Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.127.54.117 (talk) at 16:58, 18 August 2012 (→‎Back on Topic). 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.

    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:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

    Georgewilliamherbert has closed the proposed ban as "enacted". 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Wikipedia group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

    Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

    On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

    I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

    I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Wikipedia has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick. —MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? [1]. I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I have now found Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).
    However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.
    It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.
    I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of [BOLD] and [OWN] and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    /sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    /sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    /double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.
    Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.
    Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?
    Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.
    Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. --Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it back. I'd much prefer that you stay. You clearly have the best interests of the project in mind. It is important to you and you have a lot to contribute. What I want is behaviour change. That table you inserted into a TFA totally munted the page on my laptop. I ended up with a narrow string of words squeezed between it and another graphic. It was thoughtless, inconsiderate behaviour; utterly disrespectful of the writers who had created it. I want you to see that and recognise that that behaviour style is deprecated here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Wikipedia, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't be silly: hypothetical software-mediated "re-users"
      Try maps.google.com and turn on the Wikipedia layer. Amazon has all the books. They download the whole database, over and over again. That includes all the structure, templates, /everything/. Get with the information age, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Or Dbpedia. Or the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from TFAs, and would be willing to expand it to articles in the que for TFA. Andy seems to have a bit of a fixation with these articles, as per comments above, and it seems that his conduct of himself in the process is far less than acceptable. One does get the impression that these edits may be motivated more by an urge to get attention than anything else. And I think common sense would indicate that making substantive potentially controversial edits to FAs, on the day when they are most visible, is a very bad idea. WP:COMMONSENSE would seem to apply here. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

    On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,
    I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".
    reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA
    the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.
    claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.
    In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.
    again making accusations of WP:OWN
    No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see [{WP:OWN]]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.
    attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day
    No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.
    things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day
    I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.
    There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware
    Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.
    he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article
    Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?
    the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too
    If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

    Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

    I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- CassiantoTalk 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Wikipedia. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Wikipedia is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - [in that: he choose to raise the issue of infoboxes in a classical-music article (which he knows is in a tense stalemate based on his many past participations and readings) on the day of TFA. Whether he did it through lack-of-foresight, or wp:pointy intent, is almost irrelevant. But does he recognize and understand why we all think it is a problem? why we're discussing it at length.
      If he refuses to acknowledge that, then it points towards a fundamental inability to work with others-of-opposing-viewpoints, and I'd support some sort of strong repercussions. If he does acknowledge that he made a poorly-timed decision, then I think it would demonstrate the empathy that is currently missing.
      I.e. the mistakes that are being made, are entirely based on (1) timing that he should have known was bad, and (2) the-specific-words-chosen-by-him-in-explanations (which often inflame a situation, eg regularly dismissing people's comments as, "straw man", which can often come across as arrogant and hostile). [tl;dr: His goals are good, but his tactics are sometimes very flawed, which he needs to acknowledge] -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm loathe to stick my oar into this too much, but I just want to pick up on this point. I don't really know Andy particularly well, I haven't seen any form of edit warring or any edits he's done that haven't improved the encyclopaedia from at least some angle, and his enthusiasm for the place is a great asset. I see his point of view that you should be bold and improve stuff if you have a sincere belief it will result in an overall benefit. What I am seeing a lack of is not so much that he made a bad judgement call (I'm sure he'd argue otherwise - remorselessly) but an acceptance of the other point of view. Something like "I believe my actions were correct, but you know what, I see why you'd be annoyed. It's not the end of the world, after all. Sorry about that." Exactly what we can do about that, who knows. Probably nothing. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Both: I told Quiddity in email I'd post a reply on Tues, but in the light of Georgewilliamherbert's request, below, I'm going to hold off for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Close request

    This is a complex and unusual situation and community sanctions proposal; while 48 hrs are up, leaving this open for at least one more weekday seems like a wise course of action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is not the right venue for the introduction of complicated editing sanctions at the behest of a mob (whose suggestions run the gamut from a ban on editing TFA to a full site ban). It's not at all clear that there is a consensus here, and it's absurd to suggest that this has somehow met some sort of upper threshold on desired community input (twenty editors, most of whom are either long-term advocates or opponents of Andy, chipping in over a weekend). This needs a formal resolution and not an arbitrary close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Close it. Clear consensus here merely confirms the findings of two Requests for Arbitration. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Thumper, while there are clearly related issues that need resolving, there is no consensus that there is an "Incident" here that needs admin action.
    Propose the section is simply hatted and we move on. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Yeah. See Secretlondon's comment: "This is not the way to handle this." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed topic ban from TFA has broad support above, and it's not such a big deal as to require another arbitration case. 99.99% of editors wouldn't even notice being topic-banned from TFA ... JN466 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    99.99% of editors don't work on editing TFA. That means that the 0.01% who do (and that estimate is still several of orders of magnitude too high) are precious. They shouldn't be shed lightly on the basis of straw polls in which the majority of the participants have significant reasons to either support or exclude Andy's efforts on the project outwith the rather narrow domain of TFA. By and large straw polls on user conduct don't work after an editor reaches a certain threshold of fame / notoriety. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should Andy be allowed to continue editing TFA if his editing there is disruptive? I'd understand the need for an exemption if a Featured Article he had been a significant contributor to was at TFA, but as far as I can see, he's never written one. JN466 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People who judge contributions to FAs on the basis of accumulated stars are why we shouldn't have a star-accumulation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's just assume that anyone who makes a nuisance of himself at TFA is someone who has made unknown but nevertheless vital contributions to Wikipedia's featured content, far more vital than the contributions of those who actually wrote that content. That makes a lot of sense. JN466 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that perpetuating the false dichotomy between "nuisances" and "those who actually wrote that content" indicates that you understand the point being made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misjudging the arguments. They aren't saying we should judge Andy based on his abundance or lack of stars; rather, they are stating that his lack of involvement in the process highlights the disruptive nature of his edits at TFA, and that he is not a "precious" editor to the TFA process by any means. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As ArbCom has ruled: Mabbett "disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation." Nothing has changed. He's still on probation (see ArbCom list here). This should be a routine matter of enforcement, despite what a small minority of his sympathisers claim. An editor who can't or won't moderate his behaviour despite repeated sanctions has to be reined in (again). Plus, we don't have vested contributors. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That essay describes ("long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority") not my behaviour, but the behaviour of your fellow classical music colleagues in regard to one ("consensus among those who work on articles in this category"; not to mention repeated references to a bogus instruction; see above), and others in regard to the second ("the main contributors who got this article up to FA... You have made one drive-by edit... As far as I'm concerned If [X] doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and [Y] otherwise"") of the two single TFAs mentioned at the top of this sorry thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And that ArbCom statement describes your behaviour in this and other areas. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were genuinely a "routine matter of enforcement" then it wouldn't be generating this level of heat. Rather, the matter is complicated by a) the significant period of time between the sanctions and the present and b) the quite obvious desire for certain notoriously insular wikienclaves to rid themselves of a perceived pest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    For the record, my tally (ending with Riggr) was, reading from my envelope, 5 +PC, 13 +TB, 3 +cmt, 3 +opp, 2 +ban. The range of solutions is not all that complex to analyze. Also I need to pay an instalment on my contents insurance. :) Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could an uninvolved admin (that does not include the admin who hatted the discussion) please close the discussion and implement any sanction which the community may have decided on?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Exhaustion of community patience?

    Reading the specifics of the close request discussion above, I think that I have to restate this in terms of a "exhaustion of community patience" case. This is an established, if relatively rare, sanction basis. The specific incident that precipitated this seems not to rise to the level of actionable, by itself (though an argument is being made that the pattern of prior action and probation might make it so). It and Andy's response do seem to have raised a high degree of ire in a wide swath of the community.
    We have been bad about setting up better criteria for when someone has exhausted community patience. Exhausting one users' patience doesn't count; exhausting a bunch of users' patience also doesn't count, though at some point a bunch becomes enough. Andy does have an extensive history of various sanctions, but also extensive good editing. It's clear both that the number of upset people is in the tens (at least); it's not clear if that represents a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters.
    With this in mind, I would like to request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please look at Andy's edit history as well as prior sanctions and the current situation. A consensus of otherwise uninvolved users would be far superior to an attempt to find consensus of ones who largely seem involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement of history. I know nothing about any of this. I haven't even been following the discussion above. For my own benefit and for the benefit of any other uninvolved editor, I thought I'd try to list Andy's "bad" history:
    1. Andy's block log. Note that it shows the largest number of blocks in 2005, decreasing over time but still robust, and then a large gap between 2009 and 2012. Other gaps may be partly explained by bans listed below.
    2. At the end of 2005, Andy was placed on indefinite probation. According to the Remedies section, Andy could be "banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." On January 25, 2006, he was banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. There are other "remedies". Andy is still on probation.
    3. On August 19, 2007, Andy was again banned for one year.
    4. According to the block log, on March 22, 2012, Andy was indeffed because of "BLP concerns" and until he "agrees to leave Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) alone." On the same day, the block was lifted because of a "clear emerging consensus for topic ban; block hopefully no longer needed". On April 2, 2012, a Hawkins topic ban was proposed. On April 7, the discussion was closed as no consensus for the ban.

    That's all I'm doing for now. The next step would be for me to figure out what's happened more recently. But at least this history might help some other uninvolved editors who want to comment on the proposed topic ban. (If I've left out anything relevant, please let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no topic ban regarding Jim Hawkins (nor idneed anything else), as a result of or connected to the March 2012 block either, and the blocking admin was criticised by others for his actions (Example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In this connection, I do note that Jimbo said "At least in terms of what has been presented, it is clear to me that a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article for being annoying for no encyclopedic purpose, and it should be indefinitely semi-protected." and also said "I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. ... Both of them [Pigsonthewing and another editor] should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject." --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    There were at least three topic ban threads, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Topic_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban_request and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing, . They carried on for weeks and eventually petered out. Also related are [2], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Jim_Hawkins, [3]. In this section Jimbo Wales, Fæ, Kim Dent-Brown, Errant and Skyring pleaded with Andy to stop editing the article; he refused. --JN466 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Again, invoking my status as uninvolved, I have to say that Andy's comments about the blocking admin being criticized (and reiterating that there was no topic ban, even though I updated that in the history) and Jay's comments generally aren't helpful for this editor. I can read those kinds of comments in the discussion above. I can't stop you from commenting in this section, but I sure wish you wouldn't and that you'd remove them. They will no doubt provoke more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I regret to say that I find Georgewilliamherbert's comments to be rather unfortunate. He repeatedly characterizes those who have called for a sanction against Andy as emotional (and accordingly, not as clear-thinking as he sets himself up to be) by referring to "ire" and people who are "upset", and at the end is rather dismissive in terming them as "largely ... involved". Plainly Gwh doesn't agree with action being taken against Andy, but I wish he would not make characterizations about the positions of other editors in that manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that "largely ... involved" is an unbiased description of the activity above. If you want to break it down commenter by commenter in toto and that disproves the generalization, I will accept a correction.
    I do not disagree with action being taken in the sense of registering an OPPOSE (either publicly or privately concluding such) - I have not been involved, and we want un-involved admins to assess and engage on problem discussions and community action proposals. My assessment is that a large group who largely are involved want Andy banned, in general and for an incident. My assessment of the incident - personal admin assessment, not overriding either the community writ large or another admin's judgement - is that the incident showed misbehavior (slightly disruptive disregard for other parts of the community) but not bannable behavior, even for someone under sanctions already and with an extensive record. My assessment of "in general" is that - as always - the community writ large can exhaust patience but a pool of involved editors cannot.
    I understand where your and Jayen's frustrations are coming from. But we really, really need uninvolved input to determine community exhaustion of patience. Please. I am disregarding people because I see what appears to be involvement, yes, but that's the point: exhaustion of community patience needs that separation.
    Again, if you want to identify specific people who commented earlier who aren't involved, if that stands up, their input is back in consideration. I would very much like to see additional input by others as well.
    I'm not "in charge" of this - but I care about how the community sanctions process works and have been very involved with developing it over the years. I can't override other admins who may chose to do something, but I believe I'm doing the right thing here with this request and framing the question this way. If you think I'm being biased against action, the process is biased against action - by design, and explicitly. Enough uninvolved people need to comment strongly enough to establish whether the wider community really does want a severe sanction or not. Please respect the process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't add to it by referring to "your and Jayen's frustrations". It's the same style of argument. You're setting yourself up as the reasonable person and suggesting that those who don't agree with you are acting in an emotional manner. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c w. GWH) Speaking as someone who you would have to invoke a multiverse with wormhole travel and time-distortion fields to consider involved in any way, yeah I'm not happy with the precise wording. But I do think that the previous commenters should back off, and that includes Andy, and let some more people chime in. Otherwise we're going to wind up with a "no result" as the same participants regurgitate, which isn't going to help anything. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you folk duke this out, I propose a topic ban for Franamax for articles related to wormhole travel, narrowly construed to only those articles on another Wikipedia on a different Internet far far away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is community support for banning Andy from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Would an uninvolved admin please close this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is more complicated than that. If I were as desperate to "get rid" of "uncouth bullies" as you in this case, I'd actually be keener on a formal resolution which might enact that than on the quickest punitive action that could be flung together at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it is more complicated than that or no, I think the community has spoken, and that a closing admin will bar Andy from the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As the original poster, I wish to popint out that the only other place I have posted about this thread is on Andy's talk page where I was obliged to give notice. I have not been to any of the classical music projects, the featured article project, to Wikipediocracy or to anywhere else to drum up support nor have I sent messages to anyone who had not already contributed to this discussion. Therefore the suggestion that this discussion involves more involved people than any other ANI ban discussion needs some justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would join with that. I found the comments referred to condescending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether editors were canvassed into commenting here or not (and let's point out that nobody has suggested any impropriety on behalf of Peter Cohen or anyone else in that regard), the overrepresentation of comments here by editors who have previously had some sort of major dispute with Andy certainly makes it less clear-cut that the current input represents the consensus of the general community. The classical music project, for instance, is plainly overrepresented, including one commentator who described himself as only coming to ANI once a year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But not in this discussion, which is the most important aspect of determining whether this represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FA process

    What FlyingPigs said earlier has merit, as follows: Rather than targeting some overly-"helpful" individual, it should be a matter of etiquette, and of "not harming wikipedia", if not outright policy, to act as follows: "Once an article is a Featured Article, don't modify it without consultation. It has gone through the FA process and been seen by many eyes. Don't take it upon yourself to subvert that consensus." Or words to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The FA team have made clear that they explicitly consider the use of an infobox (or coordinates), or not, to be outside the FAC process's consideration. Surely, therefore, the fact that an article is an FA does not mean that that issue has been considered, or decided by the community, or has consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, I think you wrote "many" where you meant to write "at least three or four".
    Also, as per the example I gave earlier, where I see something wrong in a Featured Article, I boldly fix it - I don't go looking for "consultation" first - unless the fix is likely to be controversial. All editors are encouraged to do the same. The original incident under discussion here, allegedly has factors making it a bit different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing something wrong, such as an obvious misspelling or some such, is fine. Screwing around with actual content should be done with something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The example I was discussing was fixing a major factual error in the article. That certainly is "screwing around with actual content". But "don't modify it without consultation" is a non-starter here. Wikipedia policy hasn't changed on that, and I don't see a consensus to change it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. A ghastly thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the readers ahead of egoistic editors - yes, what a ghastly thought. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better way of putting what Bugs tried to say is that you shouldn't make major alterations to a FA without discussion, or should not object to a reversion and be willing to talk it out. The lack of an infobox was not the same thing as a misspelling or a misused dash. And TFA day is difficult enough (especially since Raul's gone to a "just-in-time" scheduling practice) without having to deal with such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's already codified (1e in the FA criteria). This is a stronger proposal. I'm not even getting into the discussion about whether the addition of an infobox—routinely applied to every biography on the project without anyone batting an eyelid, unless the person in question wrote classical music for a living—counts as a major upheaval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "be willing to talk it out" In both (yes, there are just two) of the examples given at the top of this "Incident", I was involved in the talk page discussion; I started one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Surely the whole point of the FA process is to attract people to editing articles, isn't it? For example, we take pains to avoid protecting the day's FA so that we don't stifle new interest in editing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ... it seems that some editors, who have “bust a gut” producing an FA, even several years ago, get a little 'uneasy' when editors who are “too ignorant and lazy” to direct their attention elsewhere, try to improve it. Even when they open a discussion on the Talk Page to do just that. Perhaps what is needed, once an article has achieved FA, is a big permanent banner proclaiming who still owns the article – a whole new exciting direction for WP:OWN? I’m sure this would be welcomed by some editors. Although not by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Write one, and we'll talk again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're obviously mature enough not to be so flippant on ANI, so are you honestly suggesting that input into this proposal (made by another editor who hasn't any successful FA noms AFAICS) should be limited to people with stars on their user pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what I replied to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought the process was meant to be collaborative and not quite so exclusively competitive. But then, I used to have that view about the whole project. Still, good job we can't talk again, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sarcastic comments directed at those who write FAs are uncalled for, and as I pointed out, uninformed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Uninformed by the recent personal experience that has prompted my decision to consider leaving the project? Apologies for using direct quotes there, Wehwalt. And apologies to all the other, perfectly reasonable, FA writers. I do hope Andy is treated reasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right! Stop that!
    It's far too silly!
    Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

    I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's all take a deep breath, relax, and wait for a closing admin. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to think that while some such idea would have merit, this particular proposal might not. I haven't been that heavily involved in FA process, but there do seem to be, and perhaps have been, several articles which have been promoted only to be rather quickly demoted again later. This might be because few people were involved initially, or that there was a "trend" in the field which later faded, or whatever. I would myself favor having the FA process explicitly involve reviewing the content of similar published reference articles on the subjects, which I think would help reduce the percentage of demotions. But, without that, yeah, academic opinions do change over time, sometimes quickly, and I think it is reasonable to make allowances for them. Particular concerns might be about politicians who see a major scandal in the brewing who might want to get their pointmen to write their bio up to FA level without any indications of the scandal in the offing. If we could make review of extant reference sources more of a factor in the FA process, then maybe instituting a later step like this might be a good idea, but we should probably try to get things done in the right order. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day

    User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Above, Thumperward (talk · contribs) recommended a formal resolution be put regarding Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Same basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment1 Should the header for this vote be changed to level 3 not level 2?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment2 There were some people above who voted for a ban. If they wish to do so again, could they consider doing this as a separate motion with a separate header so that !votes don't get split 3 ways which makes it harder tor each a consensus? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per previous comments (based on ArbCom findings). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Two instances of Andy making policy-compliant edits that the folks who WP:OWN the articles don't like. Despite Andy engaging on the talk pages, he's still pilloried. It's just a convenient means of silencing those who have different opinions. Additionally, it is now proposed that he be banned from editing any article scheduled as FA of the day. There has been absolutely no evidence brought forward showing any problems with Andy editing articles scheduled as TFA. If the TB is to be broadened that far, then it had better be debated first - rather than tacked on like a pork bill. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said "formal resolution" I meant ArbCom, not all the same people as the above section bold wording their opinions again just in case anyone had missed the bold text behind the original (bonus points for Peter Cohen doing it thrice). Lord knows how this was misconstrued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I misunderstood. Shall we close this thread and take it to Arbitration, or let it run and see if this makes the consensus any clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be best, lest some naive admin count heads here and be embroiled in what would seem to be the inevitable future ArbCom discussion on accounts on enacting a controversial topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I find it rather annoying that you would characterize an admin who closed this on the same side as the numbers are as automatically "naive", as I do your suggestion above that I'm part of some mob. You've basically tried to set this up as some "no reasonable person would close this with a ban result", and that's just plain rubbish and insulting to those who are just tired of Andy's behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you would suggest that counting heads is a sensible option here? I notice that you're semi-retired yourself, and that you've made less than a dozen articlespace edits since the start of the year. That doesn't do much to shift the notion that this is a petition rather than an assessment of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, of course. If you can't discredit people's arguments, discredit the people themselves. Great idea. And no, I do not suggest counting heads, I suggest weighing arguments. If someone closes against a ban based on arguments, OK; as I'm OK with a close against me if there's an actual policy-based reason. Unsubstantiated mob accusations and insinuations that semi-retired (burnt-out, actually) users ought not to have suffrage are not policy-based. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out your lack of recent articlespace edits was not meant to disparage you, or suggest you are no longer allowed to have an opinion: it does, however, lend credence to the idea that the perceived support for sanctions here should not be taken on a naive (there's that word again) head count given that so much of it comes from editors who have long histories with Andy and that therefore less resembles a community weather vane as it does a petition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. JN466 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, alas. I personally am in the camp of those who believe each and every article should have an infobox - however, as mentioned above, mucking about with an article that's on the front page sends wholly the wrong impression. If Andy would just say "whoops, my bad, I'll be more careful in the future - and remember that there is no deadline", this wouldn't still be going on. The fact he hasn't (as far as I can tell in all the nearly WP:TLDR debate above) said that, however, indicates that this is necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and to be clear, based on the methodology of the edits, rather than on the merits. --Rschen7754 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, rationale already provided above. And I don't see any need to escalate to ArbCom here, unless we're going to suggest that the community isn't allowed to implement sanctions any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for exactly the same reasons as The Bushranger. Actually, I wouldn't quite go so far - I agree that it can be a valid application of WP:BOLD to update TFA with an infobox (eg: "I don't have much time on WP so I had to do it now", "I wasn't sure of process, so I just did it", "I'd never heard of the article today and wanted to help"), but my sense from the above discussion is we don't have a reasonable excuse that addresses everyone's concerns. Even so, an apology would go a long way to fixing all this. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - perhaps we can avoid escalation? GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Sorry Andy; the TFA process can't work if it's exhausting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - certainly not the place for pointy and contentious editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per RexxS. I observe Andy's issues always seem to come in conjunction with small cabals of editors who display very strong ownership tendencies; and who to my mind seem to prioritise the acquisition of badges - GA, FA - above improving article content to a point at which an article unambiguously deserves those badges. In effect we're seeing standards being lowered so that borderline articles can be forced through. FA in particular should be a very hard look at an article to see if it is part of the best of wikipedia. It is exactly the sort of place that I would expect to see robust discussion. Sadly, I repeatedly see proponents of an article achieving GA or FA getting very emotional about what should be a rational discourse. And so now, to forestall nasty Andy wading in to argue in particular for structured information such as for coords or infoboxen, you want to ban him because you don't like arguing the point with him? That's really disgusting, and very much the thin end of the wedge. It is absolutely legitimate for any editor to express their opinion as to an FAC. You may not like the opinion. You may wish to argue against the opinion, (but you should be aware that Andy will invariably argue right back). But you should in good faith respect the opinions he holds rather than seek to no-platform him so that your FACs can have an easier life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure who that's directed at, but I'm going to assume it's not me. As I've tried to make clear from several edits, I have no problem with Andy expressing an opinion, and I frankly agree with him that he had the perfect right to improve the article if he had a genuine belief it would be beneficial. Below you'll see a solution I have for making this a much easier ride for everyone. Having done about 3 hours' work this evening on getting an article towards GA quality (and it's still far from ready), I couldn't disagree more that GAN and FAC are a walk in the park - absolutely not. I've spent 2 weeks reviewing a GA article, about 3 days doing another one, I've got another one on the go as well, and I'm still getting (albeit constructive and welcome) criticism from the first. I can only imagine FAC is worse. However, you are correct about one thing - there is strong evidence for people not wishing to argue with him. And why should they? Is not WP:3RR just a specialised case of an argument? There is a very fine but distinct difference between arguing and simply agreeing to disagree and deciding a consensus. In my years of managing web forums and bulletin boards, I have come across a handful of people who seem to possess endless enthusiasm for disagreeing at absolutely everything, pulling apart sentences to pick out the one fragment they dislike, and at no point in the proceedings do they stop back and think "Is it worth doing this? Why don't we just drop it?" They're very difficult to ban outright as it's extremely hard to point to any actual direct ad-hominem attacks. Almost without exception, the two endgames of that are that that person gets finally gets banned (after years of aggravation) or takes an extended holiday following the threat of one, or the community disintegrates into a heap. We haven't had the first with Andy, and we can't have the second because we're one of the few communities big enough to withstand such a thing. The ban, at least from my view, is to protect Andy from going off on the rails and ending up doing something silly like this sorry example. I would urge you to comment on my alternative proposal below. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tagishsimon I don't see where anyone has suggested that Andy be banned from FAC, so even if this passes he will still be able to comment there. Weighing in a FAC is a much better idea than waiting for TFA, anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes. Off in my own little world, for whatever reason, thinking the proposal extended to FAC. Thank you, Mark. My oppose still stands, however. Looking, for instance, at the two articles cited by the OP, Manchester Ship Canal and Georg Solti, I see Andy adding a table of coords in one, and an infobox in t'other. I do not see any edit warring whatsoever. Stuff was boldly added. The additions were reverted. The matter got taken to the appropriate talk page. What's not to like about that? I'm finding it really hard to believe that anyone would want to bar Andy for having the temerity to do what we're all encouraged to do, merely because such a person doesn't happen to like coords or infoboxes or the style of Andy's argumentation. That sucks. @Ritchie333 ... if I understand your alternative proposal correctly, it is to require Andy to put together a GA or an FA, so as to increase his empathy for GA & FA writers. I don't support that, first and foremost because I don't see that he has done anything w.r.t. FAs that deserves any sanction at all. The evidence supplied by the OP is not ban-worthy. The idea that there are not ownership issues w.r.t. road & composer articles is risible; the fact that Andy will argue against ownership again is not ban-worthy. Of course it would be great if Andy - and any of us - showed more empathy. Including those who would ban him on such scant evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is more that Andy has certain standards and expectations w.r.t. wikipedia pages which are not always shared by others in the community. His interventions in the pair of article pages cited by the OP seem to me to be entirely blameless. And whilst I am a critic of his style of arguing I very much want him to continue arguing for the sorts of things he argues for - mainly accessibility and structured data. I'd like him to show more empathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per RexxS and Tagishsimon's observation. None of what Andy did was harmful, nothing he inserted was incorrect or poorly sourced. It was just went against the Wikiproject that owns the article. The proof is in the pudding, instead of discussing the merits of his edits, we're trying to topic ban him. ThemFromSpace 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, again, maybe I should get one of those stamps made as my reasoning has not changed. It's unfortunate to see the lineup along ideological lines ("oppose because all articles should have an infobox") when to me it's behavioural and more about WP:COMMONSENSE: sure, your ideas have merit and are worth discussing, but why here and why now? When you know TFA will be a contentious time to do it, is your thing really that crucial that you have to muscle onto centre-stage, stamp your foot up and down and say "I AM ALLOWED to do this"? IMO that is attention-seeking behaviour. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A suggestion

    There's a lot of "attack! attack! attack!" in this discussion so far, so I'm going to throw this offer on the table as a more positive way of resolving things in the long term that doesn't go remotely near blocking anyone. I see a lot of (IMHO) justified criticism that Andy has not demonstrated any empathy towards others. One possible way of resolving this is to encourage him through getting an article to FAC himself, to see things from the other side. There's a number of Pink Floyd articles that aren't FA but could be - my eye's personally on Atom Heart Mother, though that needs a lot of work just to get it to GA status for now. Still, it's the one I think we can get the best story out of against the Floyd albums that haven't gone through FAC as it stands. I can't see any obvious evidence that he's been involved in the previous FAC reviews (Parrot of Doom seems to be the main driver), so what he does with the Floyd articles, if anything, I don't know.

    Getting through the FAC review, as far as I can tell, requires research, diligence, and the ability to listen to criticism. If the FAC reviewer say "jump", you better jump. If you argue with them, you'll fail the review. Simple as.

    If the ban carries, perhaps we could use getting an article through FAC himself as a condition of it being lifted.

    Thoughts? Or this is just too much effort and a waste of time? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The difficulty is his contributions to the TFA. Bringing articles to FA is highly laudable, but how does it address the issue? This isn't a punishment, for which he must do community service to atone, it's to address unfortunate interactions that have helped to lose us a valuable editor and friend. If your concern is that he might not be able to edit his own TFA, I think it would be a common-sense exception that could be addressed once the article was scheduled or nominated for scheduling at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've read that slightly differently to what I intended. The idea is that the act of getting an article to FA and through the review will hopefully make him understand what sort of constructive debate is required, and he'll realise that pushing back on things, even when he's sure he's right, isn't necessarily useful for a collaborative environment. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of learning through walking a mile in the other guy's shoes is always attractive. My concern is that in real life, human nature usually intervenes somewhere along the line. Perhaps others feel differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if Andy actually does understand, why the (infobox on classical TFA) timing was bad. Which is why I was suggesting an "acknowledgement" was needed, earlier.

    There are logically two possibilities. Either:

    1. Andy does understand, and is being tactical/stubborn. He is refusing to admit anything, because he doesn't want to "give an inch, lest they take a mile". (In this instance, he doesn't want to let the "article/wikiprojects can decide for themselves" infobox-precedent stand un-protested, for fears that it will spread...)
      • Possible Solution: He needs to recognize [acknowledge] the perspectives/points of other people, when the disagreement is nuanced / ambiguous / non-clear / subjective, just a bit more often. [he very very rarely does, which is part of why his conversations often become "adversarial".] It would also help if he spent more time editing his choice of words, avoiding divisive and inflammatory words as much as possible. ("straw man", "duped", etc). It will take longer, but work better.
    2. Andy does Not understand the problem, due to non-neurotypical thinking, or similar.* If this is the case, then there are only two possible solutions:
      • Last-resort Prevention: community sanctions of some sort. He literally cannot be reasoned with in some cases, and in those cases we need a damage-control mechanism. (Like the 70+ biographical Featured articles without infoboxes, and hundreds of nonfeatured, that he'll eventually make his way around to (but "non-systematically" per the rfc).)
      • Possible Cure: find someone who can re-explain certain-things, in a way that does make sense to him, when he gets into a battle like this. (Wherein he sincerely doesn't comprehend the legitimacy of the other points of view.)
    • *Note: I was reading this excellent essay (mostly by Pesky) recently, plus a number of books that touch upon similar topics and situations.**
    • **Note2: See also: Exformation as brilliantly explained by zefrank. Our discussions (here, and throughout Wikipedia, and throughout life) are overflowing with exformation. It's a useful thing to understand. The newcomers don't have any exformation, and the oldhands have too much!

    I earnestly hope that this framing of the situation will help. It's in the gray-zone of too-personal, which we usually and officially steer clear of; but it's a systemic/widespread set of problems (miscommunications that escalate), and if we can create a positive-outcome here (for everyone), then it could be immeasurably helpful in the future.

    [I've done my best to keep this as short/compassionate/polite/impersonal/nuanced/short as possible; apologies for any/all missteps; choosing the 'best brief' words is hard (I've spent three+ hours refining this single post). We should be able to keep everyone editing, with more understanding all-around.] -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles

    Jack Merridew, user:Br'er Rabbit, has been harassing me for the last six months or so. This is continuation of the same behavior (harassment and sockpuppetry on a grand scale) that caused him to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee for the last six years or so.

    For the last few weeks, it's gotten especially bad at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests‎, a page which exists for the sole purpose to help me coordinate requests for main page featured article scheduling. Jack has been trolling there something fierce over the last few days.

    I removed some of his trolling from that page, and he began revert warring with me. So I've taken the unusual step of arbitrarily banning him from that page. I've removed all of his posts to that page, and protected the page until he's dealt with.

    I know I'm not the only one he's harassing. He seems to go from harassing one person to the next with alarming frequency. I think it's about time we discussed a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that an interaction ban could be a more helpful alternative. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it keeps him off the FA pages, that's fine where I am concerned. It doesn't really help the other people he continues to harass. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    better to fix the FA process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FPP for snarky remarks? Not consistent with involved, and since when can a single admin declare a ban? Nobody Ent 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (misuse of tools;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protecting the page on which you are having a dispute with another editor is not supposed to happen. You have used your tools inappropriately here, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - using admin tools in a dispute in which you are clearly involved is an abuse of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if nothing else, at least Raul didn't simply block Jack. I agree that he has gone overboard with the full protection, but it is also obvious that Jack is both disrupting the process and acting in a fashion designed to piss Raul off, likely to make a WP:POINT. I think both need to back down here. Resolute 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it.

    And I did it not just because of the snarky remarks -- it's that he's graduated into actively subverting the rules (rescheduling featured articles himself [5]) and encouraging others to do likewise [6][7]. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discretionary powers of the FA director cannot extend to the abuse of admin tools. Not gonna happen. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Being FA director does not mean you can ignore the admin rules that the rest of us have to abide by. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The FA pages don't operate like articles do. It's not abuse - it's reasonable discretion. And note to anyone reading that DIanna has been one of Jack's long-time apologists. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean I'm wrong. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Raul, I respect the job you do, but man, you've gotta accept that you've overstepped yourself here. Please reverse your protection. The only thing you are accomplishing here is to let him bait you into becoming the focus of attention. Resolute 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with unprotecting the requests page provided other measures are taken to curb his trolling. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The rules regarding the use of admin tools are not restricted to their use on article pages - they apply to all pages. And you don't get to impose conditions before you agree to follow the rules regarding use of admin tools - you need to reverse your abuse of the tools unconditionally, and then *ask* for help, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict x4) Just looking over this case from afar, I can see a case to be made that Raul's removal of Jack's comments and subsequent lock of the page meets the "only involved in an administrative capacity" exception given by WP:INVOLVED. However, indefinitely full-protecting the TFA requests page because of one user's conduct seems... unwise, to say the least. And I'm also not certain that Raul has the authority to "ban" Jack from the page in question; that would seem to be something that should be decided by the community at large. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules regarding the use of admin tools also acknowledge the existence of discretion, like the clerks on arbitration pages, or the FA director on the FA pages. So you can shout "Abuse!" all you want, it does not make it so. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bans can only be given out by the community-at-large or arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is flatly untrue. Arbcom clerks can ban people from arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At least in my time as a clerk, we have only banned a person with arbcom's consent. I see us as the messenger. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean from the Arbom pages, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is at least partially incorrect. A lot of decisions have been kicked up to the Arbitrators, but individual clerks have the authority (and probably should use it more) to ban disruptive editors from ArbCom pages. I'm actually surprised here that everyone seems to be against Raul's original premise that he has the authority to remove Br'er from the TFA/R pages. Is the office of FA director powerless? NW (Talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Teh Power. Taht wut tihs iz really all about. Wiki is not supposed to be about Power™. It is supposed to be about collaboration. FA is supposed to be about our best. The office should be abolished. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Raul, would a well-structured RfC produce sufficient evidence of disruption to justify a site ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any look at Jack's behavior over the last six years would show an extensive history of harassing others. Whether this would justify a site block in some peoples' minds, I cannot say. Long-term harassment isn't exactly easy to demonstrate in a few short diffs, and RFCs don't have the best history when it comes to long-term compliated misbehavior. And Jack has a pretty well-established cadre of apologists. (Witness this very thread). So I think it's much more likely to turn into a huge time-consuming drama-fest. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would certainly be time-consuming, and may not result in a community consensus to site ban him, so that would require then taking it to arbitration. But it's worth doing, if there is enough evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried that in May. The arbitration committee's response was appalling. Essentially, they invented out of thin air exceptions to their own previously imposed sanctions. So the previously imposed sock puppetry prohibition became a green light to use as many sockpuppets as he wants. And when it was shown that he violated what few sanctions they did leave intact, they simple ignored the complaint until it was archived. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In addition to my comment below, I do think that indefinitely full-protecting this page is a misjudgement. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it." No, you don't, and no you can't. You don't WP:OWN the FA pages and using your tools in a dispute you are involved in is a clear abuse of admin tools. ArbCom have just desysopped someone for less. There are processes to deal with disruption and that isn't it. You should have come here first. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm not a fan of "featured articles", Raul654 is correct about the discretion he has. Jack's known for his provocations, despite being given a clean start on condition that he behave in future. As for Mark, well he's about as trustworthy as they come and has demonstrated good judgement for an extended period. If he's suggesting a community ban my response is that we should consider it seriously. --TS 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your trust, Tony, I'm honored. But I don't think we should ban Raul. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's nice that you are so eager to bask in Tony's compliment, the "Mark" he was referring to was me. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered what I did to impress him so much... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Arsten, meet Mark-- most folks who know FAC, its history, its functioning, know the man's name. Please stop tossing around terms like flagrant abuse of tools if you don't know the history of the trust and authority that the community has conferred upon Raul to manage the FA process-- trust and a position that has been validated time and time again via RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was a "flagrant abuse", you must have me confused with someone else... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, a whole bunch of editors with a sysop bit have commented on the inappropriateness of the protection, but I'm still seeing "View Source" instead of of "edit this page." Nobody Ent 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • And a whole bunch of others (including an arbitrator who previously supported Jack) have said it's OK. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does having the sysop bit grant them some particular ability to know nothing of the FA process, past RFCs, etc? The protection was not inappropriate-- Merridew has in the past mentioned he planned to intentionally disrupt to challenge authority the community has trusted to Raul to prevent exactly this kind of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unprotected the page. Do whatever you want -- I think I'm going on wikibreak. Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disclaimer: I have collaborated with Br'er Rabbit on numerous areas, but I have not been involved in any arguments about the FA process. What is clear to me though is that bad blood has existed between Raul and Br'er/Jack for many years. I am also concerned that I've seen editors whom I respect greatly being put under stress by having very short notification of an article that they took to FA appearing on the main page. The process needs to be helped along and it is quite wrong for Raul to cause problems and then strike out at those who want to see those problems alleviated. This is what is actually being complained about:
      • "This article has been scheduled to appear on 21 August, four days before its 150th anniversary. Was this a random article selection? Hawkeye7, who nominated the other 25 August article, has said he is happy for it to wait" - Tommy20000 TFA/R
      • "I moved it to the right day. The staff can fix the bottom links once they figure this out. This section should be removed, soon." - Br'er Rabbit TFA/R
    Br'er fixed a mistake (Tommy's article clearly scheduled for the wrong day) and even pointed out that the bottom links need to amended. In any other featured process, he'd have been thanked for helping out. Somebody needs to figure out why that doesn't happen in the TFA process and then fix it. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you want to broaden that disclaimer about your typical support of your avowed friend Merridew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you want to address the facts that I bring up rather than attempting to smear anybody who doesn't agree with you - the same way you wrongly accused me of attacking Raul in January, when I knew nothing of that RfC? The fact is that you've missed the problems that recent late and error-prone scheduling have been causing. Well-respected editors who have many times your count of featured articles have been getting frustrated about it. When anybody suggests ways in which the process could be improved, they have to put up with your ill-informed haranguing.
    Make your own disclaimer first about how you've blindly and uncritically supported Raul, even when it's clear his absence has caused problems. Then you can comment on my disclaimers. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Although Jack/Br'er/(insert name here) can be abrasive at times, he generally has the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Right now I think that protecting TFAR is an overreaction that is doing more harm than good. Unprotecting it so we can discuss this somewhat rationally is a good start, methinks. There may be need for an interaction ban, but Raul should know better than to react like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moot now, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I hate to wade into this because I always get hammered and don't like being hammered but just have to say that the constant drip drip drip seems to be affecting content editors and the FAC process. If Raul's gone (maybe the desired outcome), SandyGeorgia's gone (maybe the desired outcome), others such as Dabomb and Ucucha, and many more, apparently no longer editing, at some point the question is whether the loss of either key content contributors or those facilitating the FAC process is important to the project. Does a line need to be drawn, or is it okay that we're losing contributors? I dunno, but I do on the one hand see editors such as Casliber pushing content building with the Core Contest, while at the same time see that we're losing editors who write content. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Raul does have the authority to protect the page as FAC director; this was done earlier this year at WT:FAC. Now, in this particular scenario, this probably was not the best idea, as it locked everyone else out of the page. --Rschen7754 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the page exists for the sole purpose of planning FAs, and Raul is the FA director, and a user is making disruptive edits to that page, I don't see a problem with him taking action to prevent that user from disrupting the page. I don't think he's trying to make a grab at power over any user on any page; I see him trying to stop disruption on one page he uses for a specific role he has on Wikipedia. Kcowolf (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was a pretty inevitable outcome. Raul is gone, at least for a while. There is nobody to take over the Featured Article responsibilities. And Brer get to continue to disrupt? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban proposal

    Based on the agreement I see above, I ask you all to consider this proposal:

    Raul654 (talk · contribs) and Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), or whatever username he holds at the time, are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other, or commenting in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia.

    I think that this should cut down on drama. Feel free to rewrite this as you see fit. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Impractical unless Jack is also topic banned from FA processes that Raul directs. Is that an intended aspect of your proposal? Resolute 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's starting to strike me that we may need to make better provision for when Raul has a conflict of interest in the FA processes. The delegates are good people, but they're his delegates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What's with this apparent rash of disrespect for the FA process? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)s It amounts to the same thing, as long as Raul is the FAD. And thus is just a restriction on Br'er Rabbit alone, seeing as Raul's exalted position seems to allow him to make it up as he goes along. pablo 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict X100) My first draft included a sentence that said something to the effect of, "due to Raul654's long standing position as the Featured Article Director, this restriction applies to Wikipedia:Today's featured article and all of its subpages." I thought that it was redundant so I removed it. In addition, a delegate can handle a request if Br'er significantly comments on it. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think Resolute's observation adequately points out how disingenuous this proposal is given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that given the amount of bad blood that's clearly (oh, so very clearly) gone between Raul and Jack, some sort of interaction ban is necessary. However, as Resolute points out, Raul's position makes that very difficult to enact. I would hesitate to say that he can't help at FA because Raul works there - this is not a divorce, and we don't "give custody of the children" to one editor and not the other. If Jack wants to participate constructively in FA, he should be allowed to. Same for Raul. Obviously Raul can't be handling Jack's requests, and vice versa - so what can we do here? Bar them from interacting even in FA space, and say that someone else needs to handle FA-space in regards to Jack's requests/submissions/edits? I understand that Raul is basically king there, but even kings must have advisors, regents, and crown princes who can step in if something needs seeing to and the king isn't available. Surely there's someone else who can speak to Jack in the context of FAs? If there's not, and Raul is unable to treat Jack neutrally, then we have a larger problem here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion - how about adding User:Mark Arsten as a "facilitator", not a "delegate" but more independent, as Mark is always around and really reliable and wouldn't abuse tools, so he could prevent the situations where 59 minutes notice for main page appearances could be prevented—since the delegates and Raul654 aren't around that much. Then all this friction could be prevented. Just a suggestion, as I don't know the right procedures. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's reasonable, and could also deal with the situations at TFA, FAC, and FAR where Raul has a conflict of interest. For example, Raul's article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima recently passed through FAR and lost its star. Deciding the director's article was no longer worthy of the star must have been uncomfortable for the delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your confidence in me, guys. The position isn't something that particularly interests me, but I'm willing to help if the community sees a need/people think it's a good role for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interaction ban is unnecessary and almost unworkable. Why not all admins from this point on consider this a Delicate Situation and consider a (1) Low Threshold for Blocking for gratuitous Snarky Comments or Disruptive Conduct, and (2) Low Threshold for notifying the Arb Committee for Use of Tools while involved? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, evenhanded. On the one side "give us a call" and on the other "block for snarky comments".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much from anyone, not just Br'er. The situation has inflamed tempers. Sarcasm isn't helpful either. The above discussion has pretty clearly delineated appropriate admin conduct from this point onwards so obviously any repeat will head our way. Yes, the FAR on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima might have been uncomfortalbe but due process was followed, so I am not sure what your point is in raising it. I am ok with Mark Arsten facilitating.....or really any admin can keep an eye on proceedings really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be wise to have someone designated for the situations I mention. I think the point is clear: the delegates derive their office from Raul and so it would be helpful to have someone for those cases, especially in close cases, which Iwo Jima was not of course. As for the sarcasm, I do see your point, but I also read your comments about Jack in the arbcom leaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning what? He's aware of my concerns (which presumably you are referring to) - I am trying to work with the positives of what he has to offer (which is alot), before this gets out of hand and everyone calms down. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time Raul has misused tools re myself. He overrode admin actions of both Amalthea and Wehwalt regarding my user pages and blocked over their declining to. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently. --TS 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So would any manner of weaponry. However, neither would be appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A FA topic ban for Merridew and his socks is long overdue, but it should be understood from the outset that there are about four other editors who will consistently and always have spoken for him, regardless of his sock status, so coordinated editing must also be accounted for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We certainly need a facilitator right now, as Raul has announced a wikibreak and his sole delegate has not edited since the 27th of July. Mark Arsten is an admin, he's level headed, he's familiar with FA. This is a good idea, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean for TFA? As far as I am aware, the other FA processes seem to be running... --Rschen7754 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullroar. Diannaa, you have been as involved as involved gets in these attempts to unseat Raul and install your preferred delegates regardless of their experience-- please hold your horses, the man isn't dead yet. Should another delegate be needed, that discussion would happen at FAC where some folks who actually know how the process works tend to congregrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've been on vacation, some folks who know how the process works have voiced support for a new delegate. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; the different sectors have different delegates; promotions, reviews, featured list candidates, etc. For quite some time now, the only task Raul has done personally is select the daily featured article. -- Dianna (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured lists are not part of the realm. They are proudly democratic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have articles selected for a week in advance, and we also have some emergency standbys, so this sin't an earthshatteringly urgent situation, but I'd be happy with Mark too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "proudly democratic" - Wehwalt, that is not helpful here. Can we try and bring everyone together without extraneous stuff? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no secret that I support making the FA processes democratic. That's what I said in January and I've seen nothing to change my mind. But I agree, let's push on.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Say, something like this. That Mark is the FA facilitator, empowered to act in the event of a COI or in the inaction of the director/responsible delegates (i.e. the late notifications). That we'll let pass what happened earlier and hope that everyone will keep the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating an FA facilitator to act in cases of "COI" (defined how, exactly?) seems like a significant change to the FA process. This probably isn't the right venue to propose substantive changes to the FA process, especially as it was just recently affirmed in a large RfC earlier this year. I don't see others raising COI as a concern here, and in the case you mentioned it seems that Raul's article was de-featured - which rather suggests that COI isn't a barrier to objective assessment. MastCell Talk 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this is not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Then I'm not sure we can do much more here, and I guess we will see what happens next.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All Raul needed to do was the standard procedure whenever there's a hint of involvement—ask another admin to review and act if necessary, in their opinion. This system is looking very fragile if it blows up because of one difficult editor. Everyone get a grip and move it back into good working order. And could I add that this shows up the weakness of policy in the area of alternate accounts; I had a push to tighten it a few years ago, and ironically it was admins who resisted. Talk about making a rod for our backs. Tony (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticise arbitrary Power™ and get teh stomp? That would be convenient... for Raul. The issue here isn't my comments, it's the underlying issue of old-guard cabalism. And his being retired in place. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see complaints about Power and that FA should Not be an autocracy. Sorry, but no. The only relevant question to this noticeboard is whether Br'er and Raul are capable of interacting; they obviously are not. We have discussed this subject for quite long enough. Please ban them from interacting with one another, then close this thread. AGK [•] 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've heard my comments on interaction bans before. They're a no-contact slow-dance. They actually tie users together. Mostly they're about avoiding addressing the underlying issues. They're a failure of dispute resolution. My criticisms are spot-on. The Emperor has No Clothes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a long history of antagonism towards Raul654 from a small group—that is to be expected as FA generally involves skilled editors, many of whom are high achievers in real life and who may not be able to get along with other opinionated people. Br'er Rabbit is expert at using casual chat to needle opponents, and when editing as Alarbus was part of a small group pushing wildly against consensus at WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. Wikipedia is not an exercise in fairness or free speech, so the issue is quite simple, and boils down to this: Does it help if Br'er Rabbit continues to poke Raul654? Since Br'er Rabbit's criticisms consist of slogans with no content (see this discussion and the RfC), the answer to that is no, and there is no need for Br'er to interact with Raul, so support interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing about Encyclopedia that implies a front page or featured articles. It's supposed to a reference work. It's not like I go to look up caterpillar and say, oh, it's not a featured article, I'll go read star instead. To the extent Wikipedia works on a sort of follow your own muse principle, if editors want to challenge and encourage themselves to push the writing above average, that's a good thing. Alternatively if folks want to standardize the separator between Mexican and American, that's fine. The fineness stops when such activities become disruptive to the project as a whole. Given that there are two high churn threads going on related to FA -- the Rabbit/Raul and Andy Mabbett on top of the page, where behavior that would be fine elsewhere on Wikipedia is a big deal because it involves FAs, we ought to take a step back and assert the the needs and norms of the project as whole are what's important, and no subgroup, however passionate or filled with high Wiki-cred editors, gets to have their own set of rules.

    Since Raul appears to be unwilling play nice with the Rabbit, I endorse the concept above the Raul recuse himself from interactions with BR and Mark Arsten (or someone else) sort out any TFA concerns raised by BR. Nobody Ent 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well said. FWIW, I've worked a bit with Mark Arsten (and Crisco 1492, who similarly offered to play a role in FA), and think either (or both) would be a fine addition to the process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason Rabbit can't follow his muse elsewhere? If the community has set up a process, and the community has asked a volunteer to manage that process, and another user wants to help, but the first does not find it helpful, why shouldn't the second user just go help somewhere, else? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Jack/Rabbit's recent attempts to help out at TFA were prompted in part by complaints by some FA writers about late notice when their article was TFA. Raul has said that he realizes there is a problem and will work to remedy it, though, so hopefully there won't be a need for anyone else to help out. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have editor hierarchies here, no matter how much some people seem happy to go along with them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not suggest a "hierarchy." Wikipedia does, however, have processes and different ways of managing particular processes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You did, although inadvertently. Some of those processes are robust and others have single points of failure. When you create a process where that single point of failure rests with an individual, then you create a hierarchy, whether you intended to or not. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative system. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. The community consensus is in control, regardless. As I understand it, some of that was tested last winter in an RfC. But one user, saying to another user, in effect, 'you are failing my standards of properly managing your responsibilities', and the other user replying: 'no I am not, you are interfering with my ability to properly manage within my assigned duties', is not a hierarchy. It's a process disagreement, which needs a process solution, which is usually done by customary usage, in the absence of other valid methods being employed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is all fine; however the next step -- the FPP and declaration of a ban, was not. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I view it only somewhat differently. Those actions by Raul are serious and evidently wrong but he reversed (however reluctantly) after reporting them to ANI (and stating his reason was to protect the process page); We want admins to self-report such things to ANI; so, the question is whether there is anything we can do here to address the underlying unfortunate series of events. It looks like we cannot, here, at least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with hierarchies. They're everywhere. We recognise competency and delegate decision-making to those that demonstrate it, all through every aspect of life. Raul has demonstrated his competency. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, he set it up competently, in 2004. What about the manner in which he, as Alan puts it, demonstrates "different ways of managing particular processes" today? Can you opine as to that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to. I read the RFC. I realise you disagree, but the arguments at the RfC in favour of Raul continuing in the position were compelling. I was convinced. And the vast majority of editors there, most of whom were familiar enough with his performance to be able to make an informed judgment, endorsed that view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Raul demonstrated a lack of competency with the FPP, ban declaration, and opening of the ANI. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was then. There have been significant changes since then. Certainly the present threads raise concerns which may affect the feelings, especially when you consider that Br'er is not a troll, but has probably done more to improve the technical side of FAs than anyone else in quite a long time. The argument then, as was widely accepted, was that things were running smoothly, there was no reason for a change and that an autocrat who administered fairly and remained above the fray was preferable due to the nature of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Things certainly have changed since then. When I expressed my view at that RFC I was considering the FAC process, not TFA, and I've got more than a little tired of receiving 59 minutes warning of an imminent TFA. Added to which SandyGeorgia did almost all the heavy lifting both at FAC and at TFAR, but she's no longer around. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen complaints about lack of warning on TFAs but couldn't tell how significant a problem it is. I don't think I've read your thoughts on what to do. Do you have any suggestions? (I wish I'd seen your post before I proposed a topic ban just below.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly rocket science. The only TFA delegate is Dabomb87, who hasn't been active for almost a month now, and Raul is largely an absent landlord. This whole topic has more than a slight odour of shooting the messenger IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indulge me. What's the way forward? It might be obvious to you but it's not to me. Do you favour replacing Raul, appointing new delegates, both or changing the system? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said, on both. I am hoping for the appointment of someone who can get in the middle, and whose job is not at Raul's pleasure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity Wehwalt, can you be more specific about this. Do you want a new RfC? Do away with the existing delegates? Personally I'm upset to see the number of editors we've lost since last January and carry a huge amount of guilt because all of this seemed to blow up with my dispute with Alarbus, but I'd like to see concrete proposals instead of complaints. Bridge mending is more constructive than bridge building and a lot of bridges were burned during the winter, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote what I meant. That's what I'm looking to do. In the future, I'd like to find a way to make this whole thing less dramatic, so we don't have to have conversations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've written is cryptic. Perhaps it's so unintentionally or maybe I'm just stupid, but what exactly, clearly, do you propose? And how do you propose going about it? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted a simple proposal to help the process, it would be easy to ask Brianboulton to take on some of the work that Sandy and DaBomb have been doing. If you wanted a radical proposal, I'd ask Malleus to do the same and simply give him admin status against his protestations. Considering how much he's been on the wrong end of admin actions over the years, there's nobody I'd trust more to know how to avoid abusing the tools. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd Support that in a heartbeat. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely suggestion about Brain Boulton there from folks who haven't been paying attention-- those of us who do and have, have spoken with Brain many times already. Can we stop speculating about the FAC process, which is nothing more than another attempt to disrupt a process which is functioning fine by the same crowd that did it less than a year ago? And why is this discussion about the FA process being held here without the involvement of FA people, and driven by the same group who seeks to unseat Raul via disruption, when they know multiple RFCs have already favored Raul's leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC isn't the issue here, Graham and Ian are doing a stellar job running things there. It's not that people want to unseat Raul, it's his inactivity that has been the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously my question isn't getting across. Personally I'm not at all in love with the TFA process, so could care less. But is the discussion to change TFA being held here, now; will it be held elsewhere; and why are names being bandied about (no problems with Brian and Malleus) but it all seems so out-of-process. Just wondering whether there is a process, whether a process will be put into place and how. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    /I/ suggested to both Brian and Mally that they get more involved (and that is a lot of why we're here). Others have made such suggestions; Wehwalt, Rex, you. MarkA and Crisco have been suggested/offered. Really the only one with a problem with that is the guy that's disengaged, getting way behind, offering no leadership, and is abusing tools in a battleground manner. The FA process without him would improve considerably and quickly. Who's going to bell the cat? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been here long enough to understand exactly if a process is needed and if so what the process should be. What I'm wondering is whether AN/I is the place to make these decisions? Or run another RfC? Or maybe have someone knock on Dabomb's door and find out whether he's coming back. It just seems to me like decisions are being bandied about and people jumping on them quickly. To be honest, we need to be smart about who is in charge of TFA - it involves some sort of logic in terms of choosing pages, writing skills for the blurbs, and a daily commitment. I'm not sure this is the place and the manner to make these decisions is all I'm saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been here plenty long. How many processes on wiki have a director? One. We don't need one person, we need collaboration, cooperation. We need good logic, like running Olympic games the day they open, logic like running train stations on the 150 anniversary, not four days before. A group that doesn't slack and not put stuff up until hours before it's live, who make a daily commitment and don't take wikibreaks when their misuse of tools is called. That's all I've been saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, we seem to agree. In which case maybe all this churning achieved something? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what makes it all so interesting...Modernist (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As TFA has absolutely nothing to do with the FAC process so far as I can see I don't see why it ought to be within Raul's remit anyway. And as TFAs in my experience simply cause aggravation for their editors by and large I'd be quite happy to see them disappear from the main page altogether in the proposed main page redesign. So I'm not so bothered about whether an additional TFA delegate is appointed or "democratically" elected, but clearly there needs to be one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Would it be true to say Jack drove Sandy off the project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea; it may have been a factor, but I doubt it was the deciding factor. You'd have to ask Sandy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack's last interaction with Sandy was on Talk:Sean Combs. Who was trying to drive who where, I leave as an exercise for the student. -- Dianna (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is typical incorrect information that I have come to expect from Diannaa, which is the norm for these Alarbus/Merridow sock farm discussions and the usual band of supporters (Wehwalt, PumpkinSky aka Rlevse, recently Crisco and Arsten). The Sean Combs situation, by the way, was a continuance of Merridew's long-standing issue with Gimmetorw. Post-data: no one drove me off the project-- I'm enjoying my summer but not missing any of these usual antics, which I watch, and for which the same crowd always appears ... the six or eight of them travel together, consistently. Re AnthonyCole, below, yes, when Alarbus and PumpkinSky turned up at FAC (and eventually DYK) where they harassed Raul and disrupted the process, were joined by this same group of supporters (Wehwalt, Dianna, in a bid to install Wehwalt as FA director), yes, we knew they were socks (no one BUT socks and this handful of six had an issue, and the agenda was to install Wehwalt as FA director) but Merridew and Rlevse had the support of some arbs who stifled discussion and eventually welcomed Merridew and his sock Br'er when he returned, so the disruption was enabled and we weren't able to say or do anything until FOUR DIFFERENT RFC's launched by this same crowd were broadly defeated and Raul's discretion and position were again supported. Why one or two arbs support Merridew/Alarbus/B Rabbit and his socking and disruption is something that will have to be dealt with in the next arbcom elections-- a separate matter. The FAC RFC's definitively yielded broad support of Raul and the way FAC is run with the only naysayers being this very same crowd that is disrupting TFA/R today-- the Merridew supporters. The disruption of the FA process should not be allowed to continue, as it seems to have the same goal as the failed coup against FAC almost a year ago had ... for a small crowd to gain control of mainpage scheduling. The FA process is one in which Raul's discretion has been upheld time after time, and if anything is likely to drive many off the project (and likely already has), it is this newfangled acceptance of cabalism and bands of disrupters, supported by folks who weigh in at ANI who don't have the background or take the time to review the history before opining in ways that will undermine longstanding well functioning processes. In the past, before several good old fashioned cabals were dealt with by the arbs, at least the cabalistas knew how to write articles and were concerned with content-- now the unbridled drive for power that we see surfacing in roving bands on Wikipedia isn't even related to producing quality content-- just power for the sake of power. No interaction ban-- it is time to remove the disruptors from FAC ... four RFC's is enough. Yes, Alarbus, Merridew, Br'er, Rlevse, PumpkinSky et al and their band of supporters have done enough bullying around FAC ... and waterskiing is more fun than engaging disruption, as it's unpleasant to watch this continue. Please remove Alarbus/Merridew and all of his socks from all FAC pages, and let's begin to treat the small support group as the coordinated editing that it is-- the recent TFA/R disruption is meant to undermine exactly what makes the process work (Raul's discretion, Alarbus threatened to do this in the past), and has already been addressed via RFC. And Mark Arsten as a facilitator of FAC? Absolutely not ... he is a consistent supporter of less than quality articles, and not someone who has been around long enough to understand how FAC functioned before the recent disruption or how it functions best. Raul has discretion, he is the reason FAC works, this band is most often the reason FAC falters, and those who are saying Raul has acted improperly need to dig up the multitude of RFCs validating Raul's position and discretion. Please review history ... if someone would post it, there's alway a remote chance that 1) folks other than the AlarbusMerridew/RlevsePumpkinSky/Diannaa/Wehwalt crowd will opine (they are all involved up their eyeballs in the long-standing harassment of Raul and FAC) and 2) someone will actually read the RFCs and understand the history before further empowering this crowd's long-standing disruption of the FAC process, where Raul's discretion and authority has been validated mutliple times over many years by the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do some reading. Any diffs that come to hand without too much trouble would be appreciated. Otherwise I was just going to search project space for "Jack Merridew" and browse through the results. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You go, Sandy! I support the FA director as a special case because I think the FA process is special. Raul should be supported in his wish to run FA without disruption. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. When Alarbus turned up at FAC, did everyone know it was Jack from the outset? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

    No. Obviously people knew from back channeling, but I for one had never heard of Jack Merridew until quite a while after Br'er Rabbit appeared. Whenever that was. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not clear why you would say "Alarbus"? Do you not mean "Br'er Rabbit"? Alarbus has not edited since March. As to whether "everyone" at FA knew, I dunno. Lots of people knew. Here is a thread at the AC showing that Raul had known Br'er=Jack pretty much since he started editing as Br'er Rabbit. -- Dianna (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think PumpkinSky was involved at FA for quite a while before anybody knew he was Rlevse. Was Alarbus engaging in disputes with people at FA that Jack Merridew had been in dispute with, without telling them he was Jack? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had absolutely no idea who Alarbus was until after he was banned, and I also had absolutely no idea who Pumpkin Sky was either. I told Raul about Alarbus being banned - and it was the first that he heard about Alarbus being a sock...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alarbus was never banned, to my knowledge. Are you talking about when Raul blocked that account, some months after the RfC during which Raul had some unkind things to say about Alarbus?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever - after he was busted and stopped editing - until he came back and started editing again under his current name. As far as Raul goes - he can speak for himself...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthonyhcole: Jack Merridew never edited any FA type stuff; he mostly edited pop culture, actresses, some political stuff. The interest in featured articles was new as of August/September 2011; he was not in contact with any of the FA crowd before that point. -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify - the editor in question with the current user name of Br'er Rabbit came into contact with the FA "crowd" when as Alarbus he ran into a dispute with me last November. That began an unfortunate series of events. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. He started improving FA articles in August and September, like I said above. User:Victoria and Albert; User:Portuguese Man o' War; User:One Ton Depot. -- Dianna (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthkeeper is correct - it all started at the talk page at Ernest Hemingway; and I pointed out that it was a FA and shouldn't be changed without consensus...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you and Truthkeeper were not the first FA editors that Jack came into contact with; those would be the editors he met when working as User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, and User:One Ton Depot in August, Sept, and October. I gotta go to the gym now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never even knew until now that Victoria and Albert was part of this until just this moment, and didn't find out until much later about the others, so that makes me wrong, Diannaa? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gawd. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Were two or more of User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, User:One Ton Depot or User:Br'er Rabbit ever in dispute with the same editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Truthkeeper: I don't understand your question. Do you want me to tell you whether you were wrong or not? Or justify my edit summary? Not sure what you're driving at. @Anthony: No. -- Dianna (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: How far do we push this interaction ban? If Jack simply comments on a specific request at TFAR, does that thus disqualify Raul from exercising his role as director for that article? Resolute 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove Merridew from the FA process-- four RFCs is enough, the disruption has gone on for almost a year, and the poking and provoking of Raul is intentional, just as it was before the RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Move that Jack Merridew/User:Br'er Rabbit be banned from Featured Article pages

    "A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently." (Tony Sidaway, above: 01:21, 15 August 2012). I agree with this sensible suggestion. Perhaps the ban could be limited to certain pages that Raul and his delegates nominate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony has been dogging me for 7 years; he's like totally involved ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that. I've got a lot more reading to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) It looks like you're going to scrape through this one without a ban :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved a page to the 25th, where it belongs (150th anniversary) noting that the bottom links would need fixing, Raul blanks it but then says he will run it that day and that I "broke" it by not fixing the links (which would be to unknown pages). So, he is going to be restoring my fix... I believe he was just making the point that he owns all of those pages. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad faith? You were extremely rude to a friend of mine the other day, and from memory were very involved in adding controversial furniture to TFAs. A lot of people are upset with you and you have been banned from this project. On the face of it, you're awful. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to read your history. I'm going to your own words and actions to decide what to think about you, rather than rely on second-hand reports and block logs. So far, you're coming up intelligent, amusing, somewhat charming and helpful. I loved your signature at that RfA. But there's a lot of reading ahead. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been better if you had done your reading before you made your proposal. Simply go to the talk page of Br'er Rabbit and count the "thanks" of a few months. Read the changes to TFAR: helpful, correcting. therefore:
    • Oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair cop. I'll wear that. I was working off a six month old RfC, and some appallingly rude behaviour a couple of days ago that drove a good writer off the project and upset a friend. But there's more to this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is /not/ true. As the saying goes, you don't know Jack. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which /bit/? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Seems to me it would resolve it efficiently, but unfairly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opppose – (ec) From what I've seen, Jack/Br'er makes good contributions to both FA articles and discussions. Obviously, he also butts heads sometimes, but he's clearly a net positive in those areas. —Torchiest talkedits 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Blanket bans on anyone for a bit of "incivility" (Whatever that is) is ridiculous. Br'er calls it as he sees it, usually with the good faith goal of actually improving the encyclopedia. If people can't cope with that, they have bigger problems than can be solved here. Tired of people racing to ANI to declare someone persona non grata just because of a disagreement on content, however heated. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the sandwich Nobody Ent 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If there's going to be a sanction for a valuable contributor, it should be a tightly focused one. Jack does great work to high-quality pages and generally works very well with content contributors, with a few notable exceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I'm sick of his incessant wikilawyering. Bon voyage. Eisfbnore (会話) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Montanabw and others. Br'er has helped me and I'm a nobody. Is it that he has a sense of humor that gets people's backs up so quickly? (He knows tons more than most editors here. Definitely a net positive, plus he edits daily and doesn't go missing.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kick it up to the arbs. Merridew is a big problem across Wikipedia, not only at FAC, banning him from FAC will most likely only result in another couple dozen socks from one of Wikipedia's most enduring and accepted sockmasters, and the rest of us deserve to know why the arbs have allowed this to continue-- his involvement at FAC and TFA/R is only one symptom of the broader ill-- his desire to install his preferences Wikiwide, and a testament to the means he uses to accomplish his goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, prefer to kick this upstairs to ArbCom to see why they have amused themselves by letting troublemakers have free rein to torment other volunteers who make the place run. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Yeah, his style isn't to everyone's taste. I get that, and perhaps he should be a little bit more conciliatory. But I do agree with with several of the above that he's a net positive to the encyclopedia. I for one have been on the receiving end of his wikimarkup expertise in that - without my asking, at least the first time - he updated the references in two of my FAs and my current FAC, along with a couple other articles I intend to work on. And even though we've never really interacted beyond him teaching me {{sfn}} and helping with formatting, all of those interactions have been really positive and helpful. I don't think it would be good for the project to kick him out - plus, my reference formatting would be a mess... ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudges, much? This would be the opposite of an improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but silencing critics by removing them from the process seems too draconian to me. -- Dianna (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Unwarranted. pablo 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly dumb question

    Am I the only person confused by the ridiculous amount of accounts operated by Jack, and am I the only one who thinks that a restriction to just one username would extremely helpful in unraveling this mess? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a list somewhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if it's hard to enforce? Let's quote WP:SOCK here: "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. ... Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them." Where's the expectation here? Where's the valid reason? I'm just as much of a fan of Jack's article work as anyone else, but this is simply disruptive. (I'll also note that he had this exact restriction until he unilaterally withdrew from it... I feel like we would have had many less headaches now if people had actually enforced it) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did not ArbCom restrict Jack to a single account in allowing him to return as Br'er Rabbit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they now interpret that as 'one account at a time', so he can switch whenever he wants. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "He was rounder than the average undergraduate and wore more hats. That is to say, there was just the one hat which he habitually wore, but he wore it with a passion that was rare in one so young" -- Douglas Adams on Dirk Gently. Jack is rather the inverse of Dirk. Perhaps only wore one hat at a time. Sometimes gold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why he's back to editing in good standing (much to the furious rage of his enemies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I noticed the furious rage. Whatever. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Undoubtedly things will be unpleasant from that quarter, but when were they ever pleasant?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly dumb diffs

    The general talk about Br'er Rabbit messing TFAR made me curious, samples (backwards in time):

    However, you who spoke up above, probably checked yourself before doing so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onion hotdog

    No more hotdogging on account of indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Onion hotdog (talk · contribs) apparently created an attack page against Dougweller (talk · contribs) at Metapedia and has resorted to personal attacks at Talk:Roger Pearson. Some attention seems warranted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not an attack page, Metapedia merely records details on race denialist trolls, the same with Afrocentrics, and other promoters of pseudosciences. Wikipedia breaks its own rules on NPOV, by allowing race denialists on race related pages. Onion hotdog (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obvious from just a glance at Talk:Roger Pearson,that Onion hotdog has proven himself to be quite unable to function as an editor on Wikipedia. NPOV problems, battleground mentality, personal attacks both on- and offsite. I would expect that they are probably socking as well, since the level of dedication against certain editors suggest a much longer editing background than the few edits their contribs list has to show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that both WP:RGW and WP:Advocacy may be of benefit to Onion hotdog and Teddyguyton. -- Atama頭 21:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also WP:NPA... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hidden <redacted> a personal attack by User:Onion hotdog on talk:Roger Pearson here and think a block is needed. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Probably qualifies for rev/del. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was malicious enough to warrant an "only notice", and I've left a warning, but declined to block at this point. Hopefully Onion hotdog gets the point and this won't escalate further. I'm not going to revdel though, we don't normally do that for an "ordinary" personal attack. Another admin may delete the revision at their discretion. -- Atama頭 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and my warning was in the spirit of WP:ROPE. If Onion hotdog doesn't take a different tack soon, an indefinite block may be in order. -- Atama頭 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I completely agree with Atama, a warning is the answer, and a block will be the next response to a personal attack. A cursory look at their edits makes me wonder if they are WP:HERE for the same reasons as the rest of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks folks. The background is that yesterday I discovered an attack page on me at Rational Wiki (really bizarre page, based on the ramblings of two internet kooks). The upshot of that was that the page was deleted and I was made a sysop. It appears that a relatively new and inactive editor there then created two attack pages on Metapedia (using a different username). One of these was about me, the other a 'list of race denialist trolls'. That has just 4 names, someone on a forum, an editor at Rational Wiki, me, and Maunus. It's hard to believe that Onion Hotdog just happens to be in a dispute with Maunus and me and quoted from the Metapedia attack page by coincidence - he is almost certainly the person who created the Metapedia attack pages. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The metapage was created by a user called "Atlantid" - a substantial part of Onion hotdog's edits have been to insert the idea of an "atlantid" race into various articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, people, but... a warning? Seriously? After this and this, and the creation of the attack pages on those other wikis, I can't think of any reason why anything below an immediate permanent ban could be an appropriate response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I quite agree with FutPerf. This is a troll with a whopping 66 edits, making nasty personal attacks, even if you don't believe he is responsible for the attack pages. I cannot imagine how it harms the encyclopedia to show him the door, nor can I imagine any time when an editor like him suddenly reared up after a warning with an "Ohmigod! I've been so horribly blind and uncivil! I shall now be a productive and polite editor!" Ravenswing 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, that is the way Atama chose to deal with it, so that is how it should rest. I'm sure there's no lack of watchers (including me) ready to pounce with an indef. Much more likely of course is that this one vanishes and another surfaces - but it seems clear that this account will not edit again in the same vein, or at most will get just one more shot... Franamax (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, procedurally. Before Atama commented here, two other editors had argued for a block. Atama was the first to speak about not blocking, and just because he chose to use the words "I decline" in doing so doesn't mean he gets to cut the whole discussion short and make that the final administrative word on the matter. Unless I hear a convincing reason why O.h.'s behaviour did not actually deserve an indef block, I'll make that block in a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Behaviour deserves nothing, it is all about actions and outcomes. If the actions continue to produce disruptive outcomes, even once, they will be met with a permablock. I see no hint of leniency here, so why the need for a trophy? They will just abandon that account anyway, and if not, the history is there. I've only ever upped another's sanction myself once when I'd already specified a blocking time in a prior warning. And having been on the other end of other admins messing about with my intentions, I'm on the side of just sitting back and waiting for "told you so" until my (Atama's here) approach is shown wrong. YMMV but what's that meatball link about supporting each other? Franamax (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "what's that meatball link about supporting each other?" you are suggesting that Fut.Perf. should have supported Atama, my feeling is that it is more important to support the good editors who were the target of off-wiki attack pages. An indef is not a trophy—it's WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef isn't the same as WP:DENY. Cleaning up afterwards is. And as I said above, their edits may lead someone to the conclusion that an indef for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but I didn't have time to do more than a cursory look (not the reason they were here). Giving a warning isn't a sign of weakness, btw, and was backed with a rationale by two admins. Using off-wiki reasons to block is not without risk since we don't have the tools to definitely link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's my reason why I – strongly – feel that a mere warning was insufficient: a warning implies that an offending editor could still make good by merely avoiding a repetition of the offending behaviour. This doesn't work here, because this type of off-wiki harassment attack is a burn-all-bridges, past-the-point-of-no-return kind of offense. In these cases, we have victims to protect. Whatever the offender does or does not do in the future, it is imperative that the victim should never again be exposed to a situation where they'd have to encounter or deal with them on this project. This is why, even if the attacker suddenly became a model wikipedian and began spurning out featured articles at a rate of one per day, I would still insist on keeping him banned. This is in fact not an "indefinite" block, it's a permanent, never-to-be-lifted-until-hell-freezes-over block. – Now, you might object and say, Dougweller is a big boy, he doesn't need that kind of protection. Yes, indeed, Dougweller is probably more battle-hardened and cold-blooded than most of us when it comes to dealing with nasty trolls, and his composure during this discussion has been admirable. But it's a matter of principle, and not everybody is as thick-skinned as he is. I can assure you all that if what happened to him had happened to me, and an admin at this board were to tell me that no, he wasn't going to block the attacker immediately, that admin would find himself in a hell of a shitstorm the next minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Off-wiki attack sites basically only serves one purpose: To intimidate other Wikipedia editors. Such behaviour results in immediate indeffing when it comes to legal threats, and since the purpose with attack-sites is the same as with legal threats, the result should be the same here on Wikipedia. We simply cannot accept editors trying to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nasty blatant troll - nuke with prejudice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a warning for on-wiki behavior, because nobody has done so anywhere that I could find, not on the editor's talk page, not even on the article discussion page. I'm generally reluctant to block based on behavior when no warning has ever been given to an editor, except for bright-line situations such as a vandalism-only account or a person making a legal threat. I made no judgement about off-wiki behavior. If someone wants to block for that, be my guest. There are other administrators who are more familiar about what's going on off-wiki than myself. I've been accused of being too weak about blocking people in the past, and I'm not surprised that I'm being criticized for it now, but in general if I'm going to make a mistake I'd rather make a mistake in being too lenient than being too harsh. -- Atama頭 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We expect the editors we entrust with the sysop bit to act in good faith, relatively promptly and with good judgement. Nothing about that expectation implies admins should be uniform clones such that two different individuals evaluating the same situation come to the same conclusion. Both approaches presented here -- final warning and indef block are perfectly fine and I would criticize neither. To the extent we also prefer issues be dealt with with a minimum of fuss, it's generally preferable admins defer to first actor except when the action is significantly out of reasonable bounds. Declining to immediately block OH is in no way an endorsement of their behavior nor a indication of a lack of support for DW, it's acting in accordance with the concept that blocks are preventative rather than punitive. I encourage FPOS to defer to other admins in the future in similar circumstances but see no benefit to unblocking OH now. We should support Atama and FPOS and DW and good editors harassed both on-wiki and off; I don't see those goals as mutually exclusive. Nobody Ent 19:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think everyone involved here did a good job.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with FPaS blocking. It isn't the choice I would make, but my choice was extremely generous and I know this. Fut Perf's choice was more direct but within the range of expected norms. As Ent said, we all have different ways of dealing with issues, sometimes my way, sometimes others, this is normal. Everyone knows that if I genuinely had a problem with the solution, I would say so :) Nothing unusual here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. I'm sure that this is the same editor who created the attack page on me at Metapedia, with a link to my page here which is now getting attack posts. Anyone want to block the latest vandal? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Micronations being added to Category:North American countries

    AJV indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See Category:North American countries where Alan J. Villarruel (talk · contribs) is adding micronations to this category, and groups such as the Washitaw Nation. I'm off to bed so no time to deal properly but will notify this new user. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake articles in userspace

    They've been reverted by other editors. His userpage says he is 13, but he seems to have experience enough here to construct fake articles in his userspace. See for instance User:Alan J. Villarruel/Interstate 60 where the paragraph starting "One section of I-60 running from Netcong" is copied from Interstate 80. User:Alan J. Villarruel/Eureka Metropolitan Area seems to be just nonsenses, eg " It is the third largest metropolitan area in the Silicon Valley, the first being Los Angeles and San Francisco, ...The metropolitan area's Silicon Valley location, which is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions," (fictional geography etc). Compare with Eureka, California. His own user page mentions Chuckee cheese which rings a faint bell. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuck E. Cheese's. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went ahead and blocked. An editor whose monthlong Wikipedia career already includes hoaxes, nonsense, youtube spam, school-kid silliness, and copyright violation? It's like a terrible disruptive editing variety pack! No thanks. Somebody may want to do an SPI to check if it's a sock of someone, but it's not terribly important to find out who. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Merlinschnee

    Merlinschnee has been repeatedly inserting POV commentary , half of it written in fractured English, in articles related to the U.S. presidential election. Although he has been careful not to 3RR in any given article, his disruption spans several articles. Mitt Romney: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]; Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: [13], [14]; Paul Ryan: [15], [16], [17], [18]. I think this pestiferous critter warrants a time-out. Mesconsing (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ҝаҝ җиэнь? Merlinschnee (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the English wikipeida; say again please? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP edit warring on British Jews

    British Jews has been the subject of much contention this week, due to a dispute over the BLP-worthiness of categorizing Ed Miliband as a British Jew. I considered reporting this to WP:ANEW, but given the potential BLP concerns and the behavior of the parties involved, I think the complexity of the issue merits a report here, instead. Here's the (rather long) timeline:

    Tl;dr version: There are four or five parties, all established editors, edit warring repeatedly over the inclusion of a BLP mention in British Jews.
    • 11 August:
    • 12 August:
      • YRC re-removes Miliband ("Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC")
      • Nomoskedasticity re-reverts ("I thought you weren't editing articles")
      • YRC and Nomoskedasticity go for ("As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British Jew") another ("is this really the right time for you to get into an edit-war??") round ("POv pushing BLP violator")
      • Viriditas (talk · contribs) joins in the reverting ("Take it to the talk page"). He is reverted by YRC ("BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here")
      • Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) reverts ("No basis in policy for this deletion."). YRC reverts his revert ("BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion").
      • Viriditas files an ANEW report against YRC.
        • A few minutes later, I full-protect the article for two days.
        • On the ANEW report Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) enjoins YRC from editing "British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page" until the (mostly unrelated) Arbcom request against YRC has been resolved.
        • Since the page has been protected and YRC told to not edit related articles, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closes the report with no further action.
      • About ten minutes after the ANEW report is closed, Viriditas opens a discussion of the issue at Talk:British_Jews#Removal_of_Miliband.
    • 12 August - 15 August: With the article full-protected, extensive discussion about the issue goes on at [[Talk:British_Jews; however, neither side apparently convinces the other.
    • 15 August:
    • 16 August:
      • Turns out I was wrong. Gabriel Stijena (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("you need a consensus on talk page for removing these pics")
      • Snowded reverts Gabriel ("There has never been consensus on the talk page to add them, please wait until its resolved")
      • Viriditas reverts Snowded ("On the contrary, I see an overwhelming consensus. Objecting for the sake of objecting while ignoring consensus is disruptive")
      • Snowded reverts Viriditas ("Four editors four and three against is neither overwealming nor is it a concensus. stop edit warring,")
      • Nomoskedasticity reverts Snowded ("rv per WP:OR, the obvious basis for Snowded's editing here")
      • Discussion continues on the talk page, but no one is getting anywhere.

    Given the possible BLP concerns here, as well as the length and breadth of the edit warring over time and number of users, I think this whole situation needs more scrutiny. Full-protection didn't get the message across, and blocking any of these users would presumably be contentious enough that one admin shouldn't do it without consulting others, so I'm now opening up what should be done to community discussion. (Please also note that YRC is currently undergoing an RfC which will most likely end in him agreeing to restrictions including a time-limited editing break, followed by (among other things) a time-limited topic ban on BLPs. This fact may or may not affect community opinion of how to deal with the British Jews situation) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Messy but not a record. The YRC RFc/U should not enter into this discussion -- it has not been closed at this point, and it is unreasonable to use bills of attainder in any case <g>. What we have is a categorisation dispute - and there is no really perfect noticeboard to resolve such an issue. My own position is that categorisation of living persons is fraught with peril, and that if there is any dispute, that such categorisation should be deprecated from the start. I suppose this might lead to the "wrong result" in some cases, but I suggest that there is no harm in not categorising a living person, while there is conceivable harm in categorising a living person. Advantage: not categorising. Collect (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's time the consensus at the RFC was weighed up etc, not many more comments look forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I think most would agree that categorizing subjects as Jewish is an ongoing, contentious issue. The British Jews article is just a macrocosm of that problem. Frankly, I don't think there's any good way to deal with it generally, or at least not any way that would be approved by consensus. For the current issue, just get rid of the gallery in the infobox. If that's unacceptable to the community, then require that any person listed in the infobox be categorized as Jewish on their page. If whether they should be so categorized is in dispute, until that dispute is resolved, they can't be placed in the British Jews article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". As someone who identifies as a British Jew, I obviously do not agree with this assessment, which I find personally offensive. But, regardless of my own views, this position does suggest that YRC should not be involved in such edits, since he appears to regard his own (minority) view as more important than Wikipedia guidelines and talkpage consensus. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is ANI a place to discuss how to deal with an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Of course it's a discussion on the article. If YRC believes that the description, or self-description, of a person as a British Jew is "racist in itself", then it is very hard to see how he can be editing objectively and in good faith on the article British Jews. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see little evidence of 'objectivity' or 'good faith' in many others involved in the discussion either. Yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a rather silly comment by YRC to 'demonstrate' his lack of neutrality - would you like me to see what I can find from the 'other side'? Or would it instead be better to move ahead, and act on Bbb23s proposal? I've seen no arguments against so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, as far as I'm concerned the reason for this thread is that there's some serious disruption - by multiple people - going on on that article. It's based on a content dispute, yes, but the content isn't the problem I want to see addressed. What I want to see addressed is that no matter what the cause of it is, we need the disruption to stop. And I'm fresh out of good ideas for how to make that happen smoothly, so I'm hoping other people will weigh in here with ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, any other user would have been blocked on hitting 5RR in the space of just over an hour. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23's proposal would make a good topic for an RfC. I don't agree that ANI is the place to adopt it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roland - "Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew" - I said, (and that comment was part of a talkpage discussion and should not be presented as a single comment like that) "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself" - I don't agree with that at all - I meant, to focus on race is racist in itself - you are taking the wrong interpretation of my comment, I didn't mean in a negative way at all - There are many other people that have stronger ties and connections that I do accept we can describe them as British Jews , British Sikhs etc - but Miliband is a Marxist atheist born in England and brought up in a secular family - I think its undue to add his picture to the infobox of the British Jew article under such a situation - he is not even in the British Jew category after discussion and sensitive consideration/discussion he was placed in the British people of Jewish descent. Its clearly a disputed and contentious issue/portrayal - users should find someone less contentious to add and stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jewishness is not a race. I have suggested several times that if you are not inclined to learn properly about Jewishness and Judaism it would be constructive to leave related topics to people who do understand them. Part of the disruption we are now experiencing is that you have declined to learn and yet continue to edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So - if its not a race and hes a Marxist Atheist brought up in a secular family then he clearly does not belong in the infobox of a Wiki British Jew article does he - Is it contentious/disputable, is he a living person - Yes, yes, yes - so stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan
    The concept you are clearly unfamiliar with is ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, can we try to not re-litigate the content dispute here? What would it take to get you all to stop reverting? Would you be willing to go to the WP:DRN or mediation? Would you be willing to open an RfC on the issue? My main concern here is the the revert-churn on that article has to stop, so what resolution methods could we send you to that would enable you all to stop reverting? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Category - British Jew (Ethnic group) - perhaps clarification is required. - They have stuffed him in anyways - contentious or not and I certainly won't be editing the article again anyways - if they like a Secular Marxist Atheist that much let them keep him - this is exactly the problem and the BLP violation through adding him to the infobox - its not clear that he is being added to an article about an ethnic group only - have a read - there are clear issues and its vague - in this article British Jews, Ethnic/Ethnicity is not mentioned at all in the lede. Youreallycan 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ralph, his father, was reliably noted as such AFAICT in a large number of places. [19] may or may not be sufficient to label Ed an "atheist." It is a better source for calling David an atheist. It is certainly not usable to assert Jewshness to Ed per BLP standards. Collect (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't enough, for he has not said, "I am an atheist". He has said "I don't believe in God". There are reliable survey statistics showing that the majority of people who do not believe in God do not self-identify as atheists, but prefer another label like "agnostic" or "uninterested in religion". Per BLPCAT, we have to go by self-identification, and until and unless Miliband says "I am an atheist" we do not have any grounds for attributing that self-identification to him. --JN466 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure why this should be an issue because all the sources on the Talk:British Jews page seem to support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. In fact no source indicating otherwise has been presented. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've presented a bunch of sources illustrating the difficulty. They are reproduced below. I note that British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom ... if we redirected British Jews to Judaism in the United Kingdom, then Miliband would be gone straight away. Alternatively, if we were to move the article to Britons of Jewish descent, I'd have no problem including Miliband. JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sources don't illustrate any difficulty at all. Here's the diff of my response on the article talk page (which is surely where this discussion belongs). Anyway, why on earth would we redirect British Jews to Judaism in the UK?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom? You do realise that putting Miliband in the infobox of British Jews is in some ways just as absurd as putting Salman Rushdie in the infobox for British Muslims? --JN466 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not aware of the significant differences between Islam and Jewishness, perhaps you could make an effort to learn? The equivalence you're trying to make is just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is Miliband's self-identification. And from the sources I've seen, including those below, he doesn't self-identify as a Jew, even as he acknowledges that his Jewish background is an important part of who he is. You may say that according to the Jewish perspective, he is and always remains a Jew, whether he practices Judaism or not. It matters diddlysquat. From the Catholic perspective, everyone baptised a Catholic is a Catholic forever – semel catholicus, semper catholicus – even if they loudly proclaim they are not, and instead aver they are Buddhist. The Catholic perspective on such a person is equally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't display such a person in the infobox of a British Catholics article on the strength of what Catholicism says. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and it does not privilege culturally or religiously conditioned views that attribute identities to people against their will. Get over it. --JN466 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If differences or otherwise are irrelevant, then perhaps you could cease drawing equivalences. Once again, if self-identification is the only thing that matters, then we can go with what Miliband has said about himself, which leads quite directly to the conclusion that he is Jewish in the only way that matters. We might disagree on that matter, but I'm not the one who continues to make points and then say that they are irrelevant when challenged on them. I'm quite happy to stick to discussion on the basis of self-identification as policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayen—you say "…from the sources I've seen […] he doesn't self-identify as a Jew…"[20] I disagree, and I believe the following constitutes self-identification:
    "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[21]
    The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source containing a quite clear quote from Miliband. I think that it is obvious that Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. As editors I think we should be careful not to misconstrue the phrase "I'm Jewish". It means "I'm Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, I have long given up the idea that there is any point talking to you about this issue. As far as I am concerned, you should be topic-banned from categorisation disputes, and anything similar, and I'll be making a proposal to that effect below. JN466 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad someone brought the matter here it is a behavioural issue, I don't know whey the content is being discussed again. I attempted to summarise the position here. There are two questions, one is the ethnicity one and the other is if Millibrand should be listed. If the ethnicity question can be sourced (ie Judaism is about birth etc. etc) then the question still stands as to if someone who has declared (and whose parents declared) that they were no longer practicing counts as representative of British Jews to the point of being one of six people selected. I only got involved in this issue very recently (having come from another ANI thread) but it is impossible to get any discussion going. At no stage has there being any consensus for the inclusion of Millibrand. As of last night four editors were for, three against and as of this morning there are more against. Despite that, three editors Nomoskedasticity, Veriditas and Bus Stop have persistently inserted him variously claiming an "Overwhelming consensus", or original research, or bias by other editors etc. If you look through the talk page you will see that the three editors mentioned will only engage on the ethnicity issue, they have persistently refused to discuss the consensus issue. Yesterday I suggested that if they were unhappy they should raise an RfC and that if they felt they could justify the accusations they were making against other editors they should bring it to ANI. Instead we just got another direct change to the article. On the content issue I think Jayen466 summarises it well above. ----Snowded TALK 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Snowded—can you show me any source suggesting that a person who is "no longer practicing"[22] is no longer considered a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not for content issues Bus stop, or for repeating discussions that have already taken place ----Snowded TALK 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An incident this morning (well on Singapore time which is where I am at the moment) illustrates my point that this is a behavioural issue. In response to my suggestion that four editors for inclusion and four against did not constitute a consensus for change, Viriditas stated "Wrong. No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none". This is the same editor who also claimed an "overwhelming consensus" when the editor count was 4-3. I came to this article without any background in the issue following a link from the RfC case. I looked at the debate and added my opinion but it has been impossible to get any discussion of the issue other than a "He is Jewish the sources say it end of argument" type statements. Then every day or so one of the protagonists adds the picture claiming that they have won the argument. I think the issue of Jewishness as somehow different from all other religions in claiming ethnicity not belief needs examination and proper sourcing. That might be set up separately from the specific article. The issue of behaviour linked to consensus however is a stand alone issue ----Snowded TALK 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the policy on consensus. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of arguments. We rely on sources, not on personal opinions. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And your position (to clarify) is that your and three others have advanced arguments of quality, while the four who oppose you have advanced none? Further that you can determine this and edit the article accordingly without an RfC, mediation or any of the other processes for dispute resolution?----Snowded TALK 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My position is that your actions and the actions of others here in this regard, is no different than let's say, a group of trolls trying to create a local consensus contrary to our site-wide policies. You're not making arguments based on reliable sources, you're not following our policy on original research, and you aren't following our policy regarding living people, the two criteria of which (self-identifies as a Jew, relevant to the topic) are met. Now, I'm not saying you are trolling, but your behavior is virtually indistinguishable from a troll. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for clarifying that. As I said, irrespective of how the two issues are resolved (ethnicity + inclusion in the montage), any resolution is prevented when editors take the position you have above and use it to justify edit warring. But that is for the community to resolve. ----Snowded TALK 05:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some sources to take into account

    Extended Content
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/

    Quote: The Jewish Telegraph in Manchester has reported that reaction to Ed Miliband's election as Labour leader was greeted by "stunned faces", noting concern over whether he may become the "first prime minister in recent history who could not be described as a friend of Israel".

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2010/10/01/miliband-not-a-friend-of-israel

    Quote: The Jewish community have reportedly offered a mixed reaction to the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership.

    The Jewish Telegraph, based in the North of England, expressed a lukewarm image of Mr Miliband, who is from a Jewish background.

    Its leading article argued that he had "nailed his colours to the Palestinian mast" during a fringe event at the Labour party conference.

    It also claimed that he "has rarely publicly associated himself with... the Jewish community".

    'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/30/ed-miliband-north-jewish-reaction

    Quote: There is also recognition that for all the fame of his family's name he has "never identified with the British Jewish community". [...]

    "It's an aspect of the Miliband brothers which hasn't really come up in all the many discussions we've had with friends during the election. There have been plenty of opinions one way or the other, and I think quite a few people wonder if Labour has made the right choice. But their Jewishness hasn't really figured."

    One reason, suggests Neil Roland, an artist and photographer related to the Laski family, one of Manchester's great Jewish dynasties, could be that "Ed has very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things. He and David would not be where they are today without their Jewish background, but it is often the case that the ones from the community who make good in England, which really means making good in the secular world, are those who have given up the religious aspect."

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-reveals-agenda-for-power-with-labour-and-a-personal-insight-6508358.html

    Quote: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. My parents' community was the Left community."

    He does not think Britons mind whether politicians are religious or not, in contrast with America: "I think that's rather a good thing and it speaks well for us as a country."

    He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics." JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is a lot of confusion here between Judaism as a religious belief, and Jewish as an ethnic/cultural category. As I noted above, I call myself as British Jew. I am also a Marxist and an atheist, and I see no contradiction there. It's not up to anyone else to tell me how to define myself. Similarly, if Ed Miliband, or anyone else, calls themselves a Jew, it's simply not our role to tell them "No, you are not". On the other hand, if someone does not call themselves a Jew, or specifically rejects such a description, it's not our role to insist that they are. We go by what reliable sources report, not by our own interpretation.
    On another issue, YRC is unequivocally wrong. Ed Miliband is not a Marxist, and I very much doubt that anyone could find a reliable source stating that he is. In fact, if anyone produced a source making such a claim, I would straight away take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In my opinion, making such a patently incorrect claim would automatically render the source unreliable. RolandR (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good analysis Roland, I agree entirely. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have frequently argued in these pages that labeling someone simply as "jew" is meaningless. Any such label must be accompanied by a description of in which sense they are consider themselves to be so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that point -- but it's not quite the argument that others are making. The argument of some is that we can identify people as Jews only if they are Jewish in a religious sense (hence all the blather about not identifying Miliband as Jewish given that he is a Marxist atheist, non-practicing, etc). Our article on Miliband does in fact make clear in what sense he is Jewish -- but the issue now is that some object to including him in British Jews because he isn't religious, and that view requires a misunderstanding of what being Jewish means/can mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the use of categories for potentially complex issues like ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity basically misguided and should be abandoned. Somethings can be easily categorized (e.g. perhaps citizenship, and place of birth and other either/or type categories ). As it is used now those categories are is frequently more misleading than informative. And they tend to just become battlegrounds for different kinds of boosterism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no devotion to categories; they are meant to be navigational aids, but I'm doubtful about their value in those terms, and I wouldn't oppose eliminating them. But again that's not what's at issue here, and doing away with categories wouldn't resolve the present dispute (re British Jews). If we insist on including in that article only people who are religious/practicing Jews, we would end up with an article that seriously misrepresents the topic of "British Jews". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, Nomo, at least not in my case. If I had seen a strong statement from Miliband somewhere that he identifies as a Jew – at least culturally as well as ethnically, even though he does not believe in God – I would have no problem having him there. It's just that there are so many statements about, from himself and others, Jewish and not, that he does not identify as a Jew, nor with the Jewish community, that he has "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things", etc., that I feel it is us imposing the label on him when he has to some considerable extent rejected it. In addition, the article, British Jews, is at present heavily slanted towards the religious (rather than cultural or ethnic) meaning of the term, which compounds the problem. --JN466 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly true of some. As for self-identification: once again, I agree that we should focus on that. If we do, then once again you're leading us astray: "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things" is a quote from some photographer, not from Miliband himself. Others have provided above a number of statements from Miliband himself on this matter, so I won't burden the section by reproducing them again here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A statement from a biographer is exactly the best kind of source for summarising selfidentification. People often make conflicting statements during their lifetimes that can lead to different interpretations, if Milliband's biographers generally conclude that he has rejected a jewish identity then we cannot classify him as having such and identity - that would be OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, which is it -- self-identification or biographers? Anyway, the person JN is quoting is hardly a Miliband biographer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some more things he said in the Jewish Chronicle, a little after he became Labour leader, and after criticisms of his stance from British Jews, incl. that he might be the first prime minister who was "not a friend of Israel":

    He is keen to address this issue: “I consider myself as a friend of Israel... I have lots of relatives living in Israel. I admire many of the aims of the founders of Israel. I have absolutely no truck with people who question the legitimacy of Israel.

    "But the reason I said what I said is that sometimes you have to be honest with your friends. As a friend of Israel you worry that some of the things the government has done haven’t necessarily promoted Israel’s long term interests. I mentioned the blockade and what happened with the flotilla, but just for the record, I absolutely condemn Hamas rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.”

    I ask him why he didn’t you move more quickly to reassure the Jewish community? He concedes there is some bridge building to be done: “There is a task for me to get to know the Jewish community better as the leader of the Labour Party and it’s something that I take very seriously.

    "And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country. I think it’s very important for me, whether I was Jewish or not, to put that on the record. And my door is very much open.”

    Notwithstanding what he says in the JC about his own personal background and upbringing, the way he talks about "British Jews" there, and says "his door is open", it is not my impression that he felt like he was talking about his own community. He is, rather, talking about a community which he feels he, as a political leader, needs "to get to know better". People do not talk like this about their own community. Of course, it may be that as time goes by, he will indeed become closer to the Jewish community, and his self-identification will change. So I am always prepared to look at new sources, but as of now, I don't feel we have what it takes to support a "British Jew" categorisation, as opposed to a "Briton of Jewish descent" categorisation. JN466 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed

    It is my impression that User:Bus stop has been at the heart of innumerable conflicts around Jewish categorisation. He is listed as the most prolific contributor to Talk:Ed Miliband, and as far as I can tell practically all his or her contributions there are about whether Ed Miliband is Jewish (Off2riorob has a similar number of contributions to the talk page, even thirty more if you count contributions by the Youreallycan account, but then Rob actually took Ed Miliband to GA status). I remember even Jayjg telling Bus stop that they're being too reckless around these issues. It's my belief that the encyclopedia is better off if Bus stop is taken out of these disputes, and that there are other, more reasonable editors around who can champion views in his part of the POV spectrum. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -- being a prolific contributor to a talk page is not a reason for a topic-ban. Personally, I find Bus-stop to be a pain in the ass (excessively verbose, repetitive, etc.) and it often pains me to find myself arguing for an outcome that he also favors (though typically on different grounds), but there is no reasonable case for a topic-ban here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have suggested this repeatedly in the past, as the result of multiple incidents. He is incapable of engaging in rational debate on the subject. He cherry-picks quotes out of context. He engages in endless WP:OR. He invents bogus terminology to try to get round policy. He drags topics off-topic at the merest provocation. For a typical example of this I recommend reading Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1#Is it Wikipedia's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?, Talk:Adam Levine#Another source, and Talk:Adam Levine#Jewish, another source. Bus stop seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a court of law, and we are here to make definitive statements regarding an individual's ethnicity. We aren't. That isn't our job. His endless disruption needs to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose He has strong views, he's paid his dues, and this is not warranted in this case...Modernist (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Nothing here warrants topic banning. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Simply pointing out that Bus stop had been previously subjected to an indefinite site ban, and since he has been returned to editing, I think partially due to efforts lobbying for him to be allowed to do so by some parties like myself, he has still shown the same tendencies toward less than well-considered, or possibly even rational, discussion which led to the initial ban, particularly regarding one of his few fields of interest, Judaism, and particularly a denial of the temporary conversion of Bob Dylan to a form of Christianity. I tend to think that there may be sufficient cause for perhaps an ArbCom request regarding him now or in the future, but would think that at least the evidence presented here isn't sufficient for any sort of sanction. By saying that, however, I am in no way implying that there might not exist sufficient evidence for such, just that it hasn't been presented. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want evidence of recent behaviour by bus stop that might justify a topic ban, I'd recommend reading Talk:British Jews#Removal of Miliband, where Bus stop was seemingly intent on turning a debate on article content into a court of law, seeking an authoritative 'ruling' on a question to which there can be no definitive answer, and even if there could be, it isn't Wikipedia's purpose to do such things. Consider this statement:
    Snowded—should reliable sources define Jews by a definition applicable to another identity? We assume that reliable sources have done their homework in this regard. It is axiomatic that each identity has its own definition. We assume that a multitude of sources have not overlooked some aspect of the definition of a Jew and we assume they are applying the criteria pertinent to Jews. All information at Wikipedia is filtered through reliable sources. Why aren't there any sources saying that perhaps Ed Miliband may not be Jewish? Don't any reliable news outlets or biographers want to get the scoop on that piece of information? If there were any reason to think that Ed Miliband were not Jewish would not some source have conveyed that piece of information by now? Yet neither you nor any other editor is showing us any source suggesting that the individual might not be Jewish. I suggest that we adhere to the findings of those reliable sources that are available to us. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [23]
    Classic Bus stop language, as he argues that "each identity has its own definition". In the case of Jews, this is self-evidently not the case - , there are multiple and conflicting definitions - not that 'an identity' can have a definition. People define things, and frequently redefine them depending on context. That this isn't an 'axiom from sociology for example is probably because it is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need to be. (And what the hell does he mean by an 'identity'? Something that goes on an identity card? It is entirely possible to 'identify with' many things at once. Nobody has a single abstract 'identity' anyway.) We have an article on the subject (to which Bus stop is a frequent talk-page contributor) that makes this entirely clear: Who is a Jew?. Bus stop knows that 'Jewishness' isn't clear-cut, yet continues relentlessly to argue that Wikipedia must make definitive pronouncements in its own voice as to whether an individual is Jewish or not. This isn't merely disruptive, it is entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. He should be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because it takes two, or often many more than two, to tango and in this case at least five editors are jumping around a hot potato topic about a Jewish-born prominent British politician, i.e. Ed Miliband. User Bus stop (talk · contribs) is a very knowledgeable and skilled editor. He does feel passionately about some subjects and he is tenacious and determined in justifiably asking for clarity about definitions especially as they relate to the complex intersection between a secular POV and one, say, coming from the classical POV of Judaism. What happens is that some editors feel that he is over-stepping WP "behavioral" rules when all he is in effect doing is repeating requests that are always logical, accurate and to the point. A better solution would be to impose a WP:FULLLOCK on the Ed Miliband article and let the warring editors cool off. Or treat all the arguing editors equally. It is a pity that editors cannot have frank and honest ongoing debates without resorting to this kind of request for draconian intervention that would be counter-productive in this instance and WP would be the loser. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew. You seem to be making the same mistake as Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Andy. I do note that there are several editors who try to psss off clear violations of conduct guidelines as "frank and open discussion" or something similar, when others would often describe it as off-topic tendentious and disruptive editing. It may well be the case that in at least some cases they are themselves not competent to perceive the difference between them, and I think that refusal to act according to conduct guidelines, or seemingly even acknowledge them, is a very serious problem that more than one editor involved here probably has, and that may well be ultimately only addressible in all instances by request for ArbCom involvement. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While John Carter has a bee in his bonnet that I cannot help, I fully agree with Andy's observation that it is definitely NOT WP's job to define anyone's religion or lack thereof, and in fact I have long opposed the practice of WP's growing lists and categories of Jews, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews, somewhat to no avail, so we are in agreement that it's overdone. But editors (and hence probably readers of WP) seem to want that kind of ethnic and religious information inserted into articles even about Jews who are far-removed from their own religion. And that's where the problem arises, since Judaism regards a Jew as both a member of an ethnicity as well as of a religion/spiritual beliefs and practices (see the key Who is a Jew? article especially Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth), unlike any other religion that does NOT consider ethnicity part of being Christian or Muslim or Hindu for example, because while on the one hand WP does not care and does not and should not decide anyone's religious status, HOWEVER when the religion itself historically defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother (as is the case with the Milibands) then according to both the broad and narrow definitions of that religion that person is Jewish regardless of what WP may think. WP cannot redefine what Judaism holds, that would itself be a violation of WP:NOTMADEUP by WP itself! WP can only work with the working and accepted definitions extant in the real world. IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not bound by the Halakha. If you really can't understand the difference between Wikipedia making a statement that "this person is Jewish by the criteria of a particular religion (which very often the individual concerned doesn't adhere to)" and "this person is Jewish", I suggest you avoid such topics in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, it would be a very sad day if WP was in any way an expression of Halacha! So don't worry about that. I agree with you on that score. No Halachic scholar would consult WP about those matters so you needn't worry, we are safe here in a state of blissful confusion obviously needing our own version of The Guide for the Perplexed. I do NOT say (and never have) that WP is bound by Halacha! And I am not involved in such topics defining who is Jewish and who is not (because it's a waste of time, and most folks will just never get it!), but evidently some editors want to, and there is no need to crucify them at ANI for having the courage of their convictions! In fact I support REMOVAL of all mention in articles, or via lists and categories that make any mention of any subject's Jewishness when that subject does NOT self-identify as Jewish , see my long-standing position at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. But regardless of what either you or I think, the fact and reality remains that as far as the the TOPIC of Jews and Judaism is concerned it IS a factor as explained in the Who is a Jew? article because of complications arsing from historical Judaism's definition of a Jew as being both a member of an ethnicity (regardless of how that person views themselves) as well as of a religion. This is a complication unique to Jews and Judaism and that is why some editors, and readers of WP, take it seriously because they know it's an important subject. You cannot wish things away and tell people to ignore the unique realities and true facts about any particular religion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnicity is by definition self-defined. That is what ethnicity means. If it isn't self-defined, it isn't ethnicity. As for the realities being 'unique', as a former anthropology student, I know enough to suspect that the premise is dubious at best - and you are still suggesting that a religion that people don't adhere to is somehow relevant to 'true facts' in this matter. To put it bluntly (and rudely), as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it isn't - if the person in question isn't a follower of Judaism, we are no more bound to consider the relevance of the perspectives of that faith than we are to consider the relevance of road traffic regulations in Ulan Bator, unless the person concerned also does. Ed Miliband isn't a follower of the Judaic faith. Any discussion of how he is seen by that faith is off-topic. As for only supporting the mention of a person's ethnic Jewishness if they self-identify as such, that is a start - but sadly, when contributors endlessly trawl through sources in order to find a comment made in passing in order to provide 'evidence', and then slap a label on individuals not because their ethnicity is relevant to anything, but instead to add one more to the list of Jewish 'X's or whatever, this 'self-identification' becomes a joke. It is totally unencyclopaedic. This isn't an ethnoreligious database. We shouldn't be going around trying to 'prove' that people are of one ethnicity or another - if for no other reason than that ethnicity is not only self-defined, it is contextual. As came up in another of these tedious debates, Harrison Ford once stated that "I feel Irish as a person and jewish as an actor". He may well have been joking, it is hard to tell. What is blindingly obvious though is that a statement like that shouldn't be used to support assertions that "Harrison Ford affirms his Jewish identity for our purposes", as Bus stop claimed in a gargantuan heap of WP:OR [24]. This is the problem with Bus stop. He thinks that it is Wikipedia's 'purpose' to categorise individuals by ethnicity. It isn't, as I hope that you would agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this sort of wrangling about religious affiliation should be tamped down.→StaniStani  21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stan: It can't be helped when it involves topics related to Jews and Judaism because of problems stemming from the Jewish religion itself (and not from WP or from editors) as fully explained in the Who is a Jew? article. Personally, I have avoided those kind of situations and do not get involved, and I am not involved with talks about Ed Miliband's status and honestly I don't care because Ed is free to do with his life as he wishes, but that is not the point here, but I can understand why it is important to some editors, because it is a key theological and ethnic issue as far as the broad subjects Jews and Judaism are concerned that makes it into this frustrating issue, that any person with serious Jewish studies behind them would know. So it's always going to be around no matter who or what is blocked or banned or censored. It is a perennial issue in Israeli and Jewish communal politics, and this is just a small example of how it can bubble over. So better to keep all parties talking and hearing them out rather than taking a quick fix and blocking the un-blockable where only WP loses in the end when gifted and informed editors are penalized for their zeal that can and should be harnessed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support he is wasting a lot of people's valuable time with his tagging contests.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread and to deflect responsibility from the editors failing to subscribe to our policies and guidelines and to place the blame on a single editor regarding a subject that is not under discussion. In other words, this is a "hey look over there" proposal, distracting us from looking directly at the problem. The real problem is that multiple editors have failed to use reliable sources as they were intended and have failed to edit in accordance with BLP. In this case, the problem is not Bus stop, but his past problems are being used to color this dispute unfavorably. To summarize: an image of a British Jew was added to an article about British Jews because the subject identified as a British Jew in reliable sources and because it was relevant. However, we are being told by the disputants above that 1) there is no such thing as a British Jew, and 2) even though the subject self-identifies, a Jew isn't really a Jew unless that Jew meets an arbitrary set of criteria established by a Wikipedia editor, a set of criteria that is not found in any reliable source. Far from proposing a topic ban on Bus stop, it appears that his accusers have been promoting original research, ignoring sources, and promoting their own, unpublished criteria of who can be considered Jewish. With this in mind, this proposal should be seen for what it is—a distraction from the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Viriditas, looking at the three definitions of Jewishness – religious, ethnic, cultural – could we not agree that (1) Miliband has explicitly rejected self-identification as a Jew in the religious sense (2) Miliband has emphatically confirmed that he is of Jewish descent, and that this has strongly affected who he is (3) Miliband has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community, and has also stated that it is his job as Labour leader to get to know the Jewish community? Could we not then further agree that the glass is more than half empty, and that this state of affairs is admirably described by saying he is of Jewish descent? JN466 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't recall any sources where Miliband has "emphatically confirmed" that he is "of Jewish descent", and the fact that you are so emphatically stating the point without sources goes directly to Viriditas's assertion that you are misusing/ignoring the sources we have, doing/promoting original research, and thus failing to adhere to BLP policy. But this discussion really belongs on article talk pages, not ANI, and we could make better progress there if you would withdraw your proposal re Bus-stop so that this thread can be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He has said he is Jewish, but not in a religious sense, and has spoken at length about his parents' escape from Nazi German; and he has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community and should make an effort as Labour leader to get to know it. So there is no question that he is of Jewish descent: he is. The question mark was never about that, but about weighing the absence of religious and cultural identification. But I will tell you something – I will flip-flop on this. The reason is that I see he wrote a lengthy piece about his Jewishness quite recently in The New Statesman. And that to me shifts the balance in the dispute about including him in the British Jews article. However, I will not retract this proposal. Bus stop's comments in the Harrison Ford article e.g. were ridiculous, and Bus stop simply does not help us resolve these disputes. JN466 16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. It might help get us to a resolution on the article(s) if you could post about this new source on the talk page of British Jews. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I had no idea what a hornets nest I was entering on this one, but its impossible to have any sort of discussion on the subject. All you get is a constant repetition of a single narrow interpretation of selected sources. ----Snowded TALK 00:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I recall a long sequence at Talk:Judaism [25] where the editor seems to think "Jew" and "Judaism" should be the subject of one article - and argued that at length. In fact, I quite suggest everyone here read those discussions, and see where the problem appears to lie - which is not just in categorisation, alas. (nodding to Slrubenstein) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sometimes, with the best will in the world, it is better for certain editors to stay away from certain topics. This is a case in point. --John (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Back on Topic

    If the parties can't agree and won't go to DRN or Mediation, than perhaps they will do an RfC? It looks like they need more uninvolved editor's opinions. And just settle it. Either the leader of the Labor Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not, according to the considered Judgment of the community. That's all we can do for that. Edit warring and six editors arguing about it for over a week, is not getting the job done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Either the leader of the [Labour] Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not". - or in some senses he is, and some senses he isn't. This is the root of the problem. You are apparently asking the community to make a 'Judgement' (nice capitalisation) regarding someone's ethnicity. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If something is unclear, we have no business 'deciding' it for ourselves. Ethnicity is fluid, contextual, and often just plain contradictory. If Wikipedia is actually going to 'get the job done', it will do it a lot quicker if it stops representing opinion as fact, and obsessing about which box we can shove people into. The relentless POV-pushing that goes on in regard to this topic is utterly out of proportion to its significance to article content. It is worth noting that when the question as to whether Miliband's ethnicity was significant, the ethnotaggers resorted to citing an article about the subject from a Guardian blog. Except the article wasn't about his ethnicity as such, it was about how little it had been commented on, and about how this was part of a wider trend - with ethnicity, religion (or lack of) and the like becoming increasingly insignificant in British politics. [26] If Miliband is a 'British Jew' (if...) it certainly isn't what he is notable for. The British public appears (with the exception of POV-pushers and taggers of various kinds) not to care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you have strong opinions on the content question. But for content there is no substitute around here for assessing consensus. If considered judgment on the content question turns your way, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to look at the behaviour - the three editors who have edit warred to say he is Jewish have done so on the basis that it is the consensus position. THey have done this even though they have been four against three, and now four against four. Their response to challenge is that they are right and those opposed are wrong. Suggestions that we call an RfC or mediation have been ignored. Instead they wait a day then change the article. Wikipedia is governed by behavioural control and the community needs to deal with this. You can't make progress with editors who claim consensus because they think they are right, change the article to conform with that and refuse to engage in normal process. ----Snowded TALK 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine blocks/bans/page locks for tendentious editing, but obviously it takes more than one "side" to insert or delete content repeatedly over time. Just stop that and settle the content issue (full stop), using WP:Dispute resolution. If you don't open a DRN, or mediation, or RfC, you cannot blame anyone else for not doing so, so just do it. Those who then refuse to participate in content DR put themselves on thin ice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you have good intentions here but I think you are being naive. DR requires both parties to engage and there is no indication that this would be possible, the opposite in fact. Suggestions of an RfC resulted in the article to being edited with a false claim of consensus. I came into this one as a neutral and the atmosphere is poisonous (and I've seen a lot of contentious issues over the last seven years). Attempts to structure the problem, get a discussion going meet with blank rejection. In those circumstances it needs neutral parties to look at the behaviour issues. The "it takes both sides" is an easy response, sometimes you have to put the effort it to look at behaviour. That after all is what ANI is for.----Snowded TALK 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree. The root of it, and the solution to it, is enunciated in this Arbcom principal earlier this year:

    Sober eyes

    2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

    Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

    Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think any experienced editor knows that, the issue is to get the participants to a state where it is possible to define the problem for third party review. I think you are really missing the point here but we probably have to agree to disagree, maybe you should engage and see what response you get. Its all too easy to throw out a 'plague on both your houses judgement", sometimes its valid sometimes it isn't. As I say engage with the editors concerned and If your experience is different from mine all to the good. ----Snowded TALK 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the beginning of the end, (where talk page discussion is at impasse) it doesn't take any agreement to open the DRN, mediation proposal, or RfC. All it takes is one good faith effort by one editor to do it (and name the proposed parties and/or provide notice). Thereafter, any effort to obstruct consensus making, is more easily identified, recorded, and handled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I don't think I have edited this article. I tend to think that Miliband should be included, but am certainly open to discussion and persuasion. If there is to be such a discussion, however, it needs to go further than this one article, since the problem arises on very many pages. There appear to be two entrenched positions, with many other editors in between. On the one hand, we have editors who wish to sprinkle the label "Jewish" over every possible article. Some of these editors, I fear, have POV motives -- whether these result from antisemitic or from Jewish chauvinist prejudices. (See the discussion at Hunt the Jew for a recent example.) On the other hand, some editors wish to remove nearly all examples of such labels, possibly even in cases where they are justified. In some cases, as this discussion well illustrates, there is a lamentable confusion between the religion of Judaism and the ethnic/cultural identification as a Jew. An RfC, or mediation, or whatever other form of dispute resolution, needs to look at these issues as a whole, and help develop a consistent position for all articles. Otherwise, even if we resolve the specific problem with British Jews, we will find the same dispute cropping up elsewhere every other week. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thought out but sometimes it is easier (and more subtle) to focus on one example and work from there, in doing so, perhaps principals of universal application will suggest themselves and also the pitfalls (of un-tailored solution) will be more easily explored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is primarily about one person (Milliband) how about an IAR solution: get someone from WM UK to call Milliband's office, explain the issue we're having (we have an internal disagreement on how to interpret a particular source), and just plain ask whether Milliband wants to be included in the category. Then go ahead and do whatever he says. This should probably be done by an OTRS volunteer so the response can be ticketed. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ambitious Stance by Kurdo777

    Kurdo777 seems to be the advocate of several other editors, or might be a sockpuppet of someone as well. He always accuses some editors with nationalistic or any other reasons. I've just observed his recent edits and realized that he's here to have a specific purpose to help several editors in their reverts and give support on talk pages etc. I invite the administrators to check his recent edits, which all display that he's got a specific purpose. Or you might warn him to stop his improper or edit-warring actions. Thanks.

    Please check his recent edits: (I added a few rvs by Kurdo777 below)

    1. Revert (Removing referenced information)
    2. Revert (Removing referenced information)
    3. Revert (Removing a file and accusing an editor for being nationalist)
    4. Revert (Removing a referenced source)
    5. Revert (Removing a referenced source)
    6. Revert (Removing a referenced information)

    Kurdo777, requesting support from several editors and admins:

    1. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)
    2. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)
    3. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)
    4. Request (Requesting support from an editor)
    5. Request (Accusing an editor called Greczia for being a nationalist.)
    6. Request (We see that this boy has a bit turkophobia by accusing the editors.)

    I think he should stop reverting the editors and add information with references. OK, wait for your comments. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. This is a complicated topic and doesn't involve only Barayev and Kurdo. It involves many editors and many (probably related) articles. Many of these editors, including Barayev, are accusing each other of vandalism and sock puppetry. Many of them are edit-warring in the articles. I recently blocked User:Greczia for edit-warring. I have posted messages on various Talk pages telling editors to stop bandying about the labels vandalism and troll and other similar epithets. Barayev just a while ago made five reversions in five different articles of Kurdo's contributions, labeling each of them vandalism. The disruption across multiple articles is significant. I'm most familiar with Turkey (not the content, mind you) and have come close to locking it because of the battles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your quick response, I think most of the articles should be locked and the edits should be published after the confirmation of the admins. Also, I'd be glad that you can warn all those editors who are accusing each others and whelmed in edit-warring. Also, I see that several editors support each others with reverts. I hope you send a warning to all of them. In the meantime, I reverted Kurdo777 as he removed the referenced information (deleted reliable sources) by getting involved with accusations to the others, maybe due to the fact that he's a bit angry with several editors owing to his turcophobia. I get pissed off those people having overwhelmingly anti-semitism, turcophobia or islamophobia. In the meantime, I see that you blocked Graczia without a notification. I hope you can be a bit careful. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any support for your accusations of bigotry against Kurdo. I don't understand what you mean when you say "the edits should be published ..." Normally, when an article is locked, it is locked in whatever state it is in at the time, barring any policy violations. As for your baseless accusation that Greczia was not notified, I personally warned him of edit-warring; he removed the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If he removed the notification, I apologize to you. I misunderstood. Sorry.
    Please check this (User_talk:Kurdo777#Question) for bigotry of Kurdo777. An editor also asks him. Why does he remove a reliable source? He thinks all edits of some editors are all based on nationalistic perspective. So Sumerian can't be an Uralic-Altaic language as it's a Turkic related matter. So Samuel Noah Kramer's ideas were based on imagination? If you check his contributions, you'll realize what he's doing since the matter of Rumi. He suddenly appeared in Rumi (when Khodabandeh14 was blocked), reverted it as a support to his blocked friend, and since then he's just been attacking Turkic-related articles by reverting them. So what's that? I hope he can explain the matter, but I know he will again calumniate the editors (being nationalist or any other thing). Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have worked with/against Kurdo777 many times and I agree it often appears that he coordinates a group of like-minded editors to beat down the opposition. I was thus very surprised on 24 June when he accused me of asking IRWolfie to back me up on a disputed article; the accusation was absolutely baseless. To me it seemed like Kurdo777 was projecting on me a tactic he had employed himself. I asked him on his talk page to retract the accusation but he never responded.
    At any rate, this noticeboard is not the place for this concern. I think an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the talkpage of Turkey there is clear consensus supported by source analysis that Turkey cannot be called a regional power without the qualifier "Middle-Eastern". Perhaps users like Barayev can be warned not to edit war without participating on the talkpage of the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your lock on Turkey, but I think three days isn't enough. My advice is to extend it to two weeks.
    In the meantime, sorry for my last revert on Turkey as I misunderstood the matter vice versa. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a misunderstanding my criticism of your actions has no place here. I struck it. Thank you for your clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your understanding. Barayev (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful, or you'll violate the 3TY rule. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder Bbb23. Damn! :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Partly in response to Binksternet's comments, the problems here involve editor conduct and content. I know next to nothing about the content. Sometimes, the two overlap, although sometimes one can surgically remove a conduct issue from the underlying mess, e.g., violating 3RR. The more difficult conduct issues of possible bias (disruptive editing) and possible abuse of multiple accounts require a solid understanding of the content (for the bias) and a deeper technical analysis and historical perspective (for the sock puppetry). That's a lot of balls in the air, and ANI seems as good a place as any to manage these issues, assuming enough knowledgeable editors contribute to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    adding false attributed information that does not exist by a nationalist socks

    Let me defend Kurdo777 here as his conduct is perfectly alright as he is undoing false information. This is not a content dispute as I demonstrate below.

    1)

    First of all , on Sumerian_language article. There is a misquote (false citation) added for the book that states something else completely. The actual quote from Samuel Kramer is here: Kramer, Samuel, Noah 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [27] pg 306:“In vocabulary, grammer, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead”.. It clearly says that Sumerian is a language isolate yet some users have added the opinion that Samuel Kramer has mentioned it as Turkic!

    I deleted the citation by the nationalist users who claim that the language is classified as Turkish by Samueal Kramer. So this is a misquote of Samuel Noah Kramer. It is very wrong thing to attribute wrong information to an author who has stated the opposite opinion that Sumerian is an isolate language. So falsely claiming Samuel Noah Kramer has stated that Sumerian is a Turkic language is beyond "content dispute". It is simply lying. So where is the quote that Kramer claims Sumerian is a Turkish language!?! He only mentions that Sumerian in terms of structure is language like those of the Caucasus, Uralic and Turkic languages (also these are not they ones,..all Dravidian, and majority of African languages, native American languages are also agglunitative). This is typology but not linguistic classification ( agglutinative language). Kramer mentions Sumerian is a language isolate yet they have the audacity to misquote his book and say Kramer has mentioned it as a Turkic language!

    I hope the admins do not see this as "difference of opinion". This is actually blatantly inserting and supporting false information! Yet these nationalists type have the audacity of calling this "referenced information"! Until when should Wikipedia put up with this oflying?

    Please note the conduct of Tirgil34 (who is now Greczia).. on Scythians with similar behaviour.. [28] and in the mainspace page..

    2) On bogus map in the article "ethnic minorities of Iran", the source is a nationalist fringe map that they keep adding: [29] (made by a turkish nationalist unscholarly activist based on non-academic source/manual). This it their map: [30]. Non-academic, non-RS source (which is not verifiable made by ethnic activists).

    Here are actual academic maps from reputable sources and universities: [31] [32] [33][34] [35] (University of Texas and Columbia)

    For example majority of Tehran, Hamadan do not speak Turkish nor is the second laguage of Gilan, Mazandaran and most of the places highlighted Turkish. Infact Half of my family is from Mazandaran area and Persian is the first language, then Mazandarani. Large part of Kurdish areas in Iran are made Turkish in these maps too (see the comparison of Norther Khorasan between the academic maps and the fake map). So what is Kurdo777 to do when some false map made by an ethnic nationalist from an ethnic nationalist unscholarly author (with no academic credentials) is inserted? That source they mentioned is a nationalist based source with no academic citations and contradicts the unbiased Western made maps above. The map has no scholarly backing and has no place in wikipedia.

    3)

    ON Azerbaijani people, Kurdo777 removed the source: (authors=Roger Howard|year=2004|title=Iran in Crisis?) because it is quoting an ethnic activist who claims 35 million people in Iran. Here is the source that was used: "Roger Howard (2004). Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response. Zed Books. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-1842-7747-55. "[...] reckons to be closer to 35 million than the oficial estimate of 14 million.""

    But first question is what is the academic credential of the author? Second the author (Roger Howard) is quoting an ethnic nationalist-activist. Can such information be labeled as reliable? But quoting an ethnic-nationalist (it is like quoting Louis Farrakhan or David Duke) activist is not WP:RS for general information. So when totally bogus information was removed from Sumerians (Kramer stating flat out that Sumerian is a language isolate not related to any language family), they kept reinserting the misinformation as well. Also here is another false source inserted by these users: "Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2008). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0. "... 32 million people in Iran..."" [36] The book claims that "During the first milenium, B.C.E, the Azeri Kuti tribe defeated the Akkadian ruler..". where as the formation of an Azeri ethnic group occurs after Islam due to synthetic of Turkic migrants with Iranian populations (around 500-700 years ago). This is an example of fringe source. So the Gutian people has been claimed to be an "Azeri" tribe by such a fringe source.

    4) On [37]

    There is a reference to a Farrokh website which has none of the claims made by these users. The actual website is www.gandchi.com which is not reliable on such matter. Actually, websites like these are not reliable. If someone is familiar with the article, they know that the Muslim Tats even have somewhat different language/dialect than Jewish Tats. It might be possible that the [[38]] (Juhuri language) speakers were at one time "Khazars", but they could also be immigrants during the Sassanid era as they are not Ashkenazi but Shepardic. Anyhow..those websites are not related to the Tat_language_(Caucasus) but might be related to Judeo-Tat. And furthermore, those websites do not meet WP:RS.

    Again this is not a content dispute.. it is trying to make everything from Sumerians, to Scythians to Tats of the Caucasus as Turks. It is simply disruptive behaviour by Turkish nationalist editors. Such information does not exist in those websites (and secondaly the websites do not meet WP:RS necessarily). Where does it say in those websites that the "tats of Caucasus are definitely Turks"? So are admin going to note the insertion of false information by these users? Or do they think this is a "content dispute"?

    It is either making up information (like Sumerian) or using fringe websites/nationalist activist sources (not academic reliable sources that meet WP:RS).

    e) The problem is not edit warring but adding false information that does not exist or adding extremly unreliable fringe sources by a user that has all these socks:

    You have a bunch of Turkish nationalist (or likely one) claiming Sumerians, Tats, Scythians as Turks and adding bogus maps. And also attacking Greece/Iran related articles. They ought to be ashamed of their conduct which is falsifying information and attributing to authors who have never made such statements (or adding extremly fringe websites/sources with no academic responsibility). So Kurdo777 is simply undoing this massive sock attack and the admins need to ban all the mentioned names here as they are socks of the same user.

    First of all, you always accuse the people who do not think like you. You need to be patient if you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not accept your calumniation about me or others. I believe that they are all different editors.
    In the mentime, let me give some information about Sumerian language though you cannot stand calling it Ural-Altaic-like language, which displays that your only resource is Google Books; so you look for everything in Google Books, and when you can't find something in there, you think it's wrong or pseudoscience. That's wrong; in fact, you need to have a large library to make researches. You're not a linguist though I'm a bit from the college. You don't have enough knowledge about the researches about Sumerian language, so most of the time, you just remove all the references, by claiming them unreliable. I can bring you hundreds of articles on the relation between Sumerian and Turkic, but I'm sure you'll remove all those sources because you'll not be able to find them in your tiny Google books. So it's really fun of you! You just accuse people, which displays that you have Turcophobia.
    Anyway, let me mention some about Sumerian language, which is similar to Turkic languages in both vocabulary and grammar. If you check the document prepared by Prof. Tuna and Hubey, you'll realize the relation between Sumerian and Turkic languages.
    There are hundreds of cognates between Sumerian and Turkic languages, but I'm adding only twelve samples as an example of similarity in vocabulary.
    Sumerian > Turkish > English
    di >> de >> speak
    eş >> es >> blow
    dug >> dök >> pour out
    kur >> koru >> guard
    sum >> sun >> give
    tuku >> doku >> weave, knit
    tar >> yar >> cut off
    kiri >> kır >> field, garden
    kur >> kara >> land
    sag >> sağ >> good
    zag >> sağ >> right side
    ud >> öd >> time
    There are also similarities between Finnish and Sumeriand; and also between Hungarian and Sumerian. All these similarities are mentioned in hundreds of articles. So all of them are nationalistic? Don't think each attempt to be nationalistic. You need to research not only in Google books, but also in jorunals, archives, and actual libraries etc. Barayev (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in the following article "Sumerian, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugrian and Hungarian" (2009), Prof. Dr. Alfréd Tóth presents 731 similarities between Hungarian, proto-languages (Proto-Altaic, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-Ugric), and Sumerian.
    He explains the method in his article: In this study I will prove that the so-called Sumerian Hypotheses of Hungarian is true. This does neither mean that Hungarian is the same as Sumerian (an obvious nonsense that had been asserted by some non-linguists), nor does it mean that Hungarian alone has Sumerian as its ancestor language. What I will prove with the present study is that at least 731 Hungarian lemmata which are shared by at least 1 more lemma in at least one other member of the Finno-Ugric language family can be traced back to Sumerian. I will show this by comparing the reconstructed Proto-Finno-Ugrian and/or Proto-Uralic forms to actual Sumerian words. It is also explained that Sumerian shows traces of vowel harmony (cf. Edzard 2003, pp. 99 ss.). And also between Sumerian and Hungarian there are strict consonant sound-laws which have been indicated to every lemma.
    So will you still continue calumniating people? These people are fabricating everything for their nationalistic aims? I think that not those calumniated people, but you are really a bit nationalist or have prejudice against several subjects. You just pick up everything according to your own ideology. I'd bring you hundreds of articles, but most of them are unpublished on the Internet. So, you'll not believe me, but just calumniate me. Yeah, I push on a rope. Barayev (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim was Kramer was falsified and you guys were re-inserting him. As per your latest source, these are baloney sources which no one in academica takes seriously. For example: the word Saghir is a loanword from Arabic to Persian to Turkish. Or the word "tin" (body..) is actually Persian loanword to Turkish. Sorry but Sumerians are not Turks and no one takes this seriously. As you said: "I'd bring you hundreds of articles, but most of them are unpublished on the Internet".. So they do not belong to wikipedia but to your ethnic nationalistic forums. It is always some Turkish or Hungarian author trying to make the false claim. And this is exactly why the above user with his multiple socks below should be watched. By the way here is a fun one (Latvian and Sumerian) [39] (looks 10x longer than your list and Latvin is Indo-European!). Much longer than your list! How about Basque and Sumerian? [40]. How about Dravidian and Sumerian? [41]? How about Sumerian and Tamil [42]? That looks much longer too? Oh wait unlike Turkish, Sumerian is a split ergative language (like Kurmanji Kurdish). So maybe it is Kurdish? Unlike Turkish, Sumerian has all three affix, prefix and infix (Turkish has only pre-fix)..wait English/Persian have all three.. So maybe it is English? Oh wait I can make a funny comparison too.. Sumerian Pap..Latin Pope mean father.. Or Sumerian Abzu and Persian "Ab" mean water. Unfortunately, you are not aware of how modern linguistic works. Or Sumerian has the 6 vowels that Arabic has (unlike Turkish with 9 vowels or 18 vowels in Turkmen)..so is it Arabic. Please spare wikipedia with this sort of nationalistic editing. Also the Kramer book precisely said the opposite of what you guys were inserting. It is a fringe viewpoint and so stop pushing fringe viewpoint. No serious scholar thinks Sumerian were Turks. But unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a policy in dealing with this sort of nationalistic editing. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyhow, falsification of the Kramer was demonstrated. And I stand by my claim that all the above users are the same. Anyhow, Kurdo777 had to deal with users that are pushing Sumerians as Turks. This is not a content dispute really, it is nationalistic editing.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone explain what does this man doing by removing two references and Ural-Altaic languages from the article? If any admin will not intervene with this unkwnown vandal, I'll resign. It's really an irritating behaviour! Please check the revert of 96.255.251.165.
    In the meantime, this man doesn't have enough linguistic background. Latvian is related to the nearly extinct Livonian language of Baltic-Finnic sub-branch of Uralic language family. It might have borrowed many words from the neighbouring Uralic languages. Also, Louis Lucien Bonaparte and Michel Morvan claim Basque language might be Uralic languages. Moreover, there are some grammatical and linguistic similarities between Finnish and South Indian languages (Dravidian). You'll see if you research some linguistic papers, but you're prejudiced. Also, whose sockpuppet are you? Kurdo777 or any others? I invite admins to check all your edits,96.255.251.165. To end up my speech, you're really simple-minded with your edits. Barayev (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Psuedo-linguistics again. Uralic and Altaic are now considered separate branches (families). Also Dravidian has nothing to do with these. Neither is Latvian an uralic language. Please stop the psued-linguistic nonsense. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is just pseudo-linguistics. Another rehash of the Sun Language Theory. --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, I will hepl you to get better sources. I think I've got some, but I am for two days away, so keep it COOL untill then. --Greczia (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My response

    First of all, Binksternet's dispute with me, is totally unrelated to this scenario. He is simply fishing in muddy waters. It should also be noted that Binksternet has been stalking me for years, which explains his presence here in the first place, and that he has been warned and blocked for stalking of me on several occasions. [43][44] Now as for the topic at hand here, my edits were all in line with WP:RS and WP:Fringe, and meant to protect Wikipedia's integrity against nationalist POV-pushing by a group of W:SPAs that have raised a lot of red flags in many corners of Wikipedia, and appear to be sock-puppets/revert-only accounts, including the user who filled this report. I also discussed all my edits with, and notified several admins and experienced users in these topical areas who are familiar with the content. Please read the following discussions for more context.[45][46][47] Just to give a few short obvious examples, in once case, one of these users falsified a source [48], in another case, another one used a non-WP:RS source for which he was warned by an admin who is familiar with these topics.[49] This pretty much sums what we're dealing with here, and as I said, all my edits were in good-faith and in line with WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. What should be addressed here though, is the widespread sock-puppetry that's going on these pages by revert-only SPA accounts with less than 100 edits, namely User:Gabriel_Stijena, User:Barayev, User:Greczia and User:Kurdaleall every single of whom is engaged in Turkish nationalist POV pushing on various pages and topical areas from Greece to China, and all of whom appear to be connected to one another, and have been inserting sourceless or poorly-sourced fringe nationalist theories into these pages, and therefore compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdo777, I have better things to do than follow you around and accuse you on ANI—this noticeboard is public space and it is on my watchlist. I post here often; there's no stalking involved. I came forward on this particular thread to support the initial poster because I wanted the board to know that his premise, that you might be coordinating others to push your views, is something I had also noticed. By the way, you still have not apologized for falsely accusing me of trying to make IRWolfie my meatpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last month alone, you have shown up on three or four different pages I've edited, and you've had no prior interest in whatsoever. Just as when you were blocked for stalking me, you always have some excuse like "I saw it on my watch-list" or "I saw it on X or Y's contribution list". Bottom line is, you've been stalking non-stop me for almost four years now. Amazingly, you're now supporting some nationalist sock/SPA/revert-only account with less than 100 edits, 80% of which are reverts, in a topical area, that as usual, you have no expertise in, just because I'm involved. This issue is not about me, it's a much bigger problem, and I'm actually the one enforcing Wikipedia's policies on WP:RS and WP:Fringe. User:Dougweller, an admin who actually knows something about these topics, summarized the main problem that editors like me, are dealing with, in the section below. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with nationalistic editing

    One of the areas where we are weakest is in dealing with pov nationalism and editwarring. Almost every day I run into editors changing sourced text, adding unsourced material, using random webpages as sources for their pov, using other unreliable sources, attacking and reverting other editors, writing leads, etc so that Wikipedia articles state as fact matters that are disputed by academics, etc. We are very bad at coping with this sort of thing for various reasons. Lack of expertise in many of these areas is a big problem We used to have DBachmann but he isn't around much any more. No easy mechanism for dealing with pov edit warriors is another, as is the fact that few of us have the energy to do it (or the balls at times, blocks can be contentious. Plus it takes place on a multitude of little articles. I just ran across Lurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) today - have a gander at the contribution history. It's a mess. It is being fought over to make nationalistic points but who has the time or energy to find all of these? And sources that have been discussed in the past and dismissed as unreliable keep popping up, in part because of editors not understanding our RS policy and certainly unaware of past discussions, so we keep having the same arguments over and over. I realise that I'm not dealing with the specific complaints about editors but I am going out the door in 5 minutes and haven't had a chance to look at them in depth, but there is a serious problem here of which this is just an example. Oh - Kurdo, Binksternet, let's not let disagreements between you derail this please. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia needs to comeup with a good policy.. perhaps 10 neutral admins who know the area can fix up articles one by one and everyone should agree to their edits. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have plenty of policies, what we lack are admins that are familiar enough with the subject matters to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I've said elsewhere, this has been why I've stayed out, as I don't know the material well enough to referee. I guess in my spare time, I need to bone up on one or more areas, but this isn't trivial to get to speed on. What we need are more admins familiar with the controversial areas, that haven't gotten caught up in the drama. That is a tall order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis hit one of the nails on the head regarding a lack of expertise in particular subjects leading to these systemic problems. I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps we need some sort of an admin system where experts in a particular topic can get the tools for use only within those topics. I can think of at least a couple objections to my idea right off the top of my head, but it may be a decent starting point. Sædontalk 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't have any effect - you can't use tools to solve content disputes. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are technical reasons why you can't limit use of tools to specific areas, but I will say that what we really depend on is editors. There are some areas where I know certain editors are more neutral than others, and when they make a complaint, it is a neutral tone, and this helps tremendously. I still have to research, but they keep it short, point out the diffs, briefly explain the problem, and don't tell me what I should do but instead focus on why it is a problem (ie: it isn't about an ax to grind). Remember folks, we admins are no different than non-admins, except we have the tools. The admin bit doesn't make us smarter or experts, it just means we are pretty familiar with general policies and the community said they trust us, that is all. We need help from people who we can trust, that are familiar with the subject matter, but we need it from people who can and will act rational and in a fair manner, as if they were the admin themselves. In the short run (and maybe the long run) this has to be at least part of the solution. We don't want to interfere with content, we only want to keep it neutral so the editors of these articles can do their job, fairly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to chime in with my two cents here. As a subject matter expert in the real world I can completely sympathize with the need to do something about concerted nationalistic attacks on articles based on nationalistic crap. Because of the "rules of consensus", it's not always possible to establish a clear scientific baseline in some instances. Over time, science usually prevails over nationalism, but the frustration level often reaches the red zone long before then. The Randy in Boise problem is a real one when dealing with nationalism over science. I've just skimmed over this ANI, but the reference to Kramer in the context of Ural-Altaic is completely bogus. Kramer maintained that Sumerian was a linguistic isolate and virtually ALL reputable linguists follow him. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering yesterday if the WMF might have a role to play in this by reaching out to find experts in these fields. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no experience with how well that works, but anything that brings in neutral experts who can work within Wikipedia policy would be welcome. As Dennis said, we need editors we can trust.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) The problem is there is little reward for neutral editors trying to deal with these areas; it just leads to frustration and burn-out. On the other hand, there are massive rewards for ultra-nationalists trying to get their POV across on the most consulted information website. They are often organised on off-Wikipedia noticeboards. Also, it's quite hard on Wikipedia to get banned for WP:SOAPBOX. Ideally, we should start blocking editors who contribute nothing but petty edit-warring over issues like the ethnicity of this or that famous person. But I don't hold high hopes for a resolution to this any time soon. I just don't think the Wikipedia model works in this area. --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Outreach to attract and Editor Retention to back them up, we definitely need to try something. I'm sure it has already cost us many good editors as it is. WMF might be worth the effort. A young lady that works at the teahouse and WP:WER, and just got her admin bit, works temporarily for WMF, maybe she would be a good starting point to seeing what resources, if any, are available. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some kind of attempt to do something back in 2008: Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. Unfortunately it was a bit rubbish and nothing substantial ever came of it. --Folantin (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:American Family Association

    The RFC talk page discussion on bias in RFC questions is the better venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It appears that a multi-editor edit war has broken out on Talk:American Family Association concerning the wording of an RfC. I am bringing it up here instead of WP:3RR because it looks a lot more complex than the usual edit war, but if anyone thinks I should go there instead, just let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note: I am involved in that Rfc.) All I've seen is arguing about verbiage. I have not seen anyone editing or removing anyone else's posts. The Rfc has about 28 days to run, and the subject is a bit intense for some editors. I don't see any real harm as long as the argument stays where is should, in the Rfc on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven reverts in less that two hours:[50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Looks like an edit war to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. I didn't see that.. sorry. I had this confused with the similar and related one at Family Research Council. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FWIW there is already a thread started at the NPOV board as well as a discussion on the WP:RFC talk page to seek clarity. For those interested it's a question of can a perceived non-neutral RfC statement be reworded just to address that perception or does it run afoul of touching someone else's talkpage comment. The original statement was not produced by consensus but by one person and I was not a part of the original dispute. The RfC page is clear the RfC statement should be neutral but does not clarify how to address any perception that the statement offered is not neutral. Insomesia (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Let's make this known up-front: Nobody involved in the discussion (and it IS a discussion at this point) asked for this intervention. Guy stumbled across this somehow, offered to help by mediating, then changed his mind and brought it here on his own initiative. (I'm not criticizing, but those are the facts.) There is a single involved editor (not myself) who is AT 3RR (not over), but he has stopped warring and has been working out the disagreement, now that he's received a warning template.
    I think it's also important to stress that this is a Talk page, not an article. I see no authority in policy for an editor to unilaterally modify the wording of an RfC against the wishes of the initiating editor. (I believe WP:TPO applies.)
    So yes, there was an edit-war, briefly, but cooler heads have prevailed and it's over now. As the user whose RfC was tampered with, I am not, at this point in time, seeking admin action. I suppose it might be useful for a patrolling admin to render a policy ruling on what's to be done about the RfC at this point in time, which has been "adjusted" to suit the desires of an editor who didn't post it and hasn't been changed back. Belchfire-TALK 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it the first time and then reverted twice, not sure if that meets 3rr or is 2rr but I'm not interested in warring and your warning to me did not change my opinion that a neutrally worded RfC statement is more important that leaving a pointy RfC statement as is. Had you sought a consensus wording of an RfC statement in the first place we likely would have never gotten to this point. For my part I'm interested in the RfC being neutrally asked so that the best consensus can emerge. Insomesia (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Insomnia has been warned for edit warring. Another revert and the editor could be blocked. Also talk page comments, even RFC comments that you do not agree with, should not be refactored. You should have asked the editor to change or reword the phrase before making the changes yourself.--JOJ Hutton 01:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Insomesia, we differ on interpretation of 3RR here, but that really doesn't matter AFAIC because, as I pointed out, the warring stopped. Your bolded question, above, concisely asks what would have been useful for all of us to know earlier in the day. I'm not sure if we should expect to get it answered here or not, though. Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I was not looking to see anyone get blocked or even warned. I just want clarity about the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Guy. Yes, a clarification would be most helpful. Belchfire-TALK 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refactoring the wording of an RfC is not much different than refactoring someone's talk. If it doesn't change the meaning, like a spelling error, or if someone uses a wrong name and it was obvious to fix (ie:had the original poster seen it, they would have fixed it themselves) then that is fine. In this case, removing the line "one of its political opponents" probably shouldn't be removed and instead the editor asked about it on their talk page, since it would change the meaning of the question to a degree. I don't find it overtly POV, and I assume there is some truth in the statement, so it is more of a matter of the wording being less than optimal. It is doubtful that the line would change the votes of someone stumbling upon the RfC, as they likely would know the relationship of the two organizations. I don't think removing it is a blockable offense (excepting 3RR violations), but removing it seems as unnecessary as including it, so you approach the editor instead. You can always !vote Abstain, flawed premise if you feel it is biased, but removing isn't really the solution. Bringing it here was fine, it was a legitimate issue to raise, and technically an "incident", so Guy acted proper since there were so many reverts. Probably best if everyone leaves it alone, vote how you want, and not sweat 3RR here, as reverting was misguided but likely in good faith. No reason to make the issue larger than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To quote Blueboar (origially posted at WT:NPOV), The issue is being discussed in more depth at WT:Requests for comment#How to handle non-neutral RfC statements. "It has been noted there that linking (the word "neutral") to this policy in that sentence of the instructions was inappropriate... WP:NPOV is an article content policy, and does not really apply to talk pages and RfC. What that instruction is trying to say is that we should not attempt to influence the outcome of an RFC by giving a skewed, one sided account of what the issue under discussion actually is. That has nothing to do with what WP:NPOV is talking about." The original wording has been restored and is also under discussion at the RfC. I consider this closed as discussion is taken place at the two venues; at the RfC itself, and the policies involved at WP:RFC. Insomesia (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    K. Michelle - Legal Threat

    Resolved
     – Tassiduous blocked per WP:NLT and email access has been disabled. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I recieved two emails (dated 12th of August - I just checked my mail now) from User:Tassiduous, who has threatened myself via Wikipedia mail, in regards to article, K. Michelle -

    12th of August Message #1:

    HI, This is K.michelle's PR rep. Thank u for trying to correct this page, but this page has been going through a lot of vandalism, and most of the information completely wrong. The page is now being tracked and any person that is traced back to changing the page will be prosecuted for defamation.

    12th of August Message #2:

    Miss Star,

    We have asked and warned you to STOP in the editing of this page. Several pages and private information have been hacked recently for my client. Legal information has already been submitted to not only trace all vandalism and defamation but to prosecute. We are very concerned about the safety and image of our client at this time. We will have your page traced by the end of the week. The page is completely false, and is enough to stand in the court of law,especially after we have asked you to stop. I do know that your page has already been linked to youtube where you continue to harass and stalk miss Kimberly Pate, and this is a crime.

    Thank,

    Kacieimages PR

    Tassiduous had been continuously adding in unsourced content to the article in question (while reverting sourced content), and many users, including myself, had reverted the content and told Tassiduous that they may not add content that has no reliable sources. The article, in my opinion lacks notability anyway - perhaps, should it be deleted? Could I please have some assistance here? -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Of course we can't verify that those emails are real, but per this edit summary, it's clear that legal action was taken. Ticket:2012081110007211 is also relevant for those with OTRS access. Through all of this, Tassiduous has still never pointed out any specific content that is libelous or defamatory, but rather declares that the whole article is such, and demands we agree with her. While I always respect WP:DOLT, we can't help people who refuse to communicate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Any objections to changing that to email access blocked? --Rschen7754 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, under the fact that the abuse was email-driven. Feel free to revert. --Rschen7754 05:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Refusing to replace the article with marketing copy provided by someone's PR department is not defamation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Nemambrata - SPA and edit warring

    On 4 August 2012, User:Nemambrata was reported as a WP:SPA here [57], however, unfortunately no admin attention was given at the time, and the matter was archived without action. Nemambrata has continued to editwar on the same articles, and has not edited outside those articles, so is looking more and more like an 'advocate' SPA. The editing behaviour is spasmodic, only reappearing when a change is made to the articles they are interested in is made. They make one edit (usually to remove material they do not like) then a short time later return to remove all trace of the removed material (such as references from the Reference section), claiming that the references are no longer relevant to the article in question. Their motivation for these edits was unclear until today, although it was clear that the editor had considerable experience with WP and was engaged in advocacy on behalf of the 'honour of Serbia' or some similar 'pro-Serbian' agenda. However, this [58] edit shows this editor's motivation clearly, 'this is insult for Serbian people'.

    This edit warring is occurring in the context of two successive move requests at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [59](closed, no move), and here [60](still open). Even though the name of the article has not changed (and was the official name of the territory involved) and remains under discussion, Nemambrata has taken it upon himself to eliminate all mention of the title of the article from related pages (such as Template:History of Serbia, Serbia, Serbs, Axis occupation of Vojvodina, Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944, Serbs in Vojvodina, Banat (1941–1944), and even Serbia (disambiguation), either removing it completely or creating a piped link with his preferred term in the text of each article.

    here are some additional diffs with examples of the problematic editing-

    • On Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 I added the title to the page on 1 July, replacing a colloquial version (Nedic's Serbia), Nemambrata began edit warring in relation to this here [61] on 2 August with an edit summary of 'better', I restored it on 7 August with a request that it be left until the issue with the title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was resolved. Nemambrata immediately made an accusation of revert warring on the talk page here, Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 then removed the title, replacing it with his preferred one here [62] with the edit summary 'no answer on talk page for several days'. I must point out at this point that this is a pattern for Nemambrata, he makes such talkpage comments on nearly every talkpage he edits, but where he is engaged in discussion, his rhetoric escalates rapidly, suggesting that I am promoting an 'illegal name' etc. The following example shows this.
    • On Axis occupation of Vojvodina, after disruption by a quickly blocked WP:SPA User:HuHu22 I added the title to the page on 11 July, [63] with explanatory note. On 2 August, Nemambrata changed this to his preferred version here [64]. I reverted here [65] and Nemambrata immediately reverted here [66], and immediately started accusing me of edit warring on the talkpage here [67]. User:DIREKTOR reverted Nemambrata two days later here [68], was reverted by Nemambrata here [69], who was reverted by User:MrX here [70], reverted by Nemambrata here [71], who was reverted by User:Drmies here [72] who indicated that User:Nemambrata's edits were premature and that the 'battle' was being fought elsewhere (ie at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) and stated this on the talkpage, but Nemambrata reverted again here [73] with an edit summary of 'Neutral description is back. There was few days and nobody chalenged my reasons for this edit on talk page. Illegal German names of illegal entity should not be promoted all over Wikipedia and there is no consensus that this name is used anywhere'. Nemambrata then deleted the references for Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [74].
    • On Banat (1941–1944), I added the title to the page on 11 July, [75] providing clarification of what territory the Government of National Salvation operated in. On 3 August, Nemambrata removed the reference to the Territory in the inbox, replacing it with his preferred version. User:DIREKTOR reverted the edit on 4 August here [76], and within 8 minutes Nemambrata reverted DIREKTOR without discussion on the talkpage.

    Despite his recent arrival on en WP, I consider that Nemambrata is an obvious WP:SPA with wiki experience who has some very strange ideas about what WP:BRD entails, and appears to be motivated to right what he perceives as 'insults' to the Serbian people. This editing behaviour is not constructive, and I believe it warrants admin attention. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't help to notice that his name is a Serbian phrase: it means, "I have a brother".[77] I can't say whether this is intended to be a reference to another account, but that's what comes to my mind, anyhow. Hope this helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen no evidence that indicates that this user is not here to push an agenda or that they are a net asset. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor does seem to be disruptive and not editing in good faith in some cases. I'm especially concerned about removal of content and then circling back later to to remove citations. I have reservations though. Is is possible that his edits are actually improving the articles by making them more neutral? Also, it seems that other active editors of these articles may be POV pushing every bit as much as Nemambrata. I think that Nemambrata needs to do better at working with other editors to build consensus, but I see no reasons for a block or a topic ban, especially since he has only received two warnings on his talk page. — MrX 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is part of big content dispute, where reporting users are on the "other side" of conflict. I am afraid that this may only be a way to eliminate opposing opinions, with questionable presentation of data. By simple history check, you may see several very bad faith moves on all sides of dispute. I also dont find this worthy of any admin reaction. Content dispute should be dealt with on a relevant pages, and not on AN/I. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WW neglected to mention that he is on the same side as Nemambrata in the RM at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I would also like to make the point in response to WW that I am not interested in eliminating 'opposition', I am interested in ensuring that editors are here for the purposes WP accepts, not personal POV crusades on a single issue ignoring all WP policies that don't allow him to push his POV. That is what Nemambrata is doing, and in my view it does warrant admin action. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again this? Administrators, please read this page where I already gave answer to accusations of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67. Both of them were blocked for revert warring in the past. I gave explanation for all my changes on talk pages of articles and in my edit summaries and these two editors simply reverted me in several articles with no their comments on talk pages and with no edit sumaries. Examples are here: [79],[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja,_1941–1944], [80]. Both users started to attack me and revert me since I registered my username in Wikipedia and this thread is just another attack. About my agenda: yes, I have agenda to make some pages about Serbia accurate and I do not support promotion of Nazi names in these pages. For some reason, Peacemaker67 want to promote in several pages about Serbia official Nazi name of occupied territory. This name was illegal, Nazi occupation of Serbia was illegal and all names used by Nazis for their occupied territories were illegal. Yes, official Nazi name should be described somewhere in Wikipedia and it is described on this page and on main page about history of Serbia and that is enough. There is no reason that illegal official Nazi name is promoted all over Wikipedia in various pages about Serbia and it is just what Peacemaker67 do. He promote Nazi name all over Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia place where this should be promoted? Peacemaker67, please say to administrators why you promote this name all over Wikipedia? What is your agenda behind this? About my username: it mean "I do not have a brother". Yes, it is stupid, but after some of usernames that I had wish to choose were already taken, I just choose one that is not taken for sure. No conspiracy here. I already gave explanation that I had edits in Wikipedia (both English and Serbian) with IP number in the past and my experience come from that. See that DIREKTOR also accuse user:Alexmilt to be “WhiteWriter's acquaintance”. This just show behavior where DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are try to accuse everybody who do not agree with them to be socks, SPA accounts or parts of some conspiracy against them. About my edits: my interest is World War II and I had many changes about one thing only because my changes were reverted by Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR and I was forced to waste much of my time to this. I will work on other things related to World War II in future. Nemambrata (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    111.125.108.86 and 111.125.108.94

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

    Resolved
     – First IP blocked for 24 hours

    111.125.108.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP today
    111.125.108.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP on 14 Aug 2012
    Seems to be creating significant damage. Some edits are constructive, but much is not. Does not leave any edit summaries to help understand the IP's reasoning. Examples of strange edits: Aquino III, of the Philippines, and of Presidents of the Philippines says that Aquino as been succeeded by his predecessor Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which does not show up with some googling. A number of edits change a DVD cover image from "DVD cover" to "theatrical release poster" even though the image has "DVD" visible. Changes a number of football (soccer) clubs to/from Oceanic and Asian. There have been over 100 edits by this person today. I have been reverting much of the changes, but I am a bit overwhelmed and signing off for the day. Can someone else please check the IP's changes? Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a wp:AIV on 111.125.108.86 who has not edited since 08:56, 17 August 2012 Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked that one for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple inappropriate redirects, etc

    We may need help rolling these back if they are as inappropriate as they look. Giggette (talk · contribs) is new this month and is making multiple redirects with no discussion, including creating at least one new article by moving material to it (again without discussion and also without attribution). It was this unattributed move that first made me notice this, and a post to my talk page galvanised me to take this here. I'm about to go out and really need to also comment on something else here so I'm hoping other editors can look at these and maybe someone can do a mass revert until we get some discussion going either on her talk page or individually at the various articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user moved List of Roman deities to List of Roman mythological figures without discussion and evidently without reading the article, since it specifically says it's about deities of ancient Roman religions and excludes "mythological figures" in general. I moved it back before I realized there was a larger problem, so I hope I haven't messed up whatever should've been done procedurally. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is problematic. Some of the moves may be ok, but definitely not all of them. Some may be with discussion, but should not have been done unilaterally. The sky god article, for instance, is more than a list. Others, as Cynwolfe noted, are even more troubling. LadyofShalott 17:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggette has not made any edits for a few hours, so a block is not appropriate now. I hope Giggette will engage in discussion here upon returning. If, however, they start moving articles again and not discussing, a block will be in order. I am not familiar with doing mass reverts. (I know it can be done, but I've never done it.) LadyofShalott 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, my confusion with the times. Giggette is actively editing. LadyofShalott 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Some moves are OK?. --Giggette (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I said MAY be. There is enough that is problematic that I'm not sure of any at this point. LadyofShalott 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if these moves are not OK, I just wanted to organized these topics in a template. --Giggette (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not simply title the template "deities" rather than "mythology"? I am now going to move back List of Germanic deities; in that case the problem is more or less the opposite from the problem with Roman deities: "mythological figures" is too broad. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to organized these topics in a template, Did you know you could use WP:PIPING rather than moving articles ? --DBigXray 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait. The template itself alarms me. In addition to not moving pages until you seek consensus on the talk page, I would urge you to consult Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about you're trying to accomplish overall. If you have to rename articles to make them fit your projected template, maybe there's a problem with your template concept. Many mythology articles are already overcrowded with less-than-useful templates that crowd informative images and take up too much space relative to the text. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Giggette, do you look at the contribution history first before you move an article or take out large amounts of material? If an article hasn't been edited for over a year, you might be able to act unilaterally, but if it isn't moribund than you really need to start a discussion on the talk page, leave a decent period for replies (I'd say wait until the Universities start up again), and only then, if others agree or haven't commented, should you consider acting. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller makes some very good points above here. I acknowledge that there are some significant differences between "man on the street" usage of language regarding mythology and religion, and academic discussion of the same topics. The best way to try to resolve any concerns regarding questions related to that is probably to make some sort of request to move an article first, and maybe notifying one of the more directly relevant WikiProjects. They will often have some editors who have access to a broader range of sources on a topic, and might be able to help ensure that the articles have the appropriate content and names. There are potentially some serious questions regarding a lot of content, but it generally is best to work with others in advance to see that the final results are most consistent with our existing policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Wikipedia:Edit filter playing up?

    Trout on the rocksStocks! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure this is the right place to report this, but I think that the edit filter may be playing up, and generating a lot of questionable false positives. As can be seen from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, there have been an apparently inordinate number of such incidents in recent minutes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That was me...I managed to block every edit to Wikipedia. Sorry. Facepalm Facepalm Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doh! Where's the trout - we are going to be needing it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At least it did block the vandal trolls. (And I don't mind fish that much. :P) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked every edit to Wikipedia? Sounds like a natural candidate for the WP:STOCKS, which already has a similar case in it. jcgoble3 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like I think we have a winner. This is a perfect candidate for stocks, and I will be disappointed if someone doesn't add it. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. jcgoble3 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity I decided to check my own edits that triggered the filter. Why does wikilove trigger the filter and what is the purpose when it doesn't do anything? (None triggered the filter in the incident today) Ryan Vesey 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See filter 423. To quote Erik Moeller therein, "Purpose of this filter: Track usage of the WikiLove tool, both by new and experienced users, to watch for use and abuse. We'll have better tracking tools soon, but right now this is a simple solution to watch what's going on. To reduce impact on patrollers, it merely flags the edits. Please discuss with User:Eloquence if you have comments or questions. Since this filter is in active use by a number of people, please do not disable without discussion." jcgoble3 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that makes sense, I forgot that it was the edit filter that flagged edits. On that topic, can we get an edit filter flag of article feedback additions? They appear in a user's contributions and it would be nice to be able to search someone's edits for them. I discussed this with Oliver Keyes before but forgot about it. Ryan Vesey 13:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, thanks to you Reaper I now have an entry in my filter log claiming that I attempted to vandalise Pendleton. Thanks very much. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about the mistake in the coding. Honestly, though, nobody will believe that you attempted to vandalize Pendleton, Greater Manchester, and nobody is ever going to look at your edit filter log in the first place. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise (same false accusation, different article). These should be expunged from the log. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't possible. Even if it were possible to revdelete them, no admin would do it since it simply isn't worth the time to hide every false positive that occurs in the edit filter. As I've mentioned before, nobody will believe that you attempted to vandalize a Wikipedia page. Calling a message from an automated computer system a "false accusation" that "should be expunged from the log" is blowing things way out of proportion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) One (1) serving of trout has been delivered to Reaper's talk page. jcgoble3 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the fact that we have more than 423 filters is a problem in and of itself. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a problem spawned by the rule that anyone can edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of them are for the useful tags you see in recent changes (or article histories) Things like "large unwikified new article" and "possible conflict of interest" can be very useful. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that those very two tags just allowed me to find and tag two articles as G12. Ryan Vesey 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) 423 is the total number of filters that have ever been created. The majority have since been deleted, and filter numbers are not recycled after deletion. Only 141 filters remain, and of those, only 111 are currently enabled. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... I meant 423 means that that was the 423rd filter ever created. More have been created since, but the other figures are correct. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it thanks. That's still a lot but that is a little better. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to help out with reducing and consolidating the number of filters, I've been trying to open a discussion on WT:EF with that goal. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'll glance at it later. I'm trying to stay away from admin related areas. Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Metropolitan90

    I'm going to withdraw it.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If this user wasn't an admin I wouldn't bring this up here and I'd just talk to him about it. However, he is one and the way he acted is totally uncalled for. Let me start on how this started. I made an honest mistake that no one corrected me until you he did. I thought it was pornographic actors AND models not pornographic actors and pornographic models. Basically it was a reading error on my part.

    Instead of just correcting me and saying Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Pornographic actors and models is for pornographic models and not regular models, he tagged me for a level 3 disrupted editing and said I'll be blocked if I continue. Completely ignoring WP:Good Faith.

    This is not how an admin and it shouldn't be repeated ever. It needs to be dealt with so this admin doesn't continue to flaunt his power like that. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    This is one of the things that makes new editors leave (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because this is a WP:BLP concern (calling a model a porno model), I can see why it was ramped up to a level 3 warning. Not what I would have done, but I can see why someone else might, not knowing it was simply a facepalm moment. I have been given a number of warnings over the years, most of them completely bogus and dished out by IPs who were completely clueless. I've also give out a few that were completely in error. I don't even bother deleting them most of the time. Just yesterday I gave a level 3 out, then discovered I was wrong, and did a rollback on myself. Over the years, I've probably left some that were incorrect before and didn't catch them. I suggest just explaining on his talk page that it was an innocent mistake, and just move on. You made a mistake by adding names to a controversial list, he made a mistake by assuming it was vandalism, but the big blue marble keeps spinning. We all make mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, you've been editing for three years, so you're not a newcomer. We certainly shouldn't bite newcomers, and this is bitey behaviour, but it's not biting newcomers. Secondly, you are correct that it was a significantly OTT reaction to an honest mistake. Thirdly, taking it to ANI is no less of an overreaction, especially given that it was a rather silly error to make (twice). Everyone shake hands and forget about it, and let this be a reminder to everyone that a friendly (or at least not obviously aggressive) question on a talk page is a better response to a problem than templates and ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying I'm newcomer, just pointing out this is the stuff that makes new ones leave.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring on Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead

    User:Stellabystarlight keeps edit-warring on article Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead. She appears to be a family member of the artist in question. She keeps deleting material about an edition of the album released in 2010, alleging (without any sources) that it was a "bootleg" and instead adding information (and a commercial link to Amazon) about a rival 2012 release. [81]. --feline1 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that this editor has previously been warned regarding a conflict of interest in their editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stellabystarlight#Conflict_of_interest --feline1 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Are there any reliable sources for calling the Harkit release a "bootleg"? That's a particularly serious accusation which could be legally problematic if it isn't true--I don't know either way, but as it's essentially an accusation of criminal activity it shouldn't be done here without some very solid sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A new wrinkle on personal attacks?

    CLARIFICATIONS GIVEN
    I think we are done here (for now)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Doncram is abusing the agreement reached at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Evil as an excuse to excise my input from on-wiki discussions that he is involved. The referenced ANI discussion started with an expression of concern about Doncram's persistent pattern of personal attacks targeted at me and another user. It led to an agreement that, in order to help Doncram avoid "reacting with venom" against us, Cbl62 would monitor Doncram's edits for 30 days, during which time SarekOfVulcan and I would refrain from criticizing or questioning Doncram's work -- instead alerting Cbl62 to any concerns we might have. In most respects, this arrangement has worked out well. Cbl62 has taken it upon himself not only to communicate with Doncram about issues with his new-article creations (which have been the primary source of friction), but also to clean up, expand, and improve upon some of Doncram's new contributions. Other users, such as Acroterion, have done likewise.

    My concern is that Doncram is interpreting this agreement as giving him permission to delete my input from on-wiki discussion pages he is involved with -- in effect, treating me as if I were a banned user. First, he deleted my comments from an AfD discussion that another user had started and inserted a personal attack on me (corrected link here) on the AfD page after I added a note to the effect that my comments were in the history and on the Talk page for the AfD. The second incident involves the article Harmony, Florida, a page that has been subject to significant disharmony between users with strongly divergent opinions. I received an email from one of those users, requesting advice on dealing with Doncram, and not identifying the reason for asking. I looked at the user's contribution history and determined that the user's concern was focused on Harmony, Florida, where Doncram had recently become engaged in article-editing and talk page discussion related to long-standing controversy between editors. After seeing the disharmony in Harmony and the substance of the ongoing discussion there, and having no desire to get involved with another user's interaction with Doncram, I advised the user who emailed me that: "I don't think this is a personal issue, so much as an issue of Wikipedia policy and article-writing." Additionally, I commented on the talk page in general support of the tack that Doncram was taking there, and I notified Doncram by email that I had commented there because of the email I had received. Ten minutes after I commented on the talk page, and apparently before he opened my email, Doncram removed my talk page comment with an edit summary that said: "remove a message, posted in violation of an agreement. Discuss elsewhere, at ANI if you wish. Don't interfere here, pls, don't introduce unnecessary drama here, thanks." He followed that with a talk page announcement about the comment removal that gives the impression that my talk page comment had been some sort of criminal act so unspeakable that it cannot be mentioned in polite company. A little while after that, he sent a reply to my email, in which he specifically forbid me from quoting the contents of his message.

    After several years of enduring various forms of character assassination from this user, I was grateful for Cbl62's recent intervention, but I am disgusted to find that Doncram is using this as a new excuse to attack me in a new and different way. I am not a banned user! --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's one thing to avoid interaction, another to impose a self-selected Cone of Silence, and entirely unacceptable to remove comments at AfD. As Orlady notes, I've occasionally tried to save Doncram from overenthusiastic CSD taggers and to some extent from himself, but I lack Cbl62's patience. Agreements not to interact are not a license to expunge other peoples' communications anywhere but in Doncram's userspace. Orlady's participation in the Sons of Norway Building AfD was not a good idea, seeing as Doncram created the article, and it's probably best that she avoid such discussions in the future, but Doncram may not police comments. At Harmony, Florida, both Orlady and Doncram were separately acting in good faith to deal with a problem: there was no reason to remove Orlady's comments. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't respond in detail now. Quick points. There should be no suggestion that there is a "ban" on Orlady's activities. There is not. There is a voluntary agreement to keep some distance from each other. I would like to see that voluntary agreement remain in place. I do think that Doncram has shown signs of improving the quality of his work in the last 3 weeks and has also been interacting appropriately and collaboratively with other users. The problem is that, when it comes to Orlady, Doncram believes (whether rightly or wrongly) that any criticism from her (as in her recent vote to delete one of his articles) is part of a campaign to get him banned from Wikipedia. For that reason, he reacts vociferously to Orlady's criticisms. I am hoping that with a bit more separation time, this may still work itself out. But I agree that Doncram should not be deleting (or moving) Orlady's comments from AfD discussions or article talk pages or anyhwere else (excpet his talk page). Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, what an unfortunate turn of events. It sounds like the agreement reached was resulting in some progress. I wish that Orlady had concluded that the AfD process will not collapse if one person declined to contribute, and had chosen not to weigh in with a delete !vote for a Doncram created article. Without getting into whether that constitutes a violation of the agreement, it is quite unacceptable that Doncram interpreted the agreement as permitting a removal of comments from a board. I'll go so far as to say that if the agreement did permit this, we would revisit the agreement. Doncram would have been better off to notify Cbl62, who could decide whether Doncram or Orlady or neither ought to be chided. Removal was NOT acceptable.

    As for the Harmony incident, had Orlady shown up on her own, it might have been a violation, but when an editor receives an email from a participant, that (IMO) trumps the agreement. But it doesn't matter whether I'm right that it should be permitted, or wrong—it isn't Doncram's remit to remove comments form anywhere other than his own talk page.

    I do want to thank Doncram for his involvement at Harmony, Florida. His input was thoughtful and helpful.

    Before I propose, I must note that my thanks for Doncram's involvement in Harmony, Florida may constitute a COI, so take the following with a grain of salt:

    While I think Doncram was decidedly wrong in removing the comments of Orlady, a liberal dose of AGF would permit me to believe that one might have read the agreement that way, so my suggestion is: TO Doncram - No, absolutely not, and never again. To Orlady: Did you REALLY have to contribute to the AfD of an article created by Doncram? I propose that Doncram agree to the clarified agreement, and we move on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, my commenting on that Sons of Norway AfD was a mistake. My excuse is that when I first looked at the AfD, I mistakenly thought that Elkman had created the article, when in fact he had started the AfD. I probably would never have brought up that AfD again if it hadn't been for the venom that was directed at me there ("a long-hateful editor seemingly ever intent on following and poisoning and wreaking mayhem") and the subsequent Harmony incident. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The simple solution is that Doncram shouldn't delete any more comments from Orlady, and if he thinks a comment violates the voluntary agreement, notify Cbl62 instead, who can determine and take any action needed. And as for here, just move on without action against him, giving the best of faith that it was a misunderstanding. Since Orlady has already indicated that the comment at the AFD was a mistake, I can assume Orlady understands that avoiding AFD's of articles that Doncram started is best, and that this was a simple mistake. Mistakes were made, nothing got broke, the earth keeps spinning and we just move along and build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that even with the "best of good faith" this should be dismissed as a "both parties goofed" moment. Doncram's response was egregriously inappropriate even if he did think he was being deliberately poked. Editor rehabilitation should absolutely not be allowed to interfere with the betterment of the project, and if Doncram is literally unable to interpret close proximity to Orlady as anything other than calculated malice against his person then there's only really one resolution available. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Thumperward has a point here, but I still think it might, remotely, assuming good faith, be possible to think maybe Doncram thought he was acting appropriately. Maybe. I myself have difficulty seeing how that could be the case, but I suppose it might be remotely possible. Having said that, I do think that there may very likely be some intent problems here, and do not necessarily oppose any action against Doncram, although I would might favor a perhaps slightly more lenient option of those which might be considered. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My suggestion to move on should not be interpreted as implying that both sides goofed equally. I just don't think either qualifies for explicit admin sanction, beyond the "don't do that again." --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My thoughts exactly. I wasn't meaning to equate the mistakes, only noting that both parties made them and it was better to give a little extra good faith and simply say "don't do it again, you will get sanctions next time". No one is perfect, but this doesn't require blocking, just a warning, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi everyone. Let me summarize: in a previous ANI incident discussion, Orlady and another editor committed to cease with following and contention and attacks and ANI incidents for a period. To the few editors reading here who are not aware, there is a long history of hatred and contention and following.

    I don't know why they agreed to cease for a while exactly, but it did succeed in ending the previous ANI which maybe otherwise would prolong some negative attention for them right then. It puzzled me because I thought they enjoyed ANI reporting and contestation....maybe they were messing with my world-view....but no, here we are at ANI with another ANI report opened by one of them. A few days remain until Orlady and the other editor are released from their commitment and can resume around-the-clock ANI reporting if they wish, I suppose. Orlady violated that commitment several times since, just two of which are being discussed here. By opening this here, Orlady achieves another ANI report, and calls for sympathy for their right to contest and open ANI reports. I'd rather not. It's an interesting-to-some question, what should be done when an editor violates a commitment. I agree/concede that there can be differences of opinion, about what should be done to minimize the damage when they do. I made a judgment in both cases about what to do most expeditiously to reduce the damage and embarrassment in front of new wikipedia editors, etc. Others could judge differently. It's subjective.

    What is the point for Orlady of having this ANI repor? Is it to bring attention to the injustice for Orlady of someone taking action when Orlady violates Orlady's commitment? I dunno. Some may want to turn to consequences to be imposed. We could debate what to do the next time that Orlady violates Orlady's commitment. If it helps people walk away, I promise to come back and consider whatever people's opinions expressed here are, before I make some response to Orlady's next violation. If Orlady chooses not to violate Orlady's commitment, we don't have to come back here again for second-guessing one another's responses to Orlady's violations. Whew!

    I judge this all to be an embarrassment in front of the new editors watching, and this is unpleasant, and it defeats the purpose of having a ceasefire, to open a new ANI battleground. I suggest this ANI section be closed. Sorry, I don't want to play here, and would like not to reply further. --doncram 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, all I read above is WP:BATTLE. Personally, I WP:AGF'ed across the board. The above shows me that Doncram isn't ready for the community of Wikipedia dangerouspanda 01:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I concur with that assessment. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, regardless of whether or not you consider Orlady to be in breach of the committment, you do not have the option of removing her comments from anywhere but your talk page. Hopefully this is now fully cleared up for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just a note...

    ...I've noticed several times recently that users who have been blocked haven't been notified on their user talk pages about the block. Now in some cases (where it's socks) this might be understandable, but in other cases it just seems to have been forgotten. While I'm pretty sure it's not required, per se, it's courteous to say "you've been blocked" even if it's just with a Twinkle tag, I think, instead of letting the user find out when they try to edit. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • If I do that, trout me. It actually bugs me a bit that the SPI scripts do not put a notice on the sock's talk page when we block them. We can go an manually add them, but often there are many socks in a single case and that is a pain. It does always put a notice on their user page, however, so I suppose that is supposed to suffice. It would be better if it has another checkbox to give a generic "you are blocked for $x, see ((WP:SPI/sockcase))" for the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Are you notifying the blocking admins? For my part, if I forget to notify a blocked editor, I would want to know. It's almost required. See WP:EXPLAINBLOCK - just underneath ("Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.") Perhaps we should change that to "Generally, administrators must notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page." The "generally" gives an admin some wiggle room but conveys the notification more strongly. I'm not sure how a user is expected to know how to appeal a block without a notice unless of course they're a recidivist and have lots of experience. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends if you use some of the templated blocks themselves - they will see a block notice when they try to edit (I think) dangerouspanda 00:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could block you and we could test that ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know of at least 1 editor who would love that dangerouspanda 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've just been adding the "congrats, you've been blocked" tags myself, but from now on I'll send a ping in the direction of the Forgetful Joneses. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If adding notices to sock talk pages is a pain, perhaps the blocking should be done by a different admin.--Rockfang (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I need to reach an administrator regarding unsupported edits by 76.121.120.70 on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders

    I wish to make contact with an administrator regarding recent edits that have taken place on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders wiki-page. I have posted a question on the users talk page a few weeks ago with no response. I notice on the article page, that an administrator has also posted a citation asking for specifics, with no response from the user.

    I am considered an expert on this subject and have visited extensively with the Riverside Historical Society and the author James Jeffrey Paul, regarding the differences between the film Changeling and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

    Unfortunately, the film convinces people who watch it that the film was a documentary on the facts of what happened at Wineville, but there are many legal differences that exist. People come and post on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page thinking that the film documented the real happenings at Wineville and this is not necessarily so. The current edits reflect the film version and not the historical version, which was decided by the California Courts in 1928. Over the past 2 years or so, I have edited repeatedly to reflect the true historical record as reflected by California courts, and not the film version.

    I wish to visit with an administrator and have the incorrect edits removed. I could do so myself, but I have no interest in engaging in some edit war with a user whom has no interest in responding with factual support of their claims.

    For the record, if the poster, 76.121.120.70 can produce evidence and supporting documentation regarding their claims posted, it would shed major additional light on the murders that took place in 1928, and would be a most welcome addition to people who seek to follow the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Any of their supporting evidence, would be a major historical find regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Until such supporting and factual documentation would arise, it is important that the page reflect what the California courts and the Riverside (California) Historical Society reflect regarding the historical record in this matter.

    So let's make contact and begin our own discussion regarding my concerns about removing certain edits that have taken place without factual information footnoted.

    Beaconmike (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A look at Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop Murders shows reams and reams of OR from Beaconmike, plus two newspaper articles inserted verbatim into the talk page, very likely in violation of copyright. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be what in Wikipedia jargon is called a "content dispute". This means it is about the content of an article, which is for editors to discuss, rather than something that needs the attention of administrators (yet).--Shirt58 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. I've removed the cut-and-pasted newspaper articles and revdel'd the blatant copyright violation they created. As for the rest: Beaconmike, it looks like you might want to read WP:OR, WP:OWN, WP:VNT, WP:THETRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the removal of the copyrighted material. I am new to the rules and shame on me for not understanding. Yes, I do have a 'content dispute' with another editor. However, I have left a message for the editor to respond, and they do not respond at all. That is why I have requested an administrator to become involved. Without source documentation that is based on historical record, the edits must be removed. I do not want to begin an edit war with another individual, so that is why I am asking for an administrator to become involved.

    Beaconmike (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Conscientious Objection

    WP:RTV is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    To whom it concerns,
    Is it possible that I want to be forbidden from Wikipedia, (even requesting deletion of all my account) forever, as a regard of my conscientious objection to be here anymore? (if it's a right here)
    If possible, what should I do?
    Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your quick respond. Checking now. Barayev (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, I used the term "Conscientious Objection" allegorically. So you're right, Wikipedia doesn't force anyone to be here. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    173.80.105.69 (talk)

    Tickbawks missed, box now ticked off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This particular IP, who has already vandalized Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson a few times, keeps on personal attacking User:Reaper Eternal ever since they got blocked, and I informed Reaper Eternal about it, and he relinquished the IP's talk privileges, but the IP still managed to vandalize its talk page with messages like: "Fuck Reaper Eternal Fuck wikipedia Fuck Cluebot NG the only way that you wikipedia fucks are going to stop me is to permantely block my IP address you fucking wikipedia cunts i'll keep posting this until i get what i fucking want and that is a permante block i'm the only user of this IP address hahahahahahahaha." Here are the links to the attacks: [82][83][84][85][86][87]. ZappaOMati 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page semi-protected for the duration of the block. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'revoke talk page access' tickbox wasn't checked. It is now. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:StillStanding-247 Repeated refactoring of other users comments

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

    1st refactor 2nd refactor

    These are just two of the most recent refactor/hatting of other editors comments. S/he has been asked not to do this before. Could an admin please inform her/him this conduct is not appreciated and that s/he could be blocked if this refactoring continues?

    User has been notifed.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that this ain't cool, but I don't think this is on the level of ANI-worthy (yet), unless I'm missing something. I left a note on user's TP shortly before this ANI-section was opened. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seb, it's my contention that the remark was uncivil and in no way conducive towards editing the article, but since you're a neutral party, I will leave it alone. LGR is, uhm, not neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And as a side note, the second refactoring was using hat/hab as opposed to slashes. In other words, I was attempting to find a more acceptable way to block off the uncivil remark. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Short of BLP issues, you should not be refactoring anyone's comments. Nor should you be hatting them unless it is on your talk page. If you find a comment uncivil, try to work it out with them. If that fails, take it to WQA, if that fails then take it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He also did the same thing on Little green rosetta's own comment page [88] and I'm not sure why he felt inclined to do that either on Little green rosetta's own personal talk page. I've had my comments hatted by Still on his talk page but I never changed it back because it is his talk page as it is his right to do so. ViriiK (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's becoming a habit with this guy. [89] Needs to be nipped in the bud. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, in that thread it looks like you made an inflammatory comment (that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a "radical left-wing civil rights group"). A bunch of people asked you (appropriately) to provide reliable sources for that assertion. You responded that you had no intention of providing sources, nor any intention of adding the material to the article, and closed with an attack on the motivations of other editors.

        That's a misuse of the talk page on numerous levels: first of all, the talkpage is to discuss specific improvements to the article. If you don't have any intention of adding something to an article, don't use the talkpage as a forum to discuss it, especially if it's divisively ideological. Respond politely to reasonable requests (like, for instance, that you provide reliable sources). You're correct that StillStanding shouldn't have hatted the comment, but he's not exactly the only one riding roughshod over the talkpage guidelines. MastCell Talk 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I don't want this to be a pile on. I'd be happy with a "please don't do that again" and have this closed. G'nite.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, but when you file an ANI report on me, it's normal for Belchfire and ViriiK to pile on. I'm their special friend. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear case of WP:NOTTHEM. You refactor people's comments when you're not supposed to do so. There's been other instances of this other than those reported links. ViriiK (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're not blocked. But trying to deflect attention to myself or Belchfire does not change the issue here. ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You can remove comments from your own talk page, if they are removed in toto, but editing any other comments on any other page is not something you do. The only exception is if there's a serious violation of the BLP policy, but even then you're much better off bringing it to an admin's attention and letting them deal with it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe we're talking about removing comments, just hatting them. I know I've seen comments and even whole sections hatted on article talk pages before. Could you please point me at the right policy page so I can read up about this? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading WP:TPG#Others.27_comments but I don't see anything about this... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to think that the real problem here is that you guys pile on to anything I'm involved in and do your best to get me blocked. This is getting old, guys. Move on and go edit some articles or something. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not the issue here. You're being derisive now. The issue is that you think it's perfectly acceptable to refactor comments. ViriiK (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree on what the issue is. I think the issue is that you keep trying to get me blocked. You think the issue is that I'm not blocked. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems everybody but you agrees the issue is that you're abusing the hat template, Still. Here's another example: [94] "I object to Still's hatting of my remarks. And have asked him to stop. I have every right to revert him. However I desire that this thread stay focused on the 4 reverts in the blue box above clearly establishing edit warring.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)" What's it going to take if you refuse to listen when people tell you to knock it off? Belchfire-TALK 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody? No, that's Lionelt, who's just one of your guys. I listen to neutral people and to policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. That's pretty simple. template:hat ViriiK (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    StillStanding, you're talking yourself into a hole. Simply do not selectively hat, strike, remove, or otherwise alter anybody else's comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, next time I'll just report him for incivility, not that it'll have any effect. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. We're done here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting reinstatement of 2 football articles?

    I had recently created two football articles for players based in the United States and Liechtenstein, but both articles have been deleted. The users that were involved are 'Sir Sputnik' and 'The Bushranger'. I was not given legitimate reasons as to why these articles were targeted, had hasty requests to be deleted at the same time, and were then deleted without conversation?

    The only reason that I had been given was a concern that I read, which was not a concern at all as far as I am concerned, and reads as follows: " concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in fully pro league.)". I understand the second part of this 'statement' as there is truth to the fact that both of these players are not paid professionals currently, however, to just make a statement saying "Article about a footballer who fails" is poorly written and also flippant.

    I happen to have a working relationship with the football club 'Orange County Blue Star' that the player 'David Ponce' plays for, and if you read the Orange County Blue Star article you'll see that he has been mentioned in the clubs history and is also on their current roster. The club plays in the United States soccer league system for the 'USL Premier Development League', where the Blue Star are a highly regarded club. The team has had many players, both past and present, that have started their careers at this club and have made names for themselves. I believe that since David Ponce has been mentioned in that particular article with such highly regarded players, that he also deserves to have his own article as well.

    The other player, 'Diego Haas', of Liechtenstein, has also been deleted. When I created the article of Diego, it was around the time that he was still eligible to play for the 'Liechtenstein national under-21 football team', and he had several caps for this team at that particular time. At one time in his football career, he was regarded as one of the best youth players in the country and he had played for the club 'FC Vaduz' as well as 'FC Balzers' and he is now currently playing for 'FC Triesen'. All of these teams are Liechtensteiner football clubs and are part of the seven official teams in the nation. In his career so far, he has played for three of the seven clubs in the country and he has only recently turned 24 years of age. Furthermore, all of these clubs play in Swiss Football League and compete in the Liechtenstein Cup annually, which means that the clubs and the player himself have significance. He is also on the FC Triesen roster on the website that they have and the wikipedia article as well.

    The player David Ponce is still currently at University, but in 2013 he will most likely be playing professional football. I know this privileged information because I am involved with the club, however, information regarding that matter will not be discussed further because it is privileged information as I said.


    Can both of these articles please be allowed to be reinstated? I feel like both have been grossly misjudged. I put a lot of work into writing those articles and had put in my best efforts to make them look excellent for this website. I would like to add that there are far worse articles that I have read on wikipedia in the past, not only about football, but other matters in the world as well.


    Thank youPatrick.shea9 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, first of all, please give somebody time to reply once you've contacted them on their talk page (I've replied there). Secondly, you are required to notify people when you mention them on AN/I. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "privileged information" is worthless here without it being repeated by a reliable secondary source (you should also consider if you should be even discussing it in a public forum). Recreate the article if/when he plays professionally. As for the other guy, many editors who watch articles on soccer players often knee-jerk when they see articles where the notability could be questioned. Simply find plenty of secondary reliable sources (press coverage in languages other than English are acceptable) that discuss the subject in-depth. Have fun and good luck to those two. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (note that the above is an opinion from someone who isn't an administrator. Also consider the any mention of Ponce can be considered a BLP concern regardless of if it is viewed positively or negatively)Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Leo Frank Footnotes for height

    NO ACTION
    Use talk page or WP:DR, not ANI Nobody Ent 15:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a pure content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. I see the lengthy discussion on the Talk page. I suggest you try other methods of WP:DR. I confess, though, to being a bit curious about one thing. It's a very long article, and I just barely skimmed it, but why is Frank's height noteworthy enough to be included in the infobox? I don't see anything about it in the body. Did I miss something?--Bbb23 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Geo Swan and AfDs

    Hi, AN/I. I'm concerned about the sheer number of deletion nominations that are taking place of material written by User:Geo Swan. Users unfamiliar with the history of this are invited to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, but the gist of it is that Geo Swan is one of our most productive content creators—but many of the things he's written do not comply with Wikipedian norms. I have no objection to Geo Swan's material being nominated for deletion. When one editor nominates more than 60 pieces written by Geo Swan in the same month for deletion, then that's a potential problem because the guy's entire corpus is being destroyed faster than he can defend it. Basically, it takes time to defend stuff at AfD, and Geo Swan isn't being given a chance. In my view this is not fair.

    I expressed my concern to the user involved, DBigXray, here. Was that the most diplomatic phrasing ever? Probably not, and I'll take any lumps I've got coming to me for that. What I found was that DBigXray gives a very robust defence and may not have a very thick skin. So I left it there.

    What happened then was that in a separate discussion, a deletion review, I saw that the multiple nominations were causing Geo Swan significant distress. See here. As a result of the Deletion Review, the article in question was relisted at AfD, and I expressed the same concerns more forcefully in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim. You'll see the same pattern, with the robust defence from DBigXray and an accusation from an IP editor that I'm "poisoning the well". Am I?

    I hate posting on AN/I and I always try to avoid it. What I would like from this is for editors to agree some kind of cap on how many of Geo Swan's articles can be nominated for deletion all at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification, The deletion review[95] has been wrongly portrayed above. The article was CSD G7ed by Author Geo Swan while an ongoing AfD was discussing it, Due to CSD G7 the article got quickly deleted, and the ongoing AfD (now moot) haad to be closed. But another editor User:Joshuaism unaware that it was author Geo Swan had asked from CSD G7[96] started deletion review with WP:AOBF towards Bushranger for closing the discussion and deleting the article. after the discussion the AfD was reopened--DBigXray 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there should be a special "rule" just regarding articles created by Geo Swan. One option would be to suggest a change to the deletion policy that would limit the number articles created by a specific editor that could be listed simultaneously at AfD. I don't think this is the ideal option, but I think it is better than having a "rule" just regarding articles created by one editor.--Rockfang (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably need a RfC. What I'm looking for at the moment is a specific, immediate remedy.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need context to the poisioning the well comment I made. This was in relation to you insisting that loading the AFD with meta discussion on if someone should be allowed to nominate multiple articles must stay within the AFD discussion rather than being discussed on the talk page or somewhere like RFC or here. Your comments were nothing to do with the value of the article or otherwise. No admin should close the discussion based upon such opinions so the only impact could be to sideline the afd from the issue it is supposed to address. That isn't an issue of if the broader subject warrants discussion.
      I'd only see a cap on the number of deletions possible if we are also willing to impose a cap on the number of creations. If someone has created a large number of articles which don't have the sufficient sourcing etc. to stand up on their own but then take a significant time to defend each one, then I don't think we should be encouraging such large creation in the first place. Additionally if only one editor (the original author) is the only person who can or will defend an article at AFD, then there is quite a problem with those articles anyway.
      I#ll also note that you discuss DBigXray as apparently not having a thick skin being an issue, yet the very same thing about Geo Swan you seem to be something we should be sympathetic towards, you can't have it both ways. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it your position that user conduct is irrelevant to AfD closes?—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be relevant? The decision should be made on the merits of the case - on our policies and guidelines. But the main issue for me here is that it appears that most of these articles have BLP issues, and given that, the faster they can be dealt with the better. Normally we might not care about how fast we deal with a large group of articles, but if there are BLP violations, and apparently there are, I'd definitely oppose a cap. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it your position that not using appropriate dispute resolution, instead just declaring in an AFD that there is a user conduct issue, is a constructive way of progressing things? Is it your position that content inappropriate to wikipedia should remain there, based on S Marshall (or any other editors) personal judgement that the person nominating it for deletion is not being "fair"? It is my position that user conduct issues are not the subject matter of AFDs, that's what we have dispute resolution for. Presupposing and judging that there is a user conduct issue is pretty much out of order. Your emotive summary of the matter on the afd "DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus..." is not likely to be constructive in determining if the article is "useful" for wikipedia or not. It is unlikely to add any particular light to the discussion, just heat. Certainly if I had listed a set of articles for deletion beliving that I was doing the right thing clearing up BLPs etc, to have someone come to the discussions not comment on the substance of it the articles are valid or not. but instead declare my motivation as being to systematically destroy someone's entire corpus, then I'd certainly be annoyed (and I'd also question with who the user conduct issue lies) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This all seems rather tangential. If you really must continue this discussion, kindly take it to user talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixty nominations in a month is clearly going to overwhelm both the AfD process and the article's creator. It takes 30 seconds to AfD something with Twinkle and move onto the next, maybe five minutes if done manually—either of which is considerably less time than it takes to make a good case to keep the article. I think a formal cap would be instruction creep, but there really is no good reason for one editor (in good faith and employing common sense) to nominate more than one article by the same author every few days. Perhaps the discussions could be placed on hold somehow until GeoSwan has been allowed sufficient time to respond to the nominations and make the case for the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 30 seconds to AfD ? And what about the time that I spend trying to find sources and look about the notability of these BLPs and following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating these article for AFD, I feel in the above comment it has totally been ignored while it should have been taken into consideration. --DBigXray 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment First i have removed 10,000 from the title, this is an attempt to sensationalize this discussion.
    1. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and i have no malice against Geo Swan nor with his creations. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories on terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved a number of articles on notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it" . I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation "irrespective of who created it" . AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check the deleted pages from my AFDs that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs and articles created by editors other than Geo Swan if they do not satisfy the guidelines.
    2. on Bundling I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion as single AFDs had to be relisted several times. I accepted that sane advice. Later on few editors protested against bundling and I accepted that and started nominating problematic articles individually.
    3. Finally we should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete based on the consensus at AfDs. I am only highlighting that these articles that have problem. Also note that the notability of these articles could not be established even after 6 years and even after extensive search I could not find any sign of notability of the subject and thats when i decide to AfD it, Many other AfD contributors have also tried and came to conclusion that these were poorly sourced WP:BLP articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY. And ALL of these Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles have either been deleted or redirected.
    4. S Marshall above prefers to violate WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, making false misleading accusations of bad faith. He has never addressed the subjects of the article but only concentrated on making personal attacks on the AFD nominator on these AFDs. S Marshall falsely accused me of making "quite virulent accusations" here on this AFD. I have never made any accusation against MArshall ever, forget about "virulent" or "quite virulent". On the other hand we can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusade on an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[97] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. And in reply to that I was threatened by Marshall to be dragged to ANI (Which he has done). From what i See , accusing me of making "quite virulent accusations" is clear case of Lying WP:ABF and WP:AOBF by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF.
    --DBigXray 10:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, through AfDs I am pointing out problematic WP:BLPs irrespective of who created it now if Geo Swan has created all the problematic policy violating non notable WP:BLP Articles, then you are Barking up the wrong tree. It is not me but Geo Swan who should make a clarification about it. For the record I have already stated above an i am repeating again, I have also nominated problematic BLPs of other editors and the admins having access to deleted page history can go ahead and check it.
    • I will appreciate if you do not attack me on AfDs in future, AfD contributors should not comment if they are unable or unwilling to address the subject of the article but are more concerned in derailing the AfD debate by making ad hominem personal attacks against the fellow editors as you did on AFD here andhere
    • Also the fact that S Marshall wrote 10,000 AFDs as the section title in an attempt to sensationalize the discussion clarifies that he is more interested in WP:DRAMA than participating positively on Articles or AFDs. --DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop it, the pair of you. The issue here is not (or should not) be why we have all these AfD nominations, but what to do with them and how to give each article a fair hearing and ensure that the author can mount a defence of each one if he is so inclined. Bickering over motives doesn't bring us any closer to resolving that issue. If you don't have anything unambiguously constructive to say, then don't participate in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's only part of the issue. I'm trying to establish whether Geo Swan is being personally targeted—which does matter, HJ Mitchell, and isn't irrelevant at all—and if so why he's being targeted. Sometimes it's legitimate to target one particular editor. If they're a serial copyright violator, for example, then everything they've ever written needs to be investigated. But as a general rule individual editors should not be targeted because of hounding and griefing concerns. 60+ nominations in one month is, prima faciae, damn good evidence of targeting, isn't it. I'd like to start a discussion about whether targeting is justified in all the circumstances, in the light of the RFC/U.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC/U itself targets him. It isn't unreasonable for someone to look at it and come to the conclusion that he created a number of dubious BLPs, is it? And then to decide to do something about those BLPs? Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that what's happened? I've asked DBigXray, repeatedly, to tell us whether he's targeting Geo Swan or whether this is a coincidence. He won't answer (and accuses me of IDHT among other things because I keep asking). If DBigXray would confirm that he's targeting Geo Swan because of dubious BLPs, then we'd be making some progress here. In any case, the RfC/U does talk about the issue of targeting Geo Swan. I think that what applies to Fram applies to DBigXray as well. Don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMarshall and DBigXray -- given that this is supposed to be about GeoSwan, could ya'll stop the back and forth?
    • I'd like to hear from GeoSwan themself.
    • The linked RFC/U recommended a mentor -- did that happen? Nobody Ent 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any indication that it did. As I said, my main concern is the BLP articles, should we be asking for input from BLPN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ease with which an editor can defend his contributions should not be an issue in determining AFD - especially not in cases where a single user mass produces content that is substandard, and which includes blps. The problem is with the article mass creation, not with article mass AFDing. If a user creates a large number of dubious articles then he should expect that he will be implicated in a large number of simultaneous afds. That is how the process works. The alternative is to say that as long as you create enough substandard articles you get a get out of AFD free card. That's not the wikipedia I want to be a part of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamrupi dialect and abuse of quote boxes

    Currently there are seven quote boxes in the Kamrupi dialect page, inserted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati. The boxes float untethered to any text, and look like billboard advertisements that make the content difficult to follow. I asked the user to use footnotes instead to give the quotes a context ([98]), but he reverted to the quote boxes. It has been my experience that this user is very hard to engage in a discussion and past attempts at non-binding mechanisms WP:3O and WP:RSN have been useless in resolving issues. ([99]), ([100]) In the current case, an attempt at a discussion on this issue has been rebuffed. ([101]) If such uses of quote boxes are within Wikipedia style, I would withdraw this request for action. Chaipau (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=508006299"