). Move or meatpuppetry? Unknown - hence the seperate SPIs. The Rk socks after that, however, are all definitively linked to Rk and his brigade of sockpuppets. The link between User:Jersay and User:Ryan kirkpatrick was strictly behaviorial; the links between Rk and his 54+ socks are either CU confirmed or quacking much louder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a mildly irrelevant question. We haven't tagged any socks for Jersay since Jan 2010, whereas we block a RK sock at least once a month. As far as I'm concerned Jersay is out of the picture. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Especially as it appears that Ryan has changed from merely being a nuisance to threatening to harrass other editors - perhaps someone should contact the college to which the ip which Ryan appears to have used to make the latest posts?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - if this user is has disruptive behavior in this encyclopedia, he is no longer welcome Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - With several sock puppets and severe disruption by the user, this has gone far enough. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Appears to be feeding on the attention and creating socks faster than the SPIs can be closed and opened. Has moved from being a nusiance to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I reviewed whats going on and concur with all of the above. -OberRanks (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm highly surprised that we didn't have a ban in place already. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, it would be absurd to think that such a prolific sockpuppetteer didn't deserve banning. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Mostly for socking, but also for lack of competence, disruption, threats, etc etc. --Blackmane (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:AIV backlog for 8 November

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared causa sui (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV is getting awfully busy, if anyone has a few moments to pitch in. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Prolonged Pattern of Disruptive Editing by User:Hoops gza

I believe a serious situation has been going for sometime with Hoops gza (talk · contribs) which at this point violates WP:DISRUPT and requires administrative action. Since joining this site two years ago, Hoops has experienced a string of disruptive editing practices beginning with vandalism and edit warring and eventually moving into disruptive page moves and violations of Wikipedia's policies on categories. Most recently, and perhaps the most serious of all, Hoops has engaged in the uploading of several images to Wikipedia with questionable copyright status and seemingly deliberate false licensing tags. Up to now, Hoops has escaped any real attention from administrators since the user (when confronted) does back down and has up to now steered clear of any WP:NPA or WP:CIV violations. However, Hoops patterns of disruptive editing have been going on now for well over a year and a half, causing the attention, intervention, and frustration of numerous editors. I spent some time going back through the user's edit history and what I found was very alarming. I strongly urge some kind of administrative action against this account in order to stop this obvious pattern of disruption.

Previous admin board discussions
November 2010, May 2011

Disruptive Editing History

Account appears to have been created in November 2009. There was an eight month edit gap between January and August 2010. The first signs of disruptive editing began a month later in September 2010. Many of the early disruptions can perhaps be attributed to "Newbie" errors and a misunderstanding of policies. However, acts of edit warring and vandalism appear to have continued into April 2011. The next month, the user began uploading questionable images to Wikipedia, a pattern which continues to the present day. In the summer of 2011, the user began to draw attention from others due to improper page moves and category creations. The most recent disruption appears to be a new wave of improper image uploads both this month and last.

• Article edit warring [87] (Sep 2010)
• Talk page vandalism warning [88] (Sep 2010)
• Page move without consensus [89] (Oct 2010)
• Article edit warring leading to a block [90] (Nov 2010)
• Article edit warring shortly after being unblocked [91] (Nov 2010)
• Images tagged for possible copyright infringement [92] (Jan 2011)
• Vandalism warning [93] (Jan 2011)
• Removing speedy deletion templates from article [94] [95] (Feb 2011)
• Article edit warring [96] (Mar 2011)
• Images tagged for possible copyright infringement [97] [98] (Apr 2011)
• Improper talk page usage [99] (Apr 2011)
• Multiple image uploads with follow-on re uploads, all with seemingly fraudulent licensing tags [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] (May 2011)
• Discussion about removing deletion tags [118] (May 2011)
• Discussion on disruptive editing [119] (May 2011)
• Article edit warring [120] (Jun 2011)
• Improper page moves without consensus [121] (Jun 2011)
• Category edit warring [122] (Jun 2011)
• Category edit warring [123] (Jul 2011)
• Article edit warring [124] (Jul 2011)
• Mass category blanking and attempted deletion without discussion [125] [126]
• Seemingly uploading an image with a false licensing tag [127] (Oct 2011)
• Re-adding speedy delete template to redirected article [128] (Oct 2011)
• Creating a branch category without consensus or discussion (subsequently deleted) - (Nov 2011)
• Seemingly uploading an image with a false licensing tag [129] (Nov 2011)

-OberRanks (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this seems to be a disruptive editor suffering from a lack of competence. I'm partial to a temporary block - I'm not an advocate of issuing blocks as punishment, but it's clear that warnings aren't doing anything in this case. m.o.p 04:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a final, final warning here. Thanks a thousandfold for your effort and for reporting this to us, OberRanks - we'll handle it from here. If you have any concerns at all, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They would also benefit from some encouragement to use the talk pages more. I perused the last 3000 edits and there are barely a handful of edits to talk pages and some are just notices of page moves, so real talk page discussion is probably countable on one hand. --Blackmane (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Main issue is that the user doesn't appear to know or care that what they are doing is disruptive to the site. Hoops has been offered a mentor on more than one occasion and has never shown any interest in this - in fact has never even responded to inquiries about it. Certainly willing to entertain a final chance, though, but chances are probably nothing will improve due to the editor's own lack of interest in the whole situation and a refusal to even acknowledge that a situation even exists. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Robert Moore

Looks like this user has had an AN/I in the past (in October 2010), but from what I can tell, it didn't help any. This is basically to bring up the same things that were done back then, but I'll repeat them anyway. User also refuses to format references correctly, even after my request on his talk page, and it's getting extremely tedious to go through and correct them all. There are also no edit summaries to provide any explanation (a quick search reveals that the only edit summaries he has ever used are when moving a page, using the summary "Title change"). It looks to me like these have been continuous things (as evident here), and the user doesn't seem to ever respond to anyone (except one notable case when he was blocked for two weeks). I hate that it had to come to this, but it's clear that talk page messages will not get through, so I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with using <ref>...</ref> ... that's what I use. Of course, using Twitter as a ref, that's far more offensive in my mind, but it's not just him doing that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The {{cite web}} template is what I was referring to. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But what exactly is the problem? That he won't use {{cite web}} as per your insistence? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes (though I just now found out here that it's not required, as I previously thought it was). However, my other problems still remain: the user has never responded to anyone and refuses to use edit summaries. When other users attempt to make contact, we are simply ignored. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much an admin can do for an editor who refuses to discuss unless he's being disruptive which this guy doesn't appear to be doing. N^oformation ^Talk 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Found something on an Arbcom diff

I'm not sure this is really where it should be, and I'm not sure who's behind it, but I was going through the history on the new BCD ArbComm case's evidence (trying to catch up on it), and found what looks like some sort of weird-ass template vandalism on this diff. I'm sure Masem wasn't involved in making it, and the diffs around it are just fine, but given what I'm getting on my screen when I opened that diff, I thought I should notify somebody. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's caused by someone (i.e Masem) using {{User:Username}} when they should link with square brackets instead. Using the curly jobbies transcludes the userpage into the page being edited. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• He fixed it next edit by changing the : to a |. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Guess I learn something new about WP every day! Even when I'm trying to avoid it... rdfox 76 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the certified idiot gif is on Hammersoft's userpage. He also managed to transclude Tristessa's userpage. That's the sort of thing I would do :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a great example of why the "show preview" button is such a Good Thing. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: That's why we preview, kids. Not that I haven't done the same damn thing, myself... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Kumkwat

Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding information concerning the relationship between Phil Collins and Dana Tyler and an RfC was filed (see request for comment). Today, after being given a final warning on his talk page four days ago by Srobak (talk · contribs) and Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the user has continued to readd the same information. ([130], [131]). I am alerting the community of what has happened, and I hope this is not excessive. What is the best way to handle this situation? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been warned about edit-warring and this issue a dozen times - given their continued perseverance, I've rewarded them with an indefinite block. There are some good contributions in there, but they're effectively voided by the disruption. They've still got talk page access if they want to appeal. m.o.p 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User Barsoomian

I really don't have the time to spend on this, but Barsoomian is getting a little out of hand. I think I need someone with more experience than I give the guy/gal a heads up as to what passes for civility in Wikipedia, because I've been dealing with repeated personal attacks, bad faith accusations and tendentious OWNership issues. I've been keeping my cool, but the user has been repeatedly posting on my user talk page after asking me to stay off his. Quick backstory (sans content issues): I started editing New Amsterdam (TV series), removing some points of OR and SYN (1). Another user, MJBurrage reverted, and I thinking that the user had made a mistake, contacted him about it a few days later(2). For whatever reason, he didn't get back to me, so I went ahead and reverted it back, 2 days later(3). Barsoomian then reverted, suggesting that I use the talk page to convince people, which I did.
This is where everything went downhill. Almost from the get-go, Barsoomian presumed I was out to gut "his" article, and went on the attack:

• 4 - "pedantry", "If you can't be bothered to work through the details", "pushy", "I will revert any wholesale deletion you make on the trivial grounds you have raised"
• 5 - "could you be more dismissive, and rude if you tried?"
• 6 - "your screeds", ""

The list goes on and on, but it's more of a complete skewing of my words and an overwhelming trollish behavior on the part of Barsoomian than any given comment. Its all a snide grouping of sniping attacks, and it presents a toxic environment to work within. I have remained pretty damn civil, considering(7, 8, 9, 10) without even a hint of effect. If anything, Barsoomian's behavior has ballooned out of control.
Anyhoo, I initiated an RfC on the content issues, so as to bring in more editors and thus remove the clear anger being shown me by Barsoomian. If he wasn't going to listen to me, maybe he'd listen to others telling him the same thing.
I also sought to follow DR, addressing the conflict at DRN, but Transporter Man closed it, noting on his talk page that conduct issues aren't within the scope of DRN. I really tried to avoid posting the matter here, naively believing that if Barsoomian saw that I was serious enough about his uncivil behavior to take it to DRN, he might calm down. I was of course wrong. He has posted personal attacks on my usertalk, dropping the f-bomb when it suits him (11, 12, "Respond here on your actions or I will find another venue".

I'm tired of this user thinking that he can treat other users this way, simply because they have come to "gut" his private article. MJBurrage has invested more edits in the article, but his behavior has been pretty darn polite, a pleasure to discuss, even if we disagree. Barsoomian has been a nightmare. Maybe I am the bad guy here, but I am not seeing how that's possible. I am thinkig this user decided that the best defense is a good offense. And boy, he's been offensive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I dispute every word of the above. If anyone takes any of it seriously, after reviewing the actual context rather than Sebastian's snippets, please specify below which if any points require a response or explanation and I will do so. I have work to do in real life, so please do not expect an immediate response. Thanks. PS: I had already posted at Wikiquette assistance on a related issue (that was the "another venue" I resorted to after trying to discuss it on his talk page). Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, discovered it had been filed immediately after posting here. Barsoomian's and my respective complaints appear to have been filed within 20 minutes of each other (mine was the latter, though in my defense, I was crafting the complaint here and missed the wikiquette complaint by Barsoomian about something relatively unrelated to this complaint). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LMFTFY: "something DIRECTLY RELATED to this complaint". Barsoomian (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My first recommendation would be that you two discontinue all communication with each other for the time being. I'll talk to you individually and work as a mediator to settle this issue. If one of you says something the other does not agree with, please do not reply to the offending statement. Just let me know if you think your words or actions are being misrepresented and I'll do the rest. Also, please do not make any edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to, especially not to the articles you've already clashed on.

I know it seems a bit much to completely separate you two, but, given that you're both well-spoken and have your wits about yourselves, I feel like any writing one of you produces will serve as a seed for the other's rebuttal.

If you can both agree to this, then we can get started with resolution. If not, I'll take more-traditional avenues of sanctioning. Let me know on my talk page - this thread isn't in the best location for dispute resolution. m.o.p 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Block of Δ by Franamax

Franamax has blocked Δ for allegedly "Violating ArbCom motion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2". This ArbCom motion bars Δ from "making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed." The supposed violation is here, where Δ had the audacity to inform Hammersoft of changes to he made to a tool that assists with NFCC checking, which Δ maintains. The edit is not enforcing the NFCC policy in any way. All he did was inform a regular user of his tool of changes he made. He did not remove an non-free image, warn a user about NFCC policy, or otherwise editing a non-free image. There is no violation of his restrictions here. I believe this is a bad block, and it should be overturned. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreed, and I have unblocked Δ. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, please tell me you didn't unilaterally overturn an AEBLOCK.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look, at Δ's talk page, there is a significant amount of opposition to the block. I do not believe that is unilateral. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He did. On the other hand, it was not well-marked as such and there were five administrators on Delta's talk page that had already called the block a poor one. It may not have followed proper procedure, but had this discussion taken place here, that easily would have been consensus to unblock. NW (Talk) 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked over the details of the incident and firmly believe that the block should not have been imposed (not that it was imposed in bad faith - merely an (understandable, given Δ's history) overreaction). My opinion was that the consensus, growing, is that Δ did not violate the terms of their enforcement - perhaps it's skirting close to the line, but not over it. If I'm wrong about the consensus, however, I'm open to trouting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"I'm blocking you because you violated an ARBCOM restriction" isn't well-marked, NW? And Bushranger, the instructions are clear that the consensus for unblock needs to be formed on a neutral noticeboard, not the blocked editors talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excpet he did clearly did not violate it. However, I'll accept a {{trout}}, steer clear of AE in the future, and not admin when sleepy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Not every block that claims to be an AEblock is one. This one wasn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. It may very well have been a mistaken AE block, but it was a block imposed to deal with a perceived violation of an Arbcom restriction. The instructions at WP:AEBLOCK are quite clear on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If it had been {{Uw-aeblock}} properly tagged, I would not have touched it with a 10-foot pole, whether or not it was actually a violation. It was not properly tagged however, and my (admittedly tired) brain didn't completely process that it was anything other than a normal block due to the fact the 'stop sign' of ArbCom wasn't there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no AE enforcement template. I remarked about this at Bushranger's talk. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K, that's completely irrelevant as to whether it was an AE block or not. The instructions don't call for a template, just that it be identified as an AE block. The template is a convenience. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The template contains a serious warning to any admin not to overturn an AE enforcement block. As such it is an important disincentive for any admin to overturn the block. In its absence at least accidental overturns can happen. Bushranger has admitted that he would not have overturned the block if the template were there. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have alerted my amittedly-tired brain to stop before hitting the unblock button automatically upon seeing a clearly bad block (bad in terms of the block, not faith). I'm probably going to self-impose a rule of never unblocking, period, after this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Honest mistakes aren't really problems.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(after e/c after e/c's) WTF?? Where wasn't I clear that I was enforcing an ArbCom motion? Where did the unblocking admin discuss the issue with me? Where was the consenus discussion at a noticeboard? Second-mover advantage indeed. Post e/c - Bushranger, when did the red stop sign become the signal? Will you reinstate the block pending discussion? Franamax (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was using the stop sign as metaphor for the AE template. If another admin believes the block should be reimposed pending discussion I will not wheel-war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Face it, Bushranger: you should be de-sysopped forthwith. You made a possible "mistake", which is unacceptable (as admins are perfect incarnations of editors, and naturally incapable of any error). After you are stripped of your adminship, you are free to re-apply and fail RfA for no good reason whatsoever. Doc talk 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Franamax, considering that only you and SarekOfVulcan think this block was appropriate, why should he be reblocked? There was no violation of the ArbCom restrictions, even broadly constructed. @Doc9871, Franamax should also be desysopped for making a bad block which clearly didn't violate Beta's restrictions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I _do_ think the block was appropriate, but I don't think it was clearly _in_appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so under the AE rules, he could not be unblocked, which is exactly the problem with claiming that a block is an AE block when in fact it isn't. Count Iblis (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. He can't be unblocked "except...following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So all an admin has to do is block Beta claiming it is because of an ArbCom editing restriction, and presto, Beta stays blocked until the community argues it out. Last time this happened, he served the full 48 hour time period because the discussion took so long to decide it was a bad block. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Even worse, the block would not be overturned, even in this moot way. What Sarek says is true but lookijg at the discussion below, we can see that there isn't the sort of super strong consensus needed to overturn an AE block. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of even discussing whether the block was appropriate? It's been undone, anything else will be a wheel war. Immediate unblocking with no discussion just puts it over on me to plead my case - that's not what an enforcement block is supposed to be about.. If the edit didn't concern enforcement of NFCC, what did it concern? (And Iblis, following my temporary network outage, I stated it ss an AE block, where was the noticeboard discussion? Franamax (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest, what happened was this: I saw the post here with the diff about the questionable edit, went to Δ's user page, scanned the discussion there, saw what appeared to be a bad-block consensus, and unblocked via the requesting-unblock template (which shouldn't be used in AEBLOCK cases I guess, but that's another kettle of trout). Due to the fact the AEBLOCK template was missing, it couldn't catch my eye as I looked over the discussion to say "this is an AEBLOCK", not "this is a block because you're restricted" - IIRC there are restrictions from methods other than AE, if I'm wrong about that I'll take another trout - and thus my action. I'll freely admit I'm tired (I don't get much sleep for a variety of reasons I won't go into here) and if I wasn't tired I would have (and should have) spotted the mention of ArbCom, but I didn't. Hence, no more unblocking for me in order to avoid any future sleepy mistakes, and I'll take the heat - and the trout - here for my hasty action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, there is an indication here that you are simply working too fast these days. I saw that DYK talk post sandwiched between several of mine, and in checking your diffs in that time period, I see you did have around 50 edits that hour, several of them on issues requiring significant time to review, that does seem to be your pattern, you did apparently spend less than 5 minutes on that DYK review, and the citation for the hook you verified did in fact have a 404 error due to a typo, so it doesn't appear you could have verified the hook from the citation given. This incident, that DYK review, and your references to not getting much sleep is a long way of saying that perhaps you might consider slowing down lest burnout becomes an issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did check the dates there - I'm not sure what happened. But you are right, I do need to take a deep breath and slow down. I should probably unwatch the "admin pages" (AN/I, UAA, AIV) for a couple of days and focus solely on content, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have verified dates from a link that went nowhere because the typo in the citation caused it to return a 404 error, but how about if you unwatch the admin pages to take a breather, and I'll unwatch the DYK pages for same :) Seems that neither is good for either of us ... now to sleep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the section below as of this time, and the other talk pages etc, I am reasonably convinced that a consensus now exists that the AE block was not good / not consensus supported, though in good faith and with reasonable evidence and judgement at the time.

Though the AEBLOCK protocol requires that admins not unblock until such a consensus exists, given the subsequent discussion and Bushranger's open and cooperative responses, I think that minnow I left on his page is about the extent of the necessary admin response at this time. The rule is IMHO better served by everyone recognizing it and agreeing not to bend it again than anything else anyone could do.

Go to bed, Bushranger 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, I will note in passing that Franamax could have avoided this mess if he had instead gone through WP:AE. This wasn't an emergency situation; the only reason for the block was to firmly slap Delta's wrists and generate a log entry for a (perceived) violation of his editing restrictions, and that purpose could have equally well been served if the block had followed three hours of discussion instead of preceded it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Franamax should have consulted a neutral admin, perhaps one with AE experience, instead of blocking an editor that he/she holds opinions about. If I had just looked at their editing history and seen no comments / neutral comments regarding delta, or extensive AE-related block experience, I would not make the above statement. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Δ violate the restriction

• No Informing an administratoreditor about a change to a report that they have used in the past is not NFCC Enforcement. Even if the topic ban extends to advocacy of of NFCC Enforcement, which no reasonable interpretation of the sanction would suggest, contacting an Admineditor already known for NFCC Enforcement is not even advocacy. This whole discussion is ridiculous and Δ should not have been blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 05:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, do you mean Hammersoft as the ontactee? Hammersoft is not an admin. Franamax (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected my statement, though it doesn't change the equation much. Monty₈₄₅ 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No there was no violation of his restrictions, per my comments above. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No I don't believe so. This seems like a keyword block: Delta mentioned something about NFCC in a post to another user's talk page, and the block came down semi-automatically without any thought apparently given to context. I don't see where anyone could see that he made any attempt or workaround or gamed the system in any way to break his AE restriction. --Jayron32 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a good spit on my last 2 hours here, semi-automatic, no thought to context. Me who has never used a user warning template and has given all messages by hand, and who has been involved in the calm and rational side of this long-running problem. Once again, if the edit was not to do with NFCC enforcement, then what was it about? It provided a list of targets for NFCC enforcement scrutiny, can we agree on that? What was it's other purpose? Franamax (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with Jayron - the block was fully good-faith, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said Franamax did it spitefully or had ill-intent, the block was clearly in good faith. Faith =/= execution, and in this case I think it is clear that this is a poorly executed block. I don't think Franamax meant to make a bad block, so I don't think Franamax acted in bad faith. Acting in good faith is no guarantee of producing good outcome. My reading of this situation is that Delta made no obvious attempt to enforce NFCC or to encourage anyone else to enforce NFCC, and that the only way that I could conceive of Franamax having interpreted the situation that way would be to prevent Delta from even mentioning the concept of NFCC at all, in any way, and I don't think that his editing restrictions go that far. I just don't. You'll not count me as someone in Delta's camp (you can check through the history here, I have never come to his "defense" and am a frequent critic of his behavior). However, in my opinion the facts of this case do not support a block. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Jayron, read the diff: "the check link goes to the removal tool" - in context, how is that not directly related to NFCC enforcement? At current reading, the target page has nb links at all, so you'll just have to interpret I suppose. What elsa do you think a "removal tool" could mean in this context? Review the extensive history, this report had been mentioned extensively on-wiki, not least in Beta's own edits, look for "this page has been identified as having excessive use of non-free images" or the like. A group of editors uses this report to launch NFCC battles, and it looks like currency is still at the top, didn't that one get fought into the ground a while ago? Beta can continue their proxy war off-wiki, but not here where they are topic banned. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At which file and/or article did Betacommand enforce the NFCC policy? Which file did he tell Hammersoft to delete, or article to check? If you can point me to the place where he actually enforces the policy, I'll reconsider my objections to the block. He doesn't tell Hammersoft where to apply the "removal tool", so he makes no actual statements regarding enforcing anything. Again, that is how I read the situation. You are a reasonable person. I am a reasonable person. Reasonable people disagree. It happens, it's not the first time it has happened in my life. I am willing to accept that you and I read the situation differently, I have access to the talk pages, diffs, and whatnot as well as you do, and you're not going to convince me that what has been cited so far amounts to a violation of his restrictions, just as I am not going to convince you that it was not. I'm not particularly interested in convincing you, Franamax, of anything. I am just giving my own, personal understanding of the situation. If you have more evidence that has not been presented yet, I'd love to see it so I can re-evaluate my understanding. But telling me that I can't read the existing evidence how I think it should be read isn't going to get us very far. I'm not telling you to change what you believe, and I don't expect you to tell me the same. --Jayron32 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "A group of editors uses this report to launch NFCC battles"??. If you're that clueless about what that report is for (and clearly assuming bad faith of a number of editors, including myself), not to mention viewing enforcing Foundation policy as WP:BATTLE, you certainly shouldn't be blocking Δ as you're not a neutral admin on an NFCC sanction (just as I wouldn't unblock him). I wonder if this incident shouldn't be rolled into the RFAR? Black Kite (t) 11:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure. The diff cited in the block made it look like he was saying "Hey, I just changed my tool to make it easier to remove non-free content", but a) was that an accurate characterization, and b) did it matter because it was on a different site?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the alternative characterization? Beta clearly publicized his off-site tool which is solely designed to enable NFCC enforcement. The sole purpose of the tool is to enable NFCC enforcement, it doesn't also serve up lolcats. I made the block for the on-wiki edit, not the existence of the offsite tool. The entire point of a topic ban is for the editor to exit the topic area completely, that's why it's called a topic ban. Skirting around the edges never achieves that goal. Note too in that disputed diff, "goes to the removal tool" - that doesn't involve NFCC enforcement? Franamax (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Beta is prohibited from making edits that enforce the NFCC. No where in his restrictions is he prohibited from talking about the NFCC, or simply informing a user of changes to a tool that they use. This is common practice for tool developers. You notify regular users of changes. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is perhaps common practice for tool developers who are not under a topic ban on the very area for which they have developed the tool. They are always free to do whatever they want off-wiki (even though it would work out better if they would actually live up to the spirit of a topic ban too, but that's a personal decision). If a topic-banned editor engages with the topic on-wiki, then they are liable to be sanctioned. What part of the edit was not about NFCC enforcement? Franamax (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, the way most people see it, is that the edit was regarding a tool. The tool itself concerns NFCC enforcement; however the edit itself was simply Δ saying "I have modified the tool that other people use for NFCC enforcement". Nowhere in the edit does Delta make any attempt, or even hint at, NFCC enforcement on his part, not even broadly construed. "I modified this Toolserver tool I maintain, here's how I modified it so now it works this way instead of that way". If there is evidence Δ tested the tool this would be completely different, but I haven't seen that. If Hammersoft - or anybody else - had posted on Δ's page asking "hey, the tool you maintain works differently, did you change it?" the interpretation that makes the edit in question a violation would make even his saying "yes" to such a a question a violation, which I don't think anybody believes was the intent of the restriction.

Now, that said, I need to head off for the night. If there is belief that a block is necessary, I will not wheel war, nor consider it wheel waring, if Δ is re-blocked (or blocked for any other reason), regardless of this or any other circumstances. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, but... ArbCom's restriction is on "enforcement of NFCC". To consider telling Hammersoft a change in the format of a automated Toolserver to generate a list of pages to check that have a large # of NFCC images, a script that would have run otherwise if Delta didn't say anything on Hammersoft's page and that Hammersoft was already away of, is far outside the intent of the ArbCom restriction. That said, since ArbCom is reconsidering the whole Delta case, this needs to be added to that case. --06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, and it isn't even close. His restriction is clearly worded "from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed.". That edit was enforcing precisely nothing, it was merely informing another user about a change to a toolserver report which he (and I) already use. The restriction doesn't say "from making any edit that features the letters N, F, C and C in that order". Also, as mentioned above there's no problem overturning it even though it's technically an AE block; WP:AEBLOCK clearly says "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy". Since the block wasn't pursuant to any current remedy, reversing it is OK; though I might have waited for a consensus to (inevitably) occur here rather than at Δ's talkpage. Black Kite (t) 11:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Δ is restricted from enforcing NFCC. He is not restricted from the entire NFCC topic. Bushranger was absolutely correct in removing the block, even if he used a little WP:IAR in the process. We all know per WP:Δ that any discussion of Δ must take way too long, must waste far too much time, and must call for desysops of any admins involved. So far we already have all that. Bad block, good unblock, good faith by all parties involved, move on, nothing more to see or do. N419BH 11:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, I thought it was good faith myself until I read Franamax's opinion of the NFCC warning report above. Black Kite (t) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. Modifying a page that lets others enforce NFCC is not enforcing NFCC. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Δ is clearly in the wrong by continuing to work on NFCC enforcement despite the topic ban. But there is an open arbcom case against Δ so they can sort it out. For comparison, if someone says "Don't talk to my daughter ever again", and you start having other people carry notes to her instead, the defense "but I wasn't talking to her" isn't going to work if the notes get discovered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Perhaps the AE sanction should have been worded correctly, then, so that (a) it would have been clear exactly what the boundaries were, and (b) it wouldn't give people excuses to block Δ based on their reading of the sanction. Having said that, consensus does seem to be fairly clear here. Black Kite (t) 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree there is clear consensus here. The wording of the sanction needs to be improved. This is typical of Δ: he relies on ambiguous wording to convince others to enable his edits. But since there is already an arbcom case, hopefully they will resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Works both ways though; if wording is unclear, it gives people the excuse to block Δ on the basis that "I believe the restriction means X", when others may disagree. Black Kite (t) 15:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - Good lord, we just had a discussion about his topic ban one or two weeks ago. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. (Note that I was one of the admins who commented on Delta's talk page in support of an unblock.) Franamax's interpretation of the ArbCom's remedy is mistaken, though I'm sure it is entirely in good faith. In a number of places in these discussions (here, on Delta's talk page, and on his own talk page) he has alluded to a 'topic ban on NFCC enforcement' or some similar formulation. If that were the motion passed by ArbCom, Delta would likely be in violation of a broadly construed remedy. However, the actual remedy passed by the ArbCom is rather different, specifically barring Delta from "...making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". I'm somewhat disappointed that Franamax keeps repeating his misstatement of Delta's actual restriction, because Franamax's inadvertent rewording appreciably broadens the scope of Delta's sanction and carries it beyond the limitations imposed by the ArbCom. If the ArbCom had intended Delta to be barred from uttering the words 'NFCC' on-wiki, they could easily have done so with a simple topic ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. If Δ is being blocked for mentioning the NFCC, then it's a bad block - he did nothing to enforce the NFCC, and thus did not violate the restriction. If Δ is being blocked because he made changes to the tool on the toolserver, then it's a bad block - nothing occured on-wiki, and the block does nothing whatsoever to prevent harm to the project. Note also that this block does not extend to Toolserver. No question about good faith on the part of the blocking admin (or the unblocking one), but I'm surprised to see it here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  We have precedent that says otherwise, in the form of handling process that are disrupted via off-wiki activity, like canvassing and the such. Someone caught repeatedly off-site canvassing would be blocked for the disruption caused here. If his work off-site is contributing to enforcement on-wiki, well it's not a great stretch. That said, as long as he's not driving the tools directly, I don't have an issue with him building it off-site. I'm just saying that one could easily making a connection there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. And had the block been specifically for the off-wiki activity, that's a different can of worms. But the block here specifically and clearly noted that the off-wiki actions were out-of-bounds in so far as these restrictions were concerned. What we're left with was the single on-wiki comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  In the end this could all have been avoided if Franamax had brought the issue here, and asked whether people thought it was a breach of sanctions. Given the same response as we have here, Δ wouldn't have been blocked and there wouldn't have been this dramah. Fine, if it's an unambiguous breach of sanctions, block first - I would myself, and my position on Δ is well known - and ask questions later, but this clearly wasn't if you read the wording of the sanction and don't try to read in to it a meaning that isn't there. Black Kite (t) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No per many of the above. There is no topic ban in place. Franamax had an opportunity to discuss whether the sanctions were violated, but didn't take it. Franamax is well aware of debates that arise when Δ is blocked, and could have avoided that by discussion, first at Δ's talk page and then if not satisfactory to him, here. Franamax failed to do that. The result is instead of bringing benefit to the project, which is the intent of a block, he brought heat to the project. I'm not suggesting that consensus needs to form before Δ is blocked, but a block that is so obviously borderline should have been carefully considered with input from others before being performed. That opportunity was not taken by Franamax, and the burden of this latest debate lies squarely on his shoulders. A review of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Blocks_should_be_preventative is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - Delta has a tool that assists other people in NFCC enforcement, meaning other people are the ones who have to make the call as to whether or not each individual image should or should not be acted upon, and other people have to communicate with editors that object to the removal. Delta himself is removed from the decision process, meaning he isn't the one doing the enforcement. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No I'll add to the pile-on, because the block was ill-considered, and an over-reach. There are a number of admins who should refrain from blocking Δ, because at this point I think they lack a certain level of objectivity. Sorry, Franamax, but I think that you are not objective any more regarding this editor, and would suggest you bring further issues regarding him to AN/I before blocking him. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Had Franamax used the AE template, would the block have been overturned?

We already have SarekofVulcan, Crossmr and Carl more or less supporting the block. So, it seems to me that according to the usual AE procedures, Delta would not have the necessary strong consensus for the block to be overturned. This strongly suggests that AE needs an extra step. We should make it compulsory for an Admin to first place a notification at the AE board where a consensus has to arise that AE applies.

The Admin can block the editor immediately, but that block won't have an AE status unless it is agreed on the AE board that AE applies. If not, a consensus is needed for the block to remain in place. If AE applies, then a consensus is needed to overturn the block (if AE applies then usually there must already have been an infraction of an ArbCom sanction, but you can still imagine that a consensus could arise that the block is too harsh and that a warning would be better). Count Iblis (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been overturned, based on the literal wording of the present topic ban. At the same time, I find the block justified, as Δ is flouting the purpose of the ban by continuing to do these things. To resolve the contradiction between those sentences, I would say the language of the topic ban needs to be adjusted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it up at the ongoing ArbCom case would be a better idea then trying to tighten/adjust it here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have absolutely no idea how AE appeals actually work. T. Canens (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no block is currently in place, editors who feel that a block is necessary could make a new complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and a discussion could be held there with full ceremony. Though this could be done and would be a proper way of handling the situation, I encourage people to let the matter go unless they are sure that this is a significant instance of an ongoing problem. An AE discussion might lead to more thorough study of the evidence. But if the editors in this thread are representative of the general opinion, it sounds like the most likely outcome at AE would be no action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is idiotic. The block was wrong and it's been overturned. What else is there to talk about? causa sui (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jwmarriottjkt

Please could an admin have a friendly word with Special:Contributions/Jwmarriottjkt about COI (already done), minor edits, the username policy and most of all, creatively re-imagining history to detach a company from the attacks on its facilities. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Activity at Teen Mania Ministries

There's been some frantic editing by anons, an SPA, and various others at Teen Mania Ministries today. What seems to have happened is that MSNBC made a documentary about the organization, and ran it last Sunday. Teen Mania Ministries is not pleased. Ron Luce, the leader, is engaged in spin control efforts, which may have spilled over into Wikipedia. I rolled back some of the changes, but the article could use a few more eyes on it until things quiet down. See Talk:Teen Mania Ministries for links to recent press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge . . .

No objection having been raised to a merge atTalk:Rick_J._Caruso, could it kindly be accomplished? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging articles does not require administrator action; any editor can do it. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger. Bencherlite^Talk 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Large backlog cleared but may need repopulating

After finding a copyvio that wasn't picked up in the article wizard creation review process, I raised it with the reviewer (User:Wilhelmina Will) on their talk page and during that discussion realised that they had cleared thousands of articles from various 'new articles created via the Article Wizard' categories. About 7000 apparently. There are at least two where problems were not picked up (see user's talk page) and there are likely more as the reviewer explicitly stated that they 'didn't realize you're supposed to check for copyright when reviewing these pages'. I suggested that the articles be placed back in the queue for reviewing, but the reviewer wants to do it themselves. I think the articles (a list could be generated from the reviewer's contributions) should be placed back in the backlog queue for proper reviewing, as I think 7000 is too much for one person to attempt to do on their own (I realise this is in part because CorenSearchBot has been down for some time). What is the best thing to do here? The discussion so far is here (version at time of writing). Further additions to that user talk page discussion are here (will get archived at some point). I'm posting here, as I think urgent action is needed to at the least have a tag on these articles that didn't get reviewed for potential copyright problems. The article creation review backlogs cleared by Wilhelmina Will can be seen at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I edit conflicted with Wilhelmina Will here while replying and notifying about this thread. She now agrees that it is better to put those articles back in a review queue. Could someone help out from here with what is needed? Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the item that drew my attention to this, articles cleared by this editor need to be checked not just for copyvio but for issues like promotional tone and notability. I guess putting them back in the queue will achieve that, but they shouldn't be treated as a special case to be checked for copyvio only. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Going through her deleted contributions, she also reviewed article that were subsequently speedy deleted as (from a short check) G4 (repost), G10 (attack page), many A7s, and even an A1 for an article that had as text "KASSIM BAHALI is " and a number of external links. How that one could ever get reviewed is far beyond me. I have to admit that I deleted Brendan Monaghan as a copyvio last month, but forgot to follow this up then, which could have given this problem more attention sooner. Anyway, from what I see, it seems as if she is not suited to be an article reviewer and should cease doing this, at least for a while, until a firmer graps of our policies is shown. Fram (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As some tools automatically mark as reviewed any article nominated for deletion, in your examples, were they marked reviewed and then later tagged for deletion by someone else? Monty₈₄₅ 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In all these examples, this involves Wilhelmina Will removing the "new unreviewed article" template, either with or without the edit summary "reviewed", and without nominating it for deletion. Kassim Bahali, Brian O'Kelly (a BLPPROD which she reviewed(!), William J. Gladden (another unsourced BLP she reviewed), ... Articles that still remain and that never should have been tagged as reviewed include e.g. Ricardo Melendez. Fram (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)