Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thumperward (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 25 April 2012 (→‎Admin Attention on MMA: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    User promoting a movement

    Per community consensus, 완젬스 is hereby topic banned from the subject of Occupy Wall Street, broadly construed. Note that this topic ban applies to all namespaces (including talkspaces and the Wikiproject page). Since only one participant mentioned any time frame, I am making the topic ban indefinite. By analogy to WP:STANDARDOFFER, 완젬스 may ask the community for a repeal of this ban after showing six months of productive editing outside of this topic area here or on another Wikimedia project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is about 6 months old. In that time he has developed a history of pointing out his real-life ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement and furthermore prodding discussions subtly over to addressing how best to preserve its interests, which often toy with the boundaries of using Wikipedia inappropriately to promote the movement. He also addresses individuals who appear supportive of the movement on their talk pages to announce his shared allegiance, and attempted to determine my own allegiances by asking me outright.

    This latest instance, linked in the diff above, made the most troubling statement yet: that he is attempting to keep content out of the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article because it would hurt the movement, while describing his use of policy-based arguments as a cover for that vested interest. I replied noting my suspicion that he was actually here to make OWS look bad, as his behavior is so blatantly nefarious that it seems like he wants to create evidence that OWS' representation on Wikipedia is heavily COI-influenced.

    Whether 완젬스 does seek to create that allusion or if he's actually attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the movement (the latter seems doubtful to me), it doesn't seem to matter much. Either way his behavior appears to be of enough concern to address here. I'm proposing a topic ban for this user, and the IP account he apparently identifies with, from editing any OWS-related articles and talk pages, and from discussing OWS-related topics on any other page. Equazcion (talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    This quote from the diff you provided certainly indicates an agenda being pushed: " It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do". If it is the right thing to do after 11/6/2012, it is the right thing to do now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been clear to me that 완젬스 is a False flag operative for some time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be undoing that redirect on his talk page, in preparation for what I smell to be a block. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the smell of blocks in the morning! Sorry obligatory reference. :P I am curious why user preferred a Korean username. User seems to be entirely contributing to very high profile current events (Occupy Wall Street (and related articles), Occupy Oakland, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Madigan Army Medical Center (correlates with Panjwai shooting spree)). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm unsure, but the actual reason for the removal is to move that talkpage onto his. He just copy-and-paste moved it there, but I intend to legitimately move it once the speedy tag is serviced. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been having many headbutts with Equazcion for quite some time. I'm feeling very frustrated and extremely agitated today. It's definitely been a blowup & I feel like Equazcion has pushed my buttons and made me react in such a way that is detrimental to myself. I kindly ask if we can let this de-escalate first? This stuff happened within an hour ago, and I'm already stressing out and feeling like Equazcion is stressing my nerves. I never felt this way due to Wikipedia before--it's like hearing bad news over the phone, like you're fired or a family member has been seriously injured. I'm really agitated and I hope we can try WP:Mediation or WP:RFC where I don't feel this much urgency or sense of crisis. The administrator's noticeboard is a very traumatic turn of events, and I am not able to respond well or type well. This really feels hurtful & tortuous. 완젬스 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    Note that the comment I pointed out and the discussion he started today came before my addressing him -- my statements only came after them in reply. I'm not sure how they could've resulted from me "pushing his buttons". Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    I have escalated the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/완젬스. I think this is a more organized campaign that needs a much closer look. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Good idea -- though a topic ban for this user seems appropriate either way, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 21:08, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    Guys, please remember that a block is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I am very, very sorry for being tilted today. I clearly behaved in a way that was reflective of a poor emotional state. I got infuriated by an off-wiki argument with another facebook user about George Zimmerman crowding out the media coverage. He unfriended me, blocked me, and logged off. I felt so conceited because of the seriousness of how hard it hit me. I smoked a couple cigarettes and I'm feeling better now. I wish to apologize to equazcion and request for this ANI to be transferred to Mediation, dispute resolution, rfc, or a less intensive process. I have full respect for the admins here at Wikipedia, and I want those of you to know I don't intend to cause trouble. If I could curl up into my hole and disappear, I would gladly do so. I want to reply but I don't know what to address? Yes, April 20th was a shameful day for me. I got careless, reckless, and cynical. I've come to realize while smoking the cigarettes that what happened to me on facebook wasn't that bad after all, and I should not jeopardize my standing as a welcomed editor (see my talk page & edit history before Apr 20th) nor should I ever take my status here for granted. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and I hope you guys sincerely believe me that I share the same sense of community here. I've been relatively inactive since March (and looking at my own edit history--my edits dropped off right when I participated constructively in the Trayvon Martin article). I'm a very passionate editor and George Zimmerman becoming a free man again today lead to a furious uproar within me about him being free again, and the peaceful solitude I had from April 13th (when he got arrested) until today (when he was bailed out) took a toll on me greater than I could deal with. It's so hard for me to be powerless and watch the news cycle as it happens. For that, I owe Equaczion an apology, and I humbly request from the admins if I can be allowed another venue to deal with this matter. I wish to proceed but it might be seen as a bad faith apology or be seen as preemptive if I do not first share with all of you how I feel about this, and how I beg of it to be resolved. There's no need to block me unless you think I'll re-engage on the occupy article or its talk page. I just want to apologize, log out of Wikipedia for the weekend, have another cigarette, take my dog on a walk, and crawl up into a ball and go to sleep, so that when I wake up, I can have closure on this process and await a more subdued process such as WP:DR or WP:M or WP:RFC or any other recommendation you have for me. Everybody has that one day in their Wikipedia career that they wish they could take back, and now all I can do is refrain myself from the article voluntarily, give my apologies to equaczion, and deal with the decision that is handed down to me here. I beg for any mercy or compassion because I'm just so distraught, agitated, and powerless. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue is hardly confined to today's events, and the topic ban I'm suggesting is to prevent COI or false flag damage, not to punish. Equazcion (talk) 21:30, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Having a bias or COI does not merit what you are recommending. The latter accusations (false flag) are equally baseless as the SPI accusation. Take off your hater-boots and quit kicking a guy when he's down. I've been through enough today and I just want this feeling to go away. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've followed the Occupy articles since last fall, particularly the OWS one, and at the time I just thought User:완젬스 was overly eager to support the cause here. He's been warned for months by various editors not to let his pro-OWS views get in the way of contributing, yet he ignores them and seems to have gotten more brazen. Now that I read Equazcion's suspicion about his covert intentions, confirmed by Hipocrite, I have to say in hindsight his posts make more sense in that light. El duderino (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why I said Equaczion was "pushing my buttons" to make me defend such an indefensible position. I volunteer on the main OWS facebook page, and I was having a very frustrated day (even calling people in the movement "occutards" which I have never done before today). There are two factions within OWS. I am in the pro-Obama faction, and I am very frustrated at the occupiers who throw around antisemitic wall posts (which I have to constantly monitor and police) and create antisemitic wall posts (which if I or someone doesn't take them down in 15 minutes, they spread like wildfire) (i.e. see here) because the "occutards" are not helping Obama and are only making OWS look antisemitic. (this pic specifically) Basically within OWS there are a handful of people who give everyone a bad name, and don't know the purpose of the movement is to help democratic politicians in the same way that the tea party helped republican politicians. The idiots I have to deal with day-in and day-out on facebook are antisemitic, lazy, self-entitled, sheep. They do as much damage as the Occupy Oakland black-block guys who broke into city hall and destroyed a children's art exhibit. I'm a "starbucks liberal" and want a clean, violence-free, antisemitism-free, stigma-free occupy movement. I have immense frustration due to our bad apples within OWS who moronically post antisemitic wall photos attributed to Occupy Wall Street, and for that reason, I can be both for Occupy Wall Street (such as back in 2011 during our rosy days) and be cynical/jaded in having to deal with the punks who give our movement a bad name with antisemitic artwork. Thanks for the first part of your statement because if I were false-flag, then I would only be cancelling myself out. (i.e. erasing the positive work I did last year by my frustrations today or alternatively, last year was a setup for me to be a "false flag" on a scarce handful of days in 2012). Either way, my explanation today is totally in line with all my "venting posts" earlier today. It started with an argument about OWS competing for media coverage against America's obsession with George Zimmerman, and me chastising people who don't realize when our coverage is diminished, then the media's tendency will be to over-report the negative stuff (like antisemitic artwork) and under-report our May 1st General Strike and the 99% spring. I apologize so much but back in 2011, I was "new" in the facebook leadership hierarchy, and since 2012 I have been promoted due to being Korean, since all the high-ranking online moderators were white males. If you want the simplest explanation--just look to my stress level and my facebook promotion. That is the truth of why I'm more cynical/jaded in 2012 about the occupy movement (because I have to constantly deal with the bad apples who make violent/antisemitic/anarchist comments on FB wall) compared to last year when those people who are overworked, overstressed (like I am today) saw me as a gullible fool who would happily volunteer for the extra drama, extra headaches, and extra stress.
    My promotion through the OWS channels in facebook has shed light on why I'd try to recruit someone gullible, starry-eyed, and optimistic about the movement too. They'll do free work if you promote them to sysop--and 4 months later, they become tired, frustrated, and disillusioned. (I'm sure becoming an admin at wikipedia has that same "reality check" 6 months later when you wonder why you wanted to become an admin, ever...) That's the real reason why my attitude has evolved. It isn't some sort of complex, pre-engineered plan to hurt the movement. If I could, I would denigrate the saboteurs within OWS who draw negative attention to our limited prime time media coverage through actions including, but not limited to: drug use, violence, antisemitism, etc... How could these people not know better? It's like the idiots who took picture of a suicide bomber's remains and figured it wouldn't hurt the image of our military here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're here to discuss your behavior on the wiki. These walls of text describing internal supposed OWS issues really have no bearing on this discussion, and only serve to muddy the water. I'd invite an uninvolved party to consider collapsing them. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Do you still believe in the assertion of false flag? (because the long argument was to show you an alternative explanation of why my attitude in 2011 is different than 2012--the "promotion" I received in the facebook group directly correlates with the stress level of an admin verses the stress level of a regular person). If you will drop your false-flag accusation (and let us civilly discuss bias/coi then I'd be happy to) but if you accuse me of bias, coi, false-flag, and spi, then you will deservedly receive a lengthy response. You're desperate to nail me with anything--just like I described multiple ways to scuttle a maneuver. You are trying to hang me by 4 different ropes. I have apologized. I have explained myself. Please let us wait for the SPI review to take its course rather than your "hater boots" trying their best to engage in unfriendly jesting. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After skimming through a bunch of stuff in this users contribs, it's blatantly obvious to me that 완젬스 has a conflict of interest, in that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. 완젬스 is instead here to ensure that the OWS movement is represented in a positive light on Wikipedia, and so that the user can receive personal recognition for making that happen, as can be seen by this March 15, 2012 diff. There are other clear indications of the problem on just about all of this user's contributions to date, including some of the statements here in this AN/I thread (or, alternatively, to make OWS look bad, as Equazcion speculates in his opening statement). That being the case, I support a topic ban at the least. (I have a feeling that this person is a sock of someone else, based on some of the comments on their talk page, but this seems worth nailing down regardless... Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for advocacy, after all).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, euphemisms about stress and explaining your ties to a subject do not help you in this case. We only have an interest in seeing that articles remain neutral, without an agenda threatening the integrity of the pages. Explaining your connection to the subject matter and not showing an indication for easing up on your rhetoric concerning these pages only enforces the case for a conflict of interest. I must agree that a topic ban will be prudent for now; please edit Wikipedia, but do not get involved with pages in which you have a personal connection with. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI for user 완젬스

    I will hopefully be cleared by the SPI. Can I please ask user:A_Certain_White_Cat to assume good faith? I've acted humbly, respectfully, and deferentially since it was brought to my attention that I'm here at WP:ANI. I want to preface the investigation by saying that I hope your theory that this is an orchestrated campaign can be challenged if your prediction is incorrect. The only SPI problem individual we ever had on OWS articles was user:CentristFianco here. There has never been an allegation about SPI about me before. The only complaints I've had thrown against me were having a pro-OWS bias, which I try to mitigate by only editing sections of the article which are 100% objective (e.g. funding section). I confidently await for the SPI investigation and I have full confidence that there is no conspiracy theory going on. This is just me having a miserable day that I wish I could "undo" but in life, you make mistakes. I just hope my sincerity and honesty will clear up this regretful mishap. I am deeply sorry for my edits today, and they are completely shameful. However, I would never have multiple accounts because that thwarts the consensus process and makes Wikipedia worse off for everyone. Hopefully, this SPI issue will encourage everyone to go further back in my edits than my most recent 50 (March 28th - April 20th) and I can have learned this painful lesson and--pending the SPI investigation--I can be given back my editing privileges. I will not damage or do harm. I'm simply inexperienced and too thin-skinned to have the discipline and maturity which you admins have; but, I'm much more aware of my weaknesses after today. I stopped myself once the ANI was posted, and I've done no further self-destructive edits. I feel good about my initial reaction and taking 15 minutes outside to re-think. I hope the SPI will cast doubt to the idea that I'm a conspiring misanthrope. My personality is much too timid and anxious for that type of deliberate malice. I hope the SPI gives evidence to my side of the story. 완젬스 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not assuming anything. I am following the evidence. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your patience. I really do want the SPI to show you that I've been honest here in dealing with today's ANI. I don't want this ANI to drag out or waste anyone's time. There are so many trolls, sock puppets, anon vandals, and other garbage you guys gotta deal with here. I hope to just escape unscathed and disappear from your memory banks. I'm not a bad person at all--just having a really, really bad day which I 100% regret at this point. 완젬스 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "This user is about 6 months old" had me thinking "Awwwww, bless! A genius!" Sorry to butt in ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The SPI investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was actually closed as an undue request without being investigated. I don't necessarily disagree, as it was sort of a fishing request to begin with, but I just wanted to clarify. Equazcion (talk) 19:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    Efforts of Equaczion to truncate my posts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&oldid=488412395#ANI_issue Please tell Equaczion to refrain from trying to truncate my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's only at WP:Mediation where the mediator has discretion to truncate/edit other users posts and/or move posts to the talk page. He is canvassing now to find a willing admin who agrees with him, but I stand by my argument that if he accuses me of 4 things (bias, coi, false flag, and spi) then he opens up 4 areas for me to defend myself. Also, he will not wait for the SPI to run its course. He has his "hater boots" and I believe he is acting punitively rather than the original issue. This noticeboard should not be a war of attrition or a battle of who can outmaneuver the other person by him having more experience than me. I consider this issue dormant until the SPI investigation is complete or the SPI accusation is withdrawn. 완젬스 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked one admin (User:The Bushranger) for advice on handling this, and he did not say he disagreed -- he just said he didn't want to read through your long posts to figure out what was going on (which, incidentally, is the issue I'm trying to address with these requests). He advised me to ask someone else, and I did. I'm not canvassing for people who agree with me. Equazcion (talk) 23:44, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    (ec)It is cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting for 4 hours hitting refresh on my own WP:ANI. I am held hostage by him because he is dragging this thing out so unfairly. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I find it unfair that he is so adamant about getting me topic banned based on bias/coi rather than the coi noticeboard or rfc. It's very unnerving and affecting my real life. I'm afraid to take a break because I don't know what he'll do next. This is simmilar in intent to [[SLAPP] lawsuit meant to discourage the other party. He is a veteran editor and I'm barely defending myself from these indefensible accusations. Can somebody tell us whether we should wait until SPI is completed or we should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard such as WP:coi as has been suggested already by an admin? 완젬스 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What's "cruel and unusual" here is trying to slog though your walls of text... I'm half tempted to propose you be blocked just so that the rest of us could discuss this without it being disrupted by dissertations posted by you! Can one of you please restate what the hell the problem here is, succinctly? Sheesh! (And, by the way, the fact that you feel you have to "sit here and hit refresh" tells me that there probably is a real problem here. Just sayin')
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest waiting for the result of the SPI case before investing any further time here. If he's a sock, then that's the end of it. If not, then we can delve into the actual issue. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since 완젬스 seems confident the SPI will come back negative, and SPIs usually take a while, I think it's prudent to try to nip this now rather than attempt to start it up again in the future (whenever the SPI closes, and who ever knows when that will be). Ohms, if you read my initial post, it states the issue and pertinent evidence. 완젬스's defense is rather unclear to me, and I wouldn't try to sum it up anyway since I'm involved. If you take a skim through his large walls of text it should give you an idea. Equazcion (talk) 00:24, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    (ec)Thanks to both of you admins. I've been defending myself for 5 hours and have gone through 10 cigarettes, some red bulls, and plenty of tylenol. If equaczion continues posting in my absence, please let me reserve the chance tomorrow afternoon to defend myself. WP:ANI is a very serious threat to my editing privileges, which mean a lot to me--enough to endure all the consequences to my shameful mistakes and to hopefully grow from this prolonged, embarrassing shakedown. Cordially, 완젬스 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And so these men at ANI,
    dispute it loud and long,
    and seven weeks have gone by
    since I saw this was going wrong

    there will be no satisfaction
    if you take a drastic action
    a little patience and a gentle tone
    will show they're learning on their own

    the little club I have reviewed,
    and can I see the situation,
    that the project would be improved
    if you gave out invitation

    peace and harmony will elude
    if we focus on right and wrong
    instead of working to include
    and we all learn to get along
    Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude. If you're really that stressed out about this, you might want to take a break and do something else for a few days. Or, do some things on this list. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, no kidding. The one thing that's really clear to me here is that this guy needs to relax. Geez. That, and a general cluelessness (which can't be helped by anything but time and experience, but it does provide some insight into possible behavior issues).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely dissuaded by this victim act, but I'll let everyone judge for themselves. Equazcion (talk) 02:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    I believe you mean "persuaded" not "dissuaded". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...as in dissuaded from my assertions/recommendation :) Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    The bottom line is, if he's not socking then he should relax and not worry about it. Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, sock or not, I think a topic ban is in order as his behavior has been problematic, and indicative of either COI or a false-flag operation. After I brought this up, another user thought this might be part of a larger socking scheme -- maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but either way, the issue that brought this here still stands. Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Just say to yourself, "it's just Wikipedia - I should really just relax". - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relaxing is a good idea that is for certain. The other bleeding obvious idea is that if someone is willing to talk things out that we give them a chance to do so in the appropriate less stressful venue. I will tell you right now the problem is not just one editor, BULLSHIT.
    The pursuit of 'someone to blame' is going to cause more problems. If you single out one editor and miss out chastising anyone who had a part, it is going encourage the editors who got away with it to do it all over again. These editors are best left with some guidance and the opportunity to learn how to deal with the problems presented. The group needs someone to keep an eye on them, and I do not mean lurkers. They respond very well to being asked what the problems are, and working through them, I did so before, and it worked well, but I have been distracted and lost interest. Anyone who wants to fix this can just goto the article talkpage and ask, but it would be a LOT BETTER if the brand new wikiproject was to INVITE people to join, where are your invites guys ? is it a private club ? Then the discussion can be held in the clubhouse. RELAX, Relax, relax. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes I do know my poetry is crap and you're welcome to say so. Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand? There's loads of discussion on the talk page, where it's become clear that the user here (no clue how to pronounce a bunch of Korean(?) characters) is either working for OWS and is seeking to "clean up" their articles by removing negative things, or is intentionally trying to portray the OWS movement in a negative light by misbehaving.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Their username more or less translates to "Wan James" Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Penyulap seems to be lumping this in with general conflicts that have arisen at the OWS articles. If he takes a closer look at this user though, I think he'll realize that this is a separate and more pressing issue apart from the usual content tiffs that occur there. Equazcion (talk) 18:29, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    You pronounce it '완젬스', it's easy 완젬스, 완젬스, 완젬스 ! see ? :) I see pressing issues that there is an editor who is RESPONSIVE and open to learning, if he's not warring, then other editors should learn to either realize that editing is what happens on wikipedia, and if they can't discuss things amongst themselves then maybe they need a little guidance, that's all. It's kind of rare to see any editor with no particular slant on their editing, if that editor is discussing things, sweet, if editors all fail to articulate, then that's all editors, not just one. (feel free to smack me ohms law)Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely missing the issue here. We're not discussing edit warring, but rather a conflict of interest problem. This editor seems incapable of editing in a neutral manner. The problem has been discussed extensively, and the user seems unwilling and/or unable to fit his interest in the subject into an ability to edit neutrally. That being the case, a topic ban has been proposed, which seems reasonable to me.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not missing the issue, I am seeing two more issues. I agree 100% there is COI. But I disagree at the moment 완젬스 is incapable of learning. I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight. I'm kind of medium at it and there are surely editors better at it than me. Teaching them how to sort the useful contributions and mold the bad ones is worth it in the long run, it's a lot less work, and better quality for the articles as well. He seems agreeable and apologetic when he's corrected, just a bit of guidance for all of the editors on how to cope without intervention is needed. Penyulap ☏ 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it, they could cut their workload by 50% by leaving one side of the issue up to this editor and just filtering out what he brings them, in the comfortable knowledge he's keeping close track of everything. Going a block and sock is having a lopsided article possibly, and then you have to work out who is a sock and who is a natural newbie who addresses the same issues. Just keep him/them all in one account and filter it as it goes along, how is this not the easy path ? just add 완젬스 to their watched list and the day's work is done. Penyulap ☏ 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ... okay, you really don't understand this. Adding this user "to (my) watchlist" is pointless. We don't let one editor have "one side of the issue." And most commonly, telling someone to "keep in one account" often fails miserably. I'm also worried that you say: "I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight." That indicates you only see the problem coming from everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I failed to express myself properly. I don't mean you, I mean someone who wants to take an interest. There are 3 or 4 editors who are dealing with 완젬스, but they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire, but are asking for the fire to be shoveled outside wikipedia's door, where it'll keep burning, and all the smocks will come back inside. It's easy to help 완젬스 to fit in better because he fully engages in conversation. But I see too many editors want to play survivor. So dump community and just vote him off the island. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand this suggestion properly, it's ridiculous. This is not an American court of law, where "justice" is imagined to be found by having each side present their own biased case, allowing the jury or judge to accept one or the other or, occasionally, hew a road down the middle. All Wikipedia editors are expected to contribute here in a non-biased way by providing material supported by proper reliable sources. We don't let one editor take one side of an issue and other editors take the other side and let them battle it out. If the fellow with Korean name that's unpronounceable to an English-speaking editor cannot edit within basic policy, then he shouldn't be allowed to edit. Period. We have nothting to gain by allowing him to frolic here in support of his own political beliefs. And that's the case for every editor for whom a POV is more important that building a reliable and neutral encycylopedia. Get rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think where the misunderstanding is, is that every person not just every editor has a different point of view, this is fundamental to the laws of the universe. What non-biased is on wiki is a question of how far from your own point of view someone else is, or how far from one group of people another is. The lines that are drawn are just as elastic as the underlying laws of the universe they are written on, the wik has no clear definition or measure for bias. That is all fine, because you have to be practical and make generalization, I'm saying that having the skill to cope with differences in a civilized manner measures the success of wikipedia. If people just say 'I do not need to work on my conversation skills, I can simply turn my back and plug my ears' then the scope of the project narrows because people don't practice the skills required to make wikipedia work. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we understand you feel that way. What you're not getting is that, at some point, a user becomes disruptive enough it is no longer worth the time to keep arguing with them. And your childish comments about plugging our ears are really not helping you here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify who is 'we'. Penyulap ☏ 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Little note, a community ban is not what's being proposed; just a topic ban from the stuff he has a COI/etc with. Equazcion (talk) 23:23, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, this user has repeatedly been asked to quit discussing his personal association to OWS and going even further than thay by suggesting that all the other "good" editors are in agreement with him. I too believe that a topic ban would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Penyulap, you're still not getting it. I knew you meant "anyone who takes an interest," but watchlisting someone's user page is useless. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they're editing. Further, you still don't understand the situation: this user "fully engages in conversation," then does whatever he wants anyway. That's not something that can be fixed with a gentle talking-to, because that's what people have been doing, to no effect. Also, you keep insulting the other people in this situation ("they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire"). That is getting quite old, and you need to stop doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, Penyulap, who are these "inexperienced" editors who've been trying to engage? Amadscientist, who's been on Wikipedia several years longer than you have? TheArtistAKA, Racingstripes or Becritical, who've been on Wikipedia two years longer than you have? Honestly, even if "I'm-more-experienced-than-thou" ever did work on Wikipedia, it's not a challenge that someone who registered a year ago can credibly pull off. Ravenswing 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I don't quite agree with "you still don't understand the situation" or the above comment, this issue is not 'just another generic ANI issue passing by that penyulap comments on' I've been contributing to that talkpage for close to 5 months with dozens of edits, so Ravenswing, when you look past my registration time and look at the actual topic of discussion here which is the ows, you are saying therefore, that I've been part of that conversation for a third or maybe half of my time on wikipedia, and somehow don't know what I am talking about, doesn't sound the same when you look at it that way now does it. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does. You don't get it. That's obvious by your comments above. It's also starting to wear out my WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Penyulap, I did notice that you have fewer articlespace edits than talk page edits; for my part, I'd rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about it. But that being said, how could you possibly have construed my statement to mean that you don't know anything about that particular conversation? I was talking about *your* claims that other editors - who had been on Wikipedia far longer than you, and several of which have far more edits than you - are too "inexperienced" to handle the situation. Would you like to respond to what I actually did say, rather than what you wanted me to have said? Ravenswing 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This page written by him makes it obvious he's a troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were able to read that, you're a better man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - Whether an anti-OWS troll or a pro-OWS editor is irrelevant, since in either case the user is not editing with a WP:NPOV. Also, I'd like to point out that several other support !votes are scattered through the previous discussion and should be taken into account. (Equazcion, who proposed it, Ohms law, DarthBotto, Gandydancer and Kevin Gorman just above this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not support topic ban (YET) Just an FYI, the editor 완젬스 has stayed within Wikipedia policy in regards to stating a conflict of interest and their intention to refrain from editing the section in question. I believed it would have been best (and suggested at the time or close to it) that he not edit the article at all and this is part of the reason. Conflict of interest means not doing anything self serving. It is THE TOP Project OWS guideline and was written expressly because of the many editors who edit articles with an Occupy related title and who are closely related to the subject. I think what may be happening should not be taken for anything more than what it appears as 완젬스 has been editing at Wikipedia long enough to not be considered an operative to make OWS look bad....if this were true all COI claims go out the window. It becomes a witch hunt in my opinion for, what could well be one faction of a politcal protest, warring over how to define the national and worldwide definitions of OWS. I believe the person who made the suggestion to topic ban to be difficult to collaborate with and who seems less than willing to really discuss content disputes without making claims of behavior problems and accusations such as tag teaming.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more examples of that kind of blatant COI revelation in the article talkpage archives and various user talkpages going back to Fall 2011. I don't have time to dig through them now but if anyone else is so inclined, I suggest starting with User:완젬스's talkpage history from its beginning. I have not seen him become any more "responsive" or able to learn from others, as Penyulap claims above. (By the way, apparently the name is transliterated as Wanjemseu according to a regular editor at the OWS article). El duderino (abides) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for this user under this username. I recommended to him that he should leave for a while, get another username, and come back as an editor who is there to promote NPOV, not to promote OWS. This user has a lot to offer, if he can do it within the WP framework. He said he was going to leave, then come back with another username and do it differently. I think that he should be banned but allowed to come back with another username. If he can do that and act differently, then he will be good for the encyclopedia. Continuing to be promotional and not doing as he said, however, does merit a topic ban. So I would topic ban him but allow a return if he feels he can reform. If he is an anti-OWS troll, he is doing a mighty good job of it. He is totally convincing in his wiki-clueless oh-gosh promotionalism. Be——Critical 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 3 month topic ban per BMK, Kevin Gorman and others above; no prejudice against a return and no prejudice against a quick reinstatement of the ban if the problems continue. SÆdontalk 07:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (short-term) topic ban: Either the editor genuinely believes in the OWS cause, in which case he's a hardcore POV warrior and doesn't need to be involved in these articles, or he's a agent provocateur trolling his merry way through the field, in which case he doesn't need to be involved in these articles. Let's let him spend a month or two convincing people that he can edit calmly, reasonably and in accordance with policies and guidelines, and revisit the issue then. Ravenswing 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - When the subject said "Everyone thinks Jews run wall street..." that was the give away to me. --Mollskman (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I love ANI. Penyulap ☏
    • Comment Does someone want to close this thing? I think we have a consensus. Equazcion (talk) 01:00, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

    A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

    22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)
    22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)
    12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)
    22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)
    22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)
    22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)
    22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)
    22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)
    22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)
    21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)
    20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)
    13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)
    10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)
    10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)
    10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)
    13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)
    22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)
    10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)
    09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)
    09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)
    09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)
    09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)
    23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)
    20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)
    • Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty845 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you've made exactly one edit on Wikipedia (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Wikipedia to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: [2]. In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Wikipedia: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: [3], so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino (abides) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly hi! 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dog's Against Romney Since we are at it could we please gets some input from Admins regarding the Blog Dogs Against Romney regarding its use as an EL. I propose that it fails WP:EL#11 because it is a Blog and while it claims to be the offical site of dogs against romney, it is not the official site of Seamus. Its purpose is to complain about Mitt Romney and sell related merchandise to promote this view. It is also a work of Satire written from the point of view of a fictional dog called "Rusty". It may also violate WP:BLP since much of the content attacks a living person(s). Arzel (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nothing but election year horseshit. Bring the article about the unelected candidate's dog from the 1980s to AfD and see if it is judged to be an encyclopedic topic. If it passes there, which is shouldn't, THEN start topic-banning the POV warriors by the fistful. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already gone through AFD. SÆdontalk 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been TO AfD but not THROUGH AfD — a NO CONSENSUS close. Somebody should bring it again and this thing should be shipped away in a honey bucket. Letting Democratic POV crap in only provokes Republican POV crap. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, all caps is just pointless and annoying. Cut it out.
    Second, it has been through AFD, and No Consensus is a valid close. If you want to take it to AFD again, by all means. It might be a good idea to let this ANI finish though, or it gives the appearance of forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer all caps to using bold text or italics for emphasis because it is easier to type. I am sorry that it offends your sensibilities, but I will most assuredly not adapt my preferences to yours in this matter. Happily, the article on Seamus the Dog is being put to sleep by consensus at AfD, so MELLOW is the word for the day... xoxo, Carrite (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your prerogative. Expect to get chewed out for "shouting" when you use all caps, though. It's your problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know of many articles which are locked down in a junk or POV state by POV wiki-lawyers. In the few where I've seen Arzel , Arzel was the one trying to FIX the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be a very subjective opinion not born out with facts. We could easily provide (literally) hundreds of examples of bias in editing, double standards, and outright misrepresentation by Arzel spanning half a decade. He has outwardly declared his belief that Wikipedia is full of "liberals" and "liberal bias", so I have no doubt he feels justified in his edits. I don't believe that is true (after all, facts have a well known liberal bias), but even if Arzel's claim of "defending liberal articles" were true, the statistics don't add up... one or two instances of "defending liberal articles" doesn't overcome the thousands of examples of conservative bias. At the end of the day, any thorough examination of his edits clearly demonstrates tendentious editing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that wikipedia has any mechanism (or constitution) to deal with a tendentious editor who is careful to play by the rules. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous complaints have little value, why not show your WP face, rather than hide behind your obvious multitude of IP's so we can judge your edit hisotry as well. At least I am not hiding anything...unlike yourself. Arzel (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous editing is just as welcome here as non-anonymous editing and there is nothing even close to a requirement that anyone register an account. This is a long standing WP tradition dictated by the WMF. It is not true that anonymous complaints have little value and the arguments of any person can be judged on the merits of the argument itself and not who is making them. Note that I am not commenting on the substance of the edit, only that it is perfectly fine to edit as an IP SÆdontalk 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit! Calling out somebody for alleged POV behind the screen of an IP address isn't "anonymous editing," it is anonymous denunciation. Come out and identify yourself or shut your fucking defamatory mouth, Mr. 24.98.7235480924350=92345. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing anonymously is my right, and is intended to force you to deal with the substance of the issue brought to ANI instead of attacking those who seek assistance. Thank you for the assistance in demonstrating my point. -A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a coward, go troll somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? This is not an elementary school playground, you are not (or should not, in any event, be) the class bully, and playground taunting is screamingly inappropriate. The anon IP is exactly freaking right that he is allowed to comment - as any editor might - and allowed to participate in ANI discussions - as any editor does. May I ask what you would possibly do with the editor's real identity, if indeed he has a registered name? WP:NPA doesn't have an escape clause where anon IPs are concerned. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is seriously unacceptable behavior from both Carrite and Arzel. And using terms like "defamatory" is getting close to legal threat language. You two may not like that WP policy - fully backed by the WMF to the point where they rejected a community call to require registration - but it's a huge part of WP. You both need to calm down or an admin is going to bring down the ban hammer. SÆdontalk 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very, very slightly better, yes, thanks. SÆdontalk 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: "Editing anonymously is my right..." Four career edits, all to this thread. See: Poison pen letter. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear to be a proxy account which means that it's likely a dynamic IP. Either way it doesn't matter; one edit or a million, the IP has as much right as you do to comment. Please cease this line of reasoning. SÆdontalk 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not have my history be judged by someone who refuses to show his history. That person is a coward, and if they have a problem with being called a coward they should go troll somewhere else. User names are already pretty anonymous, to be afraid of even having an anonymous user name says quite a lot. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and Carrite need to drop this line of bullying. Argue the substance of the edits, not the editor. It makes no difference, in terms of the piling NPA violations, whether the editor is registered or not. If you continue, you're going to get blocked for this without consideration to the original accusations. Stop it. Note that I am not commenting on the specific complaints, but reserve the right to in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to get blocked because an anonymous IP jumper is leveling accusations against me from several different IP's and I call him out on it? Seriously, this is what has become of WP? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you are blocked then it would be because you continue to personally attack another editor even when having been repeatedly told not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But an IP jumper is free to attack me, where is the justice in that? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, "justice" isn't something Wikipedia is after. Demanding justice isn't going to earn you any points.
    Second, the IP voiced an opinion that you are editing in a POV manner. Your response was direct insults and to repeat those insults after being warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, if I had the mop, I'd block you myself for your repeated insults in this ANI alone, Arzel, because it's plain that you don't get it. Anon IPs are protected by WP:NPA just the same as any other editor, and their statements are evaluated on the merits, the same as any other editor. If the IP fears retaliation ... well, gosh, how could he possibly have come to that conclusion, eh? Ravenswing 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good god, I just stepped through a random sample of the last 1,000 mainspace edits of Arzel. Based on that alone, it is obvious that the concerns stated above are completely valid and need to be addressed. Since Arzel and his pal Carrite viciously attack responding editors, I wish to remain anonymous. just becaus we are anonymous does not mean our points arent valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Provide a point and we can see if it has any value. A single edit to come here and attack me is simply the sign of a coward. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think NPA is limited to launching them at named accounts? You would be wrong if you thought that. Stop calling this user a "coward". You are wrong about anonymous users. Doc talk 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you defending any anonymous IP jumper using several different IP's to attack my character? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only pointing out that we have allowed, and always will allow, IP jumpers to exist here. Some are good, some are bad. Some use it for gnomish edits that undeniably improve the encyclopedia, and some abuse it for nefarious reasons. We can't class a group of editors so easily. If you think they are evading scrutiny, and you know who they are, you can file a SPI. Doc talk 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominally have little problem with IP's, however, this anon is judging me while hiding behind a cloak of multiple IP's. It is the same person trying to give the illusion of many. You are defending that? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have Wikipedia article about a dog riding on the roof of a car for a few hours shows how easily the system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm... didn't you just say the exact same thing in a thread below here? Maybe it's me... Doc talk 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, don't we have two threads going on this same article? The answer to both is yes. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    calling me (and the other anons) "cowards" only shows the strong desire to attack others instead of dealing with the issue. i am not very familiar with ANI, but somebody should really look into Arzel. his bias is systemic and long running, and the examples of it are pretty self evident. i can gladly give TONS of examples, but it seems to me that any random reading of a few hundred pages of his contributions through february (and a random few pages from a few years ago that i looked at) shows pretty obviously the problem. his edits are very clearly ALWAYS pushing a conservative agenda, and he bullies other users and lawyers rules to always benefit his point of view. if you want specific examples, what would help move this along the most? article edits? talk pages? tell me what to do to get someone to get serious about dealing with this, and i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you are One Anon, not many. The probabilistic pattern of the Anon's editing here strongly suggests that they are from one person, or a couple of persons working together offline. The odds that the Anon's attacking my character here would all have almost no other edit history is extremely unlikely. You did not all just come here by chance and have the same thing to say. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then file an SPI, don't keep poking the hornet's nest. Look, I know the natural instinct is to defend yourself, but each reply you make is digging the hole deeper. Just ignore them or file an SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Arzel's contributions to articles consist of deletions of other editors' work. In very few, if any (I've never seen any) cases does s/he add complete references or contribute sourced statements to articles. Most contributions are statements are unsourced, POV opinions, personal attacks, and largely inaccurate wiki-lawyering on talk pages. The destruction of content and senseless and endless criticism of other editors is very offputting and discourages people from spending their time building content. Other editors have tried to educate, mentor, coach, and educate Arzel, but s/he has not been responsive to this. Some responding to this ANI may be choosing to remain anonymous due to Arzel (and perhaps his friends') retaliatory editing behavior. This is my only contribution to this particular thread. I'll use the same IP if I make additional contributions to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.135 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are enough people adding shit to articles, it becomes a full time job to be a pooper scooper removing the same. A job unfortunately that somehow ends up tainting the person doing the dreadful work with a foul smell by which people seem to judge rather than the actual quality and necessity of the work itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The obverse is also true: crafty POV-pushers find ways to veil their editing under the NPOV flag. To use your imagery, ..donning the janitor's cap when it suits their purposes. El duderino (abides) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaints from IP editors at ANI or related pages have zero merit or value. They should be hatted, reverted or ignored, and the drama will be cut in half around here. The "destruction of content" rhetoric by this one is reminiscent of some of our dearly departed Article Rescue Squad indef blockees. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out above, this is not correct. IPs have the right to voice their opinion here, which admins can consider. Now, if they're trolling, socking or conducting meatpuppetry, they can be blocked and comments struck. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as I will point out to you now, that is exactly what they are doing; trolling. The comment by the one below readily admits to editing via IP to avoid identity detection. That's underhanded, deceptive, and renders its comments irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • from SOCK " the use of multiple accounts" yep "to deceive or mislead" seems like what this is "other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking) and is not allowed. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: Creating new accounts to avoid detection" very clearly YES. "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases " potentially yes "and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." and again, yes."Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" umm yes. And under Legitimate uses I am not seeing anything that applies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again Arzel, with a little assistance, has turned this into an attack on others instead of addressing the issue. Personally, I am a well-known editor (with many more edits than arzel) who wishes to avoid the unfortunately successful trick of avoidance ad hominem. I have edited from this singular IP only; responses above from other IPs are presumably other editors with similar reasons. If our statements are read as trolling or inaccurate, simply ignore us, however I believe the record speaks for itself - Arzel's blatant focus on conservative advocacy (of which there are multiple ANI filings in the past) should be compelling enough reason to justify the discussion. I am willing to verify my identity to a trusted admin who understands my wish to avoid attack whilst keeping this discussion focused on the issue. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely uninvolved and impartial observer chiming in: The initial concern over one article seems to have morphed into a review of a particular editor's editing. An administration action may be necessary. What is the next step? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    Infobox classical composer TfD closure

    {{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. SilverserenC 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. SilverserenC 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. SilverserenC 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, its hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI timing

    Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

    It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [4] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
    • I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
    • Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
    • You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban part 2

    From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [5]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.
    • "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
    • Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
    • Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hurz4711 conflict of interest

    Closing this as this can all be worked out reasonably amongst editor. First time article creator needs pointers on how to proceed not being thrown in to the Coliseum. Hurz4711 is reminded to be careful about starting AFDs Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Dennis, although I had added a notice on his page - see this diff. The duplicate has since been removed by another editor. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be what you're looking for. I'm not saying tagging those articles was wrong, but sometimes one subject will cut the mustard, while another will not. We still have articles slip through the cracks at times, but that's what CSD, PRODs, and AfDs are for. I'm not saying you were right or wrong with the PRODs, but once an editor removes the PROD tag you can't PROD it again. If you believe those articles don't stand up to policy, then WP:AFD is your next step. Ishdarian 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, no on is saying that Hurz4711 adding the PRODs the first time was against a policy, but considering the totality of circumstances, reviewing mass PRODing here at ANI was the right thing to do, as it did look a little unusual. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like some clarity on a way forward here. Whether the other ecommerce applications are notable or not is another story, but I feel that adding seven deletion requests simultaneously as a response to one's own being deleted is unreasonable. The topic has relatively low activity and it's likely all seven are not going to be watched closely and some may be needlessly deleted as a result of this. I'd prefer to work with User:Hurz4711 on their new article to see whether it is notable (it's still hasn't reached version 1.0, so likely not, but may be in the future), or on one at a time of the other articles to see whether they can be salvaged, rather than have to deal with seven simultaneous notices. Some of the other articles may be able to be improved, some may end up being deleted, but this doesn't seem a good faith attempt to deal with the issue. The user's aggressive tone and defensiveness indicate to me that they haven't really had an epiphany. Is there consensus that I go ahead and remove the seven requests again? Greenman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, behind the times, TP has removed as discussed above, thanks for the clarification. Greenman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need help in straightening out a mess

    Would greatly appreciate an uninvolved admin with a little spare time to help straighten out a move/delete/merge discussion mess that has cropped up (everyone involved was acting in good faith).

    Yesterday, I proposed a move of Seamus (dog) to Mitt Romney dog controversy here and several people commented on the proposal. Sometime later, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, another editor proposed merging Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which I actually liked better than my original idea - I posted a pointer to the AfD merge discussion here. After that, yet another editor created yet another merge discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog) here.

    So basically, there are now three discussions regarding slightly different variants of the same idea. Does anyone have any ideas for perhaps deciding which one place is the best venue, and perhaps hatting/closing the others? I would give it a shot myself but I am an involved editor. Any help welcome. Kelly hi! 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly's take is pretty much spot on. It is messy. I am the editor that created the last mentioned thread on the talk page, and I did so because I think an AFD for a different article is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I'm ok with what ever consensus arises obviously. I'm not 100% sure ANI is the right venue for this, but it's not really much of a "dispute" as much as a procedural problem, so admin help would be quite welcome. SÆdontalk 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To thus of us who remember the relentless edit-warring from 2008 and 2009 over politicians' articles (liberal and conservative both), it's unfortunate that there seems to be no improvement since then. This kind of garbage does not belong in a "real" encyclopedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look on the bright side - I don't anything can ever be as bad as Sarah Palin in late 2008, with hundreds of edits per minute and wheel-warring involved admins. I think I still have PTSD from that article. Kelly hi! 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think things are that bad tbh. In a couple months it'll all be worked out and might be a GA, all just part of the process. SÆdontalk 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, sure. Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. And I missed the obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face comment that wikipedia is "going to the dogs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just hope the dogs are Keeshonds :). SÆdontalk 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:RECENT needs to be a speedy criterion.WTucker (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'd like to take issue with something in the first line of this thread. User:Kelly says "everyone involved was acting in good faith" but I think there is a possibility that this is not true in her case. Judging by her involvement with the Seamus article, creating the new Obama article, and her responses at the various talk pages, as well as her pattern of disruptive editing in the past, I think she may be gaming the system and/or treating it all like a game. Or at the least, looking to take advantage of the mess to wear others out. El duderino (abides) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What else did I do? I have to admit, so far it sounds like I am a Very Bad Person and should be investigated immediately. Kelly hi! 06:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the mess would have been completely prevented had you not created the Obama Eats Dogs article. The mess stems from that. The Seamus article is fine where it is or under 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. The Obama non-issue can be added as a tiny mention on the Seamus article, as a reaction to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's really a content issue, we were just looking for some help with the procedural stuff. Kelly hi! 06:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. I propose a topic ban on Kelly relating to all articles, images, and templates concerning the 2012 election, its candidates, and any related issues, such as memes. How's that? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Viriditas. Kelly, you obviously have to wait for your Obama Eats Dogs article to be deleted. Then the discussion can occur in one place: on the Talk page of the Seamus article, where it should. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Topic Ban Given Kelly's conduct in this instance, and reviewing last years Sarah Palin fiasco, I agree that Kelly should not be involved with anything related to the 2012 elections. There are other users who should also get said topic bans, but none of them had the temerity to blatantly violate WP:POINT, and none of them to my knowledge did it last time as well. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh - perhaps someone should first submit some evidence of my poor conduct? Kelly hi! 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. You started an article named Obama Eats Dogs, which was created by this unreliable source, based on this gossip blog which does not meet the reliable source guidelines established on Wikipedia. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the only source? Kelly hi! 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Care to tell me how a so-called "meme" started by a partisan gossip blog is an acceptable source? You wouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to push a political POV now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope - actually the whole intent is to balance the POV in Seamus (dog) by including the other camp's response< which is why I would personally like to see a merge of the two. I think the article is sourced to acceptably reliable sources like the Washington Post and ABC News. Is there a problem with neutrality in the wording of the article? (We're veering into content issues here.) Kelly hi! 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds like POV pushing. One could write an entire article about Seamus without ever mentioning "Obama Eats Dogs". The only one linking the two issues is an unreliable partisan gossip blog, who you appear to be representing. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like the Grundle Method of NPOV, honestly. The belief that a Good Fact(tm) placed near a Bad Fact(tm) results in NPOV is a common error seen in partisan editors. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Kelly, but I have to endorse a topic ban from articles related to the 2012 election as well. It's nothing personal, I just think that it's pretty clear you're trying to push a POV here. Based on your comment above, you seem to unintentionally confirm the gaming accusation against you by saying that the reason you created the Obama eats dog article was to get a POV in, hoping that the content would be merged (against consensus on the Seamus talk page). Even after I explained very logically why what Obama did as a 6 year old is a red herring in respect to the Romney dog issue, you pressed the point without any sort of logical argument as to how the issues are related. You had to know that Obama eats dog would have gone to AFD immediately, it's just so obviously a POV fork, and that tells me that you're not able to edit in this are dispassionately. SÆdontalk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have a Wikipedia article on a dog spending a few hours riding on a roof of a car shows how easily the Wikipedia system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an election year. This crap always pops up when the US Presidency is up for grabs. It's only going to get worse once the GOP convention is over, and the full campaigning starts. There's a reason I stay away from politics articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reminds me, it is probably about time to look at candidate bios for senate and house races, as this is the point in the election cycle where we see puff pieces arise. Hopefully there will be less hissy fits when articles are pruned as oppose dto the last time around. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So first, is, or has there been, an RFC/U for Kelly? If not, I suggest the those asking for a topic ban get busy. Second, think you guys could move your Topic ban comments to a different subsection? I barely even noticed that it had been proposed, and I doubt I'm the only one. Oh, and Oppose. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An RFCU has never been a prerequisite for a topic ban. SÆdontalk 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This general subject seems to be crying out for a home. Many presidents have had interactions with dogs, one way or another. There was the Bushes' dog, for example, a pint-sized pup that attacked reporters. And there was the case of LBJ, who took a lot of heat for lifting his beagles by their ears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's actually a pretty damn decent idea, Bugs. First dogs anyone? SÆdontalk 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FDR had a dog named Fala. And then there was the infamous Nixon speech about a family dog named Checkers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than just dogs, though (Socks the Cat during Clinton's administration.) Pets of the United States Presidents is a bit clunky, but would be an accurate starting point. We'd just want to keep it narrowed down to the notable ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note though that Checkers speech, certainly highly notable, is the article; Checkers (dog) redirects there. And Checkers was only a vice presidential dog anyway, she died in 1964.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag-teaming and edit-warring at Shen Yun Performing Arts

    Some attention may be required at some stage in the near future, as there seems to be a massive content dispute, replete with the walls of wikilawyering about the inadmissibility of certain sources very similar to what has been historically taking place at Falun Gong and other related articles. There have also been a number of reverts of well-justified and sourced material that look to me very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry about reporting this Ohconfucius, you did the right thing. Now, can you give us a detailed description of the perpetrators? Desk Ref (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring the unconstructive reply above, it does help to give a few more details about what action you are seeking. There has been no (or very mild) edit warring, and people appear to be discussing on the talk page. Most admins don't have the to wade through the edit history to learn the whole story for what doesn't appear to be a major issue; the onus is on you to show there is a problem. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr

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

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction being appealed
    indefinite block; Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    [6]

    Statement by Dehr

    • The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log [7] and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" [8]. My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
    • There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
    • The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see [9].
    • I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster [10]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise [11]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
    • I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
    • Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts [12]. Reason?
    • I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.

    Statement by Timotheus Canens

    To the extent that this appeal is directed to me, I decline it. To the extent that it is directed to the community, I recommend that the appeal be declined as well.

    Previous AE cases have established that editors who had extensive participation at AE may be deemed constructively warned of the relevant discretionary sanctions. In this case, Dehr has participated extensively in the discussion that resulted in the editing restriction that he attempted to game.

    Moreover, this kind of blatant disruptive gaming more than justifies an indefinite block even without the discretionary sanctions. It should have been blindingly obvious to any reasonable editor that evading the spirit of a restriction by making hundreds of edits, each adding a single word, is simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr

    • Per Boing!, carrying on the fight in the unblock request isn't a very promising sign. I don't have a sysop bit to see what Blade is commenting on in the deleted page, but generally trust his judgment. Given that, plus an attempt to carry on an ethnic fight in the unblock request, I see no reason to overturn this.I also moved discussion from the 'results' section below to this section, because it seems like it's where it should be. feel free to rv if I'm wrong.Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would some of the above editors please explain to me in what way the content edits made by Dehr were "disruptive" to Wikipedia? A proper answer please. Are your servers so full that the extra space to record the history of Dehr's one or two word edits would break Wikipedia? Was there something wrong with actual content being added? There are no Wikipedia rules that individual edits can't be less than a couple of words, and there is no mention in the restriction that was used to block Dehl that the 500+ edit threshhold had to be reached in a specific way. So Dehl had every right to try and avoid the restriction using the course of action he chose. It seems to me that the restriction under which Dehr was blocked was created specifically to block Dehr, and this restriction was created because no existing method could be used to block Dehr. So, if there has been a "gaming of the system", it was done by administrators who have invented a one-off restriction that was created to block one particular editor. Meowy 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction has been in place since October of last year: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions. So, no, it was not created "just for Dehr." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong - the restriction was only created on April 7th: "Nagorno-Karabakh is placed on 1RR per day restriction for all accounts under 500 edits". Here is the dicussion about it: [13]. That was the restriction that T. Canens, by assuming bad faith, claimed Dehl was trying to avoid. I say "by assuming bad faith" because Dehl never actually made any reverts to the Nagorno-Karabakh article after the 500+ edit restriction was introduced (even though he had reached, by making those large number of little edits to other articles, the 500+ edit requirement that would have allowed him to do so). If Dehl had made reverts, then the case for a block would have been arguable, but because he never tried to I don't see under what reason he was blocked at all (beyond the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason). An editor can't be blocked just because of a suspicion that he might do something that is a blockable offense - the blockable offense has to be actually committed! There is nothing wrong with the Ghaibalishen Massacre article that Dehl created, and no editing rules were broken during its creation. Meowy 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions give admins broad ability to block for disruptive activity. So, yes, it's been in place since October. The additional "500 edit" restriction is just a more narrow instance of "what is disruption," and Dehl's specific actions are clearly WP:GAMEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet the disruption for which he was indefed occurred outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions didn't it? Monty845 22:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were certainly under that. Per the ArbCom decision cited above:
    "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions."
    Unless you're arguing that Ghaibalishen Massacre had nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan, it certainly falls under sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No your right. I was mistaken. Monty845 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It can be easy to miss with all the various things flying back and forth in the A-A disputes. That's why I normally don't comment. As below, it's not worth banging your head over. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason. Which brings me back to the question that I asked and that remains unanswered. Tell me in what way the edits made by Dehr were disruptive to Wikipedia? Meowy 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been explained above. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I note how comments that initially appeared under "discussion" were later moved to "result" - pretty strong evidence, I think, that there was never any intent to have a real discussion, only an intent to end at a predetermined result (the "admins are always right" result). BTW2, re Jayron32's comment in results, someone is getting ahead of themselves! When this article-specific 500+ edits edit restriction was being discussed I predicted that soon it would be 500+ of a specific length (that prediction is now true), and then more than 1000+ edits and then the edit restriction would be on more than one article, maybe 10 or 20 to start with, then 1000, then 10,000, then hundreds of thousands of articles. Jaron32 - you've gone straight to the millions of articles! Meowy 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand, there's the "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit. ಠ_ಠ I think I'm done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy? You are the bullshitter. You say any old bull rather than address my points. Meowy 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Result of the appeal by Dehr

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Meowy; My view is that the one-word-at-a-time creation of Ghaibalishen Massacre on April 11 (which was after the restriction was imposed) was blatant gaming of the system to get out from under the restriction, even if Dehr did not go on to break 1RR on Nagorno-Karabakh. That alone, in my view, shows a bad faith approach to collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly a justified block per WP:GAME. It would be better if the restriction were expanded to indefinite 1RR for all editors, as all ethnic conflict areas should be. Regardless, however, this was a clear and blatant attempt to bypass the restrictions. --Jayron32 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: There has been some confusion about where comments should go, with comments being moved back and forth between the "Discussion among uninvolved editors" section and the "Result" section. Not only has this been seized upon by a conspiracy theorist as evidence of bad faith, but, more seriously, it has resulted in disjointing the discussion, with responses to comments being detached from those comments, and a reference to "the above editors" when the comments in question were below. I suggest that the best way to use these sections is for all discussion, whether by adminisrtaors or not, to go in the "discussion" section, and the "result" section to be used only for concluding the discussion.

    To remove an arbitration enforcement block after a community discussion requires "a clear, substantial, and active consensus" to do so. We clearly do not have anything like that. In fact we have a substantial consensus against unblocking. Not only is there a substantial numerical preponderance of editors argung against unblocking, but the couple of dissenting opinions do not argue within the framework of Wikipedia polices. (Gimmetoo argues for a procedural unblock because of the lack of a warning about the sanction. However, that is missing the point. The purpose of such a warning is to make sure that nobody is blocked for breaching a restriction that they were not aware of, but Dehr was clearly fully aware of it. (Even without looking at the history of the case, that is clear from Dehr's statement above.) There are various ways of ensuring that someone has been warned of something, and while placing a message on their user page is a useful way of doing so, if the same effect has been achieved by other means then we don't need to go through a pointless formality. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia to think that we interpret policies, guidelines, and editing restrictions as strict rules in the way a court of law does. If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed. Looking at Meowy's dissenting opinion, if we ignore the irrelevancies such as the "all administrators are part of an evil conspiracy" nonsense, the essential content is that Dehr never actually used his 500 edit count to breach the sanction. However, that again is missing the point: it is perfectly clear that the purpose of the absurd way of editing was to accumulate the 500 edit total (Dehr even admits as much above), and the only conceivable purpose of that was the intention of breaching the sanction: what else is special about 500 edits? Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and if an editor makes it so blatantly clear that he/she is making preparations for a breach of sanctions then that is abundant reason for a block. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia's polices to think that we work by applying some sort of exact rules, such as "you can be blocked for breaching the exact letter of this sanction, but not for going against the spirit of it, or evidently making preparations to do so".) In view of the consensus against unblocking (note that the absence of a consensus for blocking would have been sufficient) I am closing this discussion, and will decline the unblock request. Thanks to all who have taken part. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:ElliotJoyce

    User:ElliotJoyce blocked for 48hrs for edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on at least three articles that I am aware of. He was reported to WP:ANEW sixteen hours ago, but the report has not been acted upon. He has now made six reverts at African slave trade. Will somebody act on the ANEW report? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The 6 reverts do not go to the same content, and as far as reverting the edits of Ackees goes, this individual has consistently changed information on various articles in Wikipedia that either contradict the source or are POV. For example, please observe his edits on the African Slave Trade page, where he directly contradicted the sourced material several times in effort to insert his own content in the article. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — WP:3RR -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and blocked the user for 48 hours. The edit warring with multiple editors involved is quite clear from the edit history, and i cannot fail to notice wikihounding due to the sudden revent spree of Ackees edits on pages the user has never edited before. Also, comments such as this and this don't exactly inspire confidence either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

    No admin action requested/required, this is a simple editing dispute. Already being discussed elsewhere, so let's close this discussion to minimize the dramah which seems to be quickly increasing. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the African American article, absolutely no mention is given to the multi-racial ancestry of African Americans.

    e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture

    "A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]

    Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"

    I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. For comparison, other groups - for example, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc - have widely reported and celebrated mixed-race history. I get the feeling like certain users are trying to suppress the mixed race history of African Americans and try to keep them "pure" (which is, obviously, racist).

    I feel like this is mainly perpetuated by an administrator editor, "Malik Shabazz". In reply to me, he posted this comment:

    "When Italians mentions the genetic contributions of Africans to the Italian genome, we can argue about how racist it is that African Americans are defined by their sub-Saharan ancestry."

    So clearly, by the above message, this user harbours an agenda and somehow resents the fact that African Americans have such a diverse racial admixture.

    Please help. I abhor racism of all forms, yet this is allowed to happen, clear as day? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see that study is racist. Especially in the light of "suppress(ing) the mixed race history of African Americans," when the study is clearly about ... the mixed race history of African Americans. Given the sample size and location, it's not surprising that European ancestry dominated the findings. This wasn't a broad study of the whole country, after all.
    Now, if you're saying Henry Louis Gates Jr was applying this to the whole country, that would be a problem. Context is the key, though. I'm not getting that impression from what's posted above. I'd have to find the source to double check but, off the cuff, it sounds like he was only applying this to the individuals covered by the survey. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you completely misunderstood what I am complaining about. I apologise if I was not clear. I am saying that the omission of the mixed-race history of African Americans, in the African American article, is racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not making a coherent argument. The text cited about does cover the mixed-race history of African Americans. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where, in the African American article, is an in-depth mention of the mixed-race history of African Americans? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be edit-warring to reinsert this material, which cites (among other sources) Steve Sailer (whose views on race could charitably be called extreme) and a YouTube video of a George Lopez comedy bit. Before you come to WP:AN/I and accuse other editors of racism and suppressing history, you might want to consider that you're being reverted because you're edit-warring poor-quality sources into the lead of a high-profile article. MastCell Talk 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't and this is not the forum to discuss content.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, however, the place to discuss behavior issues. If the insertion of poorly sourced material and its reversion prompted the claims of racism, that's valid to bring up here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaf Green Warrior needs to take a deep breath and back off. With this edit [15] he labelled the two of us that disagree with him as "ignorant". He was given sound advise by other editors to cool it -- apparently he/she has decided to double down and add "racism" to his charges. The problem is not Malik -- the problem is Leaf. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @Leaf It may seem obvious, and logical that conduct by an admin is admin conduct, but it isn't. This forum is to discuss admin actions such as blocks. Not ordinary edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps leaf should read racism, and truly understand the definition of the word. Not every subject relating to race has roots in racism. This situation, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with racism. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    @Sphilbrick, I appreciate that, but I don't believe this is a normal edit concern. I believe that an admin is using his powers and weight to ensure that an article stays racist and neglecting of other races. Now, if anyone would actually - God forbid - like to discuss the actual ANI I posted, as opposed to irrelevant trivialities.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. I will attempt to be very clear here. African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".) Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

    Per ‑Scottywong, this is not the correct venue. It is not okay to re-open the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I hope it's okay if I try this again - my other request got spammed to high hell. I will attempt to be very clear and concise.

    African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".)

    Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.

    This is being perpetuated by certain users (Such as Malik) who are blocking any attempts to mention other races apart from black sub-Saharan African.

    This is not an edit dispute.

    I am requesting non-specific help (whatever you deem as appropriate). For example, blocking of the user from editing the article, a lock of the article, or a lock on editing out mention of other race's genetic contribution to African Americans.

    Thank you Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See above.--ukexpat (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally all of the above discussion was irrelevant to the request. Please don't spam this one, too. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a sensitive topic, and unlike other racial groups in the US, for two reasons: (1) the "one-drop" rule during Jim Crow, where any traceable African ancestry meant you were Negro, couldn't marry white folks, and would get lynched if you tried to vote; and (2) the fact that much of your white ancestry came from rape, both during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, so your ancestors were bastards. Thus talking about either lineage can be difficult. That said, I think (2) is more of a sore spot than (1). Black people take pride in their African ancestry; they are generally not so enthused about their European ancestry. This is a problem emotionally with those DNA ancestry tests: since only a single ancestor can be traced back, you might try tracing your roots to Africa only to find that your only known distant ancestor was white. Since US society still insists that you're black, this can really mess with your identity. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're damn right it's a sensitive topic - and the page is currently a slap in the face to all those Native Americans, East Asians and Europeans that contributed to the culture and genealogy of the African American population. As I said, to not mention them is simply racist. We celebrate how Mexicans are a mixture of mostly Native American, with some African and some European. We celebrate how Argentinians are a mixture of mostly European, with some Native American and some African. And yet racists try to suppress the fact that African Americans are a mixture of mostly African, with some Native American, some European and some East Asian.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is certainly a touchy topic with many diverse opinions.This footage is from a Theroux documentary on Black Nationalism.
    Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pakistan Premier League T20 and User:NHPak

    User has been Indef'd and IP blocked for a week Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NHPak (talk · contribs), no doubt the same person as 39.54.35.26 (talk · contribs), has been removing sourced information from the above article and replacing it with inadequately sourced material despite warnings. It's gone on long enough and somebody should probably block the account and IP. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, account blocked indefinitely and IP blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion

    Regarding Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

    I feel that a number of editors are ganging up on anyone who proposes keeping this article. The tone is uncivil, biting the newbies and nonconstructive. Editors have asked for explanation, help, evidence, guidance and clarification - but have instead been shot down in flames. Looking at the edit history of some of those involved, I honestly believe looking at the contributions of User:Salimfadhley ; User talk:Fmph and User:Dominus Vobisdu that there seems to be a cabal with a single interest of deleting such pages. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed your link. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People disagree. That's what's happening there - people are disagreeing with you on whether the article meets guidelines for inclusion, that's all. I think you threw out the accusations of bullying quite early. Those are completely unhelpful. If you can provide some diffs of people being uncivil or non-constructive then that's a different matter. If you can't, then I think you'll just have to deal with the fact that most of the editors there just happen to believe the article is not suitable. (Also, a cabal with the single interest of deleting pages about schools? That would be the most boring, pointless cabal in the world...) OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your humour and reply. I can deal with disagreements. I'm happy to accept it if an admin wants to throw the article out - I just want to know why, and how I can edit better to avoid this kind of thing happening. I think the abuse and dismissive tone of the editors is unfair. I want to do the right thing, produce a good article, one which meets the notability standard. Will someone please tell me clearly, what is wrong with the article, so I can try and do the positive and constructive thing, which would be to try and fix it. That's all I'm asking. I don't expect to be crapped on for asking that. Every time I've (and others) asked them to explain what the issue is, they quote policies, avoid answering, put up some patronising comment and refuse to give a clear reason which I can look at, and work out a way of improving the article from. That kind of offhanded and uncivil behaviour gives this place a bad name - in my view. As for the 'diffs' I'm sorry but I don't know how to do those - but if you look at the users' talk pages and their edit history you will see that the same behaviour is evident on many other pages and with many other editors. I really want to do the right thing here - but if noone is prepared to be reasonable then it really is too much stress and hassle to waste my evenings on - I have a family that's more important than all this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A diff is like this, showing an edit to a page. I have looked at the article talk and the AFD discussion and I really don't see why you think this was done out of spite. The other users are quoting policies, yes, the notability policies that they think the article fails. If their tone is unpleasant it's probably because they've been accused of bullying and witch-hunting because they are examining the notability of the article in question. I haven't the time to examine the sources of the article in-depth to see if I think it's adequately meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG, but from the discussion on the AFD, the other users feel that the sources are inadequate. I appreciate that you don't want the article to be deleted, but can't you see that your own behaviour is highly imperfect? Accusing others of bullying never helps. Remember to comment on content, not the editors themselves. OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits appear nonconstructive at the very least: [16] [17] [18] [19] 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs)

    Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 ([[User talk:== Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink ==

    Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)|talk]]) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes. A 6-month (minimum) block of 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) for 3RR at Planetary boundaries, and authority to block, even by involved admins, the obvious clones when they reappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A few of the clones can be found at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little disturbed by the edit warring to remove the link, even though it is the correct interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. Where are the attempts to start a discussion? Monty845 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some discussion of the IP-hopping editor's overlinking on that talk page, dating back to last year. Antartica is just his newest selection for overlinking. And that's just this article. I suppose I'll have to bring it up on AN3, noting that this particular war is stopped by (temporary) edit protection, and he apparently hasn't edit-warred to insert the specific link he was blocked for in February since his unblock (although his clones did reinsert it during the block). As I and others have said before, the only solution is permanent semi-protection of all articles loosely connected to climate change, or immediate block on clone detection (for admins, even involved admins) and our considering him banned. He edit-warred using other IPs for at least the first two weeks of his block, and probably for the entire length of his block.
    There had been attempts to discuss his overlinking as far back as 2009; recently, he's been mechanically claiming WP:AUDIENCE whenever one of his overlinks is reverted. There had been attempts to discuss his other absurd edits, including inserting global warming whenever climate change appears, his addition of links on talk pages saying something like "this looks helpful" (especially when it is totally unreliable and has nothing to do with the subject of the article, although it resembles the title of the article -- when questioned, he says it looks helpful on another article, then, when ignored, he acts on it in that article); adding REDLINKS of books to article on the author; wikilinking with quotes (and now, when he realizes that it's inappropriate, adding the link to the "See also" section, even though the link clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the concept expressed by the author); etc. I think something needs to be done here, although user bans are usually discussed at AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Michigan troll(s), for a recent discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur...any ban evaders in Michigan you can think of? When you trace the IP's, do they all come up from Kalamazoo?--MONGO 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The static 97. is from the Kalamazoo Library. Some of the recent 99.*s have been SBC internet connections in Wyoming and Hudsonville, in the Grand Rapids area. Still nearby, and it's possible that the home system is accessible remotely, and that, when you drop an IP, SBC assigns one "near-by". My home IP has geolocated the to California cities Brea, Fullerton, Anaheim, Costa Mesa (about 15 miles south), and Covina (about 15 miles north). I haven't moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur, since this issue seems to come up fairly often on the noticeboards, you may want to consider dropping a link to a centralized page (either an archive or something in your userspace that explains the situation) in your edit summaries when you revert so that people unfamiliar with the situation who just see your reverts can get up to speed. 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree...Arthur, creating a page in your userspace with links to this discussion and the one earlier and link to that upon revert...why not see if checkuser can ID the master?--MONGO 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reason to believe that there is no logged in editor who is a master; if there is someone who they frequently send a WP:TEA to, that might be a candidate, as they show no signs of understanding what they are doing. As for a link, it is tempting, but sometimes I want to give a specific reason for the revert, as well. What do you suggest? An edit reason like:
    If I use Twinkle/revert, it would then appear as
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it makes more sense than his using WP:DIVA, WP:Audience, WP:VIP, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur, if you want to link to a report in your edit summaries, consider making an entry for this editor in WP:Long-term abuse. Then you could link to something like WP:Long-term abuse/Michigan IP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WholesaleChinajerseys

    indef'd as spam account Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This blocked user spammed on its talk page. Please consider revoking his/her talk page access. Mathonius (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Difficulties with Tenebrae?

    George, be careful with asking for admin intervention. This is forum shopping: no admin intervention required. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is it just me, or is there something about User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I have made requests for closure in WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? Maybe there is no need for discussion here, is there? --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See the response at WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? You are correct: there is no need for discussion here.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin Attention on MMA

    I think it is time for me to post here about MMA and the off-wiki activity going on, following on from Some goon on Wikipedia is trying to get all of the UFC Event pages removed(I particularly like the bit about how WP update[s] with results before they announce the decision in the cage) , I think some independent and more experienced (admin) eyes are needed at the UFC articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, I have not notified any one editor about this as there are far too many to select out individually, and though I suspect I know the wiki account of the author of that article my understanding naming it could be WP:OUTING.Mtking (edits) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all about the war between the online MMA community and the Wikipedia community. Previously, I have nominated Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning for deletion (here), but everyone seems to want to turn their ears off to the fact that Wikipedia is all about winning and losing and who comes out on top – just like all the MMA competitors. --MuZemike 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there need to be more eyes on that issue. I've seen some questionable arguments on both sides, and we had a recent ANI about an experienced admin calling scores BLP material... probably needs more attention. I'm not involved enough to have formed an opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the end we have a lot of editors using Wikipedia as their own personal MMA wiki (which already exists elsewhere). The individual articles on fights are purely results services and nearly all of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOT#STATS etc. To give a parallel elsewhere, it would be like creating an article for every regular season NFL or Premier League fixture (indeed, one could probably find better sources for those). The amount of cluelessness at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is stunning; "These people must be violating some Wikipedia policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen." or worse, threats of puppetry "I can go to Sherdog or The Underground right now and bring back hundreds of people, if not more, and we can take that straw poll again. I guarantee you that your opinion will be in the extreme minority." Take a look at UFC 140, and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination), and weep ... Black Kite (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is of last weeks UFC 145 and the discussion at Talk:UFC 145#Notability? over the {{notability|event}} template, the article still is only sourced to MMA websites, there is zero prose on the event it's self, no claim made (sourced or otherwise) to how this event is of historical significance. Would be it any other sporting event likely be merged/redirected or deleted with no fuss. Mtking (edits) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At this stage, I personally would not count it a great loss if the entire wikiproject for MMA was vaped. Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone would like to have a chat with User:Beansy about his bulk removals of {{notability|event}} templates and his edit summaries. Mtking (edits) 11:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you've admitted you clearly do not "understand or care about" MMA, perhaps someone should have a chat with you, User:Mtking, about your massive single-person campaign to remove dozens of significant MMA event pages. This is not a sport like baseball where MLB has over 2000 games in a regular season, or like the NFL which as over 250 not including post-season or pre-season. There are about 45 major MMA events (most of them being the UFC and Strikeforce events) and about 100 second-tier events each year in the entire sport. Trying to remove something like UFC 144 which is a truly historical event that sent shockwaves through the scandal-ridden kakoutougi industry in Japan (general term for all combat sports) by its mere existence and success, not to mention the fact that a World Title changed hands (and there are a lot fewer world champions in MMA than in say, boxing) is particularly galling and demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about the subject, yet you have been crusading non-stop for several weeks now to try and delete as many articles as possible. It's strongly indicative of malice on your part at this point. As for KSW, it specifically is indeed second-tier, but they are the largest promotion in Europe and routinely watched by millions of people in Europe, and the face of the organization is one Mariusz Pudzianowski who is one of the most famous people in all of Poland. KSW results are still fair game for an omnibus compression I suppose, but you don't seem to know a thing about this subject and you've been rebutted numerous times on meeting wiki guidelines, yet you've maintained a fanatical crusade specifically against MMA for completely unclear reasons. Perhaps you could re-direct your efforts towards a cleaning up entries on a sport or subject matter you actually care about, instead of specifically on something you hate. Beansy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been participating in these sorts of deletion procedures since last summer. I've seen hundreds of SPAs in these processes. Hundreds. There's such a coordinated pattern of socking and meatpuppetting here, I'm beginning to wonder if something more serious than mere votestacking is going on. With the enormous amount of betting which surrounds these events, I'm wondering whether the side money community is involved. Scottywong's recent closure of UFC142 points out the need for an RFC. I agree. BusterD (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I did not know about this until a little over an hour ago, but considering that this is a sport with a huge online community (because, well, it's a somewhat major sport), and now that word of what is going on in wikipedia is happening, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you're getting flooded with resistance to this sort of fanatical campaign. Imagine if someone tried deleting Miami Dolphins pages. There would be a tidal wave of resistance (and rightly so) and that's just one NFL team. Oh, and as for how wikipedia pages affect betting, if someone is going to make a patently ridiculous accusation like that, they really ought to explain how on earth wikipedia pages affect gambling or aide in illegal gambling, especially any more so than any other major sport. Beansy (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate User:Beansy demonstrating the problem we're dealing with. Regardless of the motivation, certainly a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance has been taken by the vast number of SPAs which arise anytime one of these events is discussed. Based on the edit history for UFC145, such articles should be at least semi-protected during the event to prevent the chat-like flow of edits. Name calling and ad hominum attacks are the norm in AfDs on the subject. It's clear in this content area that we're not working together to create the best online encyclopedia. As a community, we need to figure out the best way forward. This case-by-case stuff works in favor of the SPAs, not policy or pillars. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your levelheadedness in that "we need to figure out the best way forward." I 100% agree with that and have proven entirely open to change in the past (when all of the Bellator pages got AfD, I created the seasonal pages as suggested). However, I'm not sure you understand the context in which two editors took a suggestion from an admin upon themselves and completely changed all of the UFC pages to an omnibus (where they initially wanted no results) with little discussion from users. That event is what kicked this entire thing off. Additionally, Mtking's campaign of multiple AfDs seems to have little bearing on making things better, but more on wanting to argue and be right (via constant Wikilawyering; example seen here on my talk page). It is ironic that he is all for pushing the omnibus article, yet rarely contributes to it. I'm all for finding a solution, but this latest round of AfDs has proved even less successful. Udar55 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting thought given the statement made in the bloodyelbow article above. Mtking (edits) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination) has been started. Mtking (edits) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, Mtking. It's faintly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets stoutly defend the right of individual match articles to exist, while going after the portmanteau articles with a bad faith nomination. Let me get this straight: MMA event articles are notable, but articles on whole years aren't? That being said, turning my attention to Beansy, why, NO: if people were to attempt to make articles on individual Miami Dolphins games (each of which have many more people and many more viewers than any individual MMA event), they would be swiftly and uncontroversially deleted. The way sports seasons are handled, after all, is with annual articles much like the one you're advocating deleting. Ravenswing 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable to mention that one of the more seasoned and reasonable supporters of these individual pages has proposed that canvassing for more chat board participants is the best way forward. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And a good proposal it is if it is read from an uninvolved viewpoint. We already have a battleground so things can't get any worse. But if Anna's suggestion succeeds then we can get a number of new and dedicated editors developing the subject matter in line with our procedures. Can only be an improvement. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD closed. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) I have to say, I'm very disturbed by the level of battleground behavior from the MMA proponents. There are some suggestions on that blog of escalation into real-life harassment of WP editors (search for "the IP. GET the IP."; you can't link to individual comments). This is fairly typical behavior from bloodyelbow and its associated blogs/forums; an RFC might be a better solution than trying to hash this out on ANI. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As a editor in relatively good standing, having worked with several of the key players in the MMA Project space, I would be disheartened to burn the entire MMA article space to the ground. For every editor we chastize into oblivion and off for violating the policies of WP, 5 more will join as SPAs for the single purpose of expressing support for any MMA article regardless of it's notability, independence, or reliability. After multiple sockpuppets, Canvassing attempts, and single purpose attack accounts I'm considering requesting Arbitration for the explicit purpose of seeking Discretionary Sanctions for the MMA article space so that admins can be more proactive with conduct issues. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it's going that way. That'd also set a very refreshing precedent for other WikiProjects which simply opt out of collaborating with the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem editor, take 489

    987lihas retired. Return here if further action is required Blackmane (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    987li (talk · contribs) — Okay, I'm calling WP:COMPETENCE if not outright trolling. So far, since August, this user has.

    The user got a level 3 "Stop your disruptive editing" warning in September and continued to do the same thing:

    After I warned them to slow down and take it easy, they put a help tag on their page and said "I feel that someone hacked my account.. I got on a vacation and haven't been on Wikipedia for a long time but some edits were not made by me, but it says that it was made by User:987li!" That last edit there smacks of outright trolling, since the edit pattern has been pretty consistent from day one and does not seem to be an account hack.

    tl;dr: This editor is clearly not here to build a project, just to screw around. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Deeply harsh. I'm not sure 987li was actually aware of WP:WAF until I linked to it yesterday during the {{out-universe}} TfD. Unsurprising that he'd want a do-over, and unsurprising that he picked one of the more common lame excuses. This editor needs guided in the right direction rather than his head bitten off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did NOT post that message. I did not get hacked, I did not go on a vacation so I didn't post that message. I admit that I created all those articles, and I admit that I went to far from a good article to an admin, but I seriously didn't post that message of the hacking thing. I dont know who did, but it wasn't me. If I were really hacked, I would have changed my password, not burst out in tears looking for help, right? you don't have to believe me, but that is what really happened. 987li (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering he made an RFA after his first 8 months of screwing around on Wikipedia, I'd say he does need his head bitten off. I'm not an admin so I don't know what that should entail, but one suggestion is, if he's engaging in unconstructive edits or moves, to use each of the increasingly escalating Vandalism Warning templates and then alert an admin to block him when the latter stages are reached. Otherwise, I don't know what the penalty should be for blatant lying, wasting of admins' time, and serial creation of ridiculous articles. Perhaps he should be on some admin's watchdog list, if not outright blocked or banned now. (I vote the latter: ban following this warning if behavior continues to follow this pattern.) Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of your belief, there's NO way that any editor should even be suggested to "have their head bitten off" - any behaviour that serves to drive away another editor is unwelcome on this project. Blocking and/or banning is an absolute last solution to anything. If you think otherwise, then go elsewhere. If your own behaviour related to this situation is represenative of other situations, you need to stand down pretty quickly - your assistance has been the exact opposite of what we need around here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, if you're really going to think that way, go ahead and block me...987li (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    if the average length of "retirement" after placing the banner on the user page was something longer than the 2 hours, that might be worth noting. :-) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just a general comment

    AN/I seems recently to have become (if this is possible) even worse than it's been in the past. I'm disheartened to see such an overwhelming lack of attempts to de-escalate in many situations, with an over-abundant amount of Shoot 'em! Ban 'em! Block 'em!

    Would it be remotely possible to reduce the amount of aggression in here, just for a while? For everyone who's tempted to leap onto a banhammer bandwagon, in cases where calm, friendly discussion and a bit of understanding would probably work better, to have a nice cool beer or three and not post unless they have constructive, forward-moving, non-damaging options to suggest, instead ;P

    Sometimes it seems almost as though we have Clippy-clones in here saying; "It looks like we're recruiting a WikiLynchMob! Would you like some help with that?" Pesky (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing a lot more names in here that follow that attitude, as opposed to:
    1. check that it's been attempted to be resolved directly with the editor
    2. AGF as far as possible
    3. perform the principle of least harm
    4. correct/extinct the bad behaviour, increase the good
    Anyone who's not doing those should STFU, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this is a board reserved for situations that have gotten terribly out of hand, I don't see why proposals for blocking/topic-banning are surprising to you. If you disagree with proposed blocks/bans, speak up and offer an alternative solution to the problem. What I do see on ANI lately is people escalating to drama by repeating themselves endlessly when it is of no avail in the situation, and escalating to aggression by name-calling and profanity (even in acronyms). That is aggression; suggesting blocks or topic bans when they are standard Wikipedia procedure for repeated and warned-against misbehavior is not aggression or necessarily bandwagonism, it's just solution-proffering. You are free to proffer your own solution(s). Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is for proffering solutions that are based on policy and what is best for the project, not your version (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When the only tool you are willing to consider using is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Why arent we giving greater consideration to other options in the toolbox?-- The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat: You are free to proffer your own solution(s). (In the interest of non-repetition, I'm not going to repeat myself again.) Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In a community based project it is EVERYONES responsibility to act in a manner that helps rather than hinders the project. the "YOU fix it" attitude is a prime example of shirking individual responsibility to help the community. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this board is to call for admins to take direct action on a problem which requires admin tools. Coming here is asking for the hammer to be used. If you feel it's not necessary to bring down the hammer, provide your argument. Others will provide theirs. That's how this works. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL should I link it again? Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely. It's applicable to almost every thread on this board. OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For some of the reports, there are cases where all the defendant (for want of a better word) needs is a few words of encouragement and advice. I know in the past that admins have done exactly that, but sometimes I find that having totally uninvolved and neutral editors provide the same service is actually more palatable to them. Despite what we all understand and think, there will always be the thinking of "us (editor plebs)" vs "them (admins)". In the few cases that I've meddled in, I've either learned something new or at least managed to (I hope) provide a peanut gallery voice. Quoting BWilkins, we should take AGF as far as possible (except in obvious cases). Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who posts on this board is not necessarily seeking a block/protection/deletion. Sometimes a warning or word of advice or clarification of policy from an uninvolved admin or someone level-headed who has been around for a while can lead to behavioral changes. And quoting Star Trek should be an action of first resort; I would accept that as an axiom. -- Dianna (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a prime directive? Syrthiss (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my temporary absence; I've been at my daughter's wedding! Prime directive - nice one! As has been said (wisely), much of the problem is when people drag someone (with mandatory kicking and screaming) directly to AN/I, when there are (in many cases) almost certainly other options which would be so much less hurtful. It always seems to get particularly spiteful and nasty in here, and this never does anyone any good at all. It leaves a lot of festering sores behind it, and dramatically demotivates people. The petty bickering may intrigue many people, but when the characters on stage are wielding real swords (well, okay, not real swords, but you know what I mean), the interests of the audience should take a lower priority than rescuing the poor sods on stage, many of whom are probably quite bewildered ;P If people would try all other options first (and yes, I know the only time I ever brought someone here I should have tried other options first ... this is why I'm saying ;P) People in here are not just words on a screen, Mr/Ms Anonymous, they're real people with real feelings. Sometimes I think we lose sight of that, when we can't see them sitting there at their own computer with weepy eyes and tremory fingers. (OK, not all of them, but some of them.) This really should be the place of last resort, or for emergency action, and not for petty little squabbles. Pesky (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with the editor who opened this thread. For a group "not required to use the tools", the tools sure get used pretty fast. I'm sure the defense of this will be, "but some situations require it". But I think the honest editor will recognize that the entire reason that non-requirement was put in the WP:ADMIN page is because they knew the tools would get misused at times. If administrative editors can't admit that, then we're in a sad state. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Justifiable venting

    Talk page access revoked by Scotty -- Dianna (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's justifiable venting after being blocked, then there's this.

    • 19:24, 23 April -- "if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy."
    • 19:26, 23 April -- "Either a competent administrator will undue your improper block, or not."
    • 20:10, 23 April -- "Is this Vulcan mind-meld, psychosis, or what?"
    • 20:25, 23 April -- "Speaking of phronetic limitations..."
    • 22:00, 23 April -- (edit summary) "Pathetic, make that bathetic"
    • 07:45, 24 April -- "So you ignore the rule-book when it applies to you and your familiars, and run around imposing bullshit blocks without having the decency to explain your fuck ups?"
    • 08:03, 24 April -- "Sarek's abuse of tools"
    • 08:49, 24 April -- "This episode has provided good examples that will stop BHG, Sarek, Bushranger, etc. from ever being elected to ArbCom or re-elected as administrators."
    • 14:01, 24 April -- "The Blocking-Head Sarek of Vulcan had no such sense. but apparently had powers of mind-reading into my intentions (which relieves him of the usual WP policy of describing behavior rather than intentions)"
    • 16:29, 24 April -- (edit summary) "Dawes describes his psychologist colleagues having the ability to understand others' intentions without behavioral evidence as satisfying one DSMIV-R criterion for psychosis"
    • 08:53, 25 April -- "Sarek has behaved like an abusive administrator, not for the first time---and not for the last, unless he grows up. He blocked me for a month because he didn't like my short notice on Malleus's page, which he stupidly (incompetently and---one would like to be able to wish---perhaps not dishonestly) called a violation of canvassing."
    • 09:31, 25 April -- "After Sarek abused his administrators powers"
    • 12:46, 25 April -- (edit summary) "Has anybody looked at IRC or Facebook, regarding this RfA, for real canvassing (not Sarek's hallucination)"

    And that's just the attacks on me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access revoked for the remainder of the block. He is clearly not using his talk page for making a reasonable appeal, he is just using it to cast accusations and spout endless nonsense as usual. What he really needs is a solid chunk of time away from Wikipedia, not two weeks of using his talk page as his personal facebook page to chat with his wiki-friends about how Sarek and the "Blocking Heads" are a bunch of assholes. A short, temporary block is intended to demonstrate to the user what it will be like if he continues the behavior which got him blocked. This means that KW should be restricted from influencing articles, AfD's, CfD's, and pretty much everything else. Talk page access during a block is a privilege given so that the user may appeal his block, and in this case it is clearly not being used for that purpose. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unjust, but expected. Where's that dog cartoon when you need it? Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is there a WP:KICKADOGWHILEHESDOWN essay? Seems like it fits. -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobthebuilder1412 account being used just to make patently undeserving pages

    Indef'd as VOA Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Never mind, he's already been blocked.JoelWhy (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=489166862"