Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.162.52.196 (talk) at 18:17, 16 June 2013 (→‎Jeremy Spencer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Persistent edit stalking

    I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

    as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

    and most recently, today: [20]).

    This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:
    there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?
    Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).
    In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).
    I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]], [26], [27]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], ... [36]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)
    Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Convenience break

    Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

    As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

    Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

    ...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

    Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

    Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

    That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggested close

    I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

    As I posted on each of their talk pages:

    I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

    I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

    Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [37]; and another: [38] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [39].

    But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

    Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

    • WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
    • The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
    • There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
    • Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

    and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

    We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

    I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.
    Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.
    Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst it may seem reasonable to insist that the case be narrowly focussed on the 'Wikihounding' issue, it's a ploy often used to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's be clear, though, that I'm not saying that its being so used here. The problem with this dance of tango is that one dancer seems to want the floor all to himself, so that he can do as he wants without interference, but the other dancer just wants to be consulted on the steps and is upset when no request is forthcoming from the party whose onus it's on to make it. In the absence of a demonstrable preparedness to pro-actively seek and then abide by consensus, blocking or granting unilateral restraining orders just won't solve the problem. Nobody owns any given WP article, and if the collective editors of a page (or a category in this case) wants no infoboxes, then the article creator must cede to consensus. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

    Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox templates as well as articles. The latter is an area where Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt have been extremely active— though not Nikkimaria. --Kleinzach 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the Mass in B minor), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, Template:Infobox musical composition which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you [40]. Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.Kleinzach 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They were added - as said above - to be compatible with Bach composition when Nikkimaria used this template instead of Bach. (I confess that I was a bit furious when that happened. If such things don't happen again, I will not do it again.) I suggest to continue talking about this very general template (how many fields does Infobox church have?) on the template talk. Back to here, back to my suggestion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, we all appreciate that you don't edit war, and are willing to discuss infobox issues in a calm way. The problem is that you make changes that affect large numbers of articles, without consulting other editors. Moreover, instead of participating in centralized discussions and respecting their outcomes, you've initiated a whole series of distributed debates, that are repetitive and waste everybody's time. Instead of working on content, we've all been chasing around trying to locate and respond to your latest initiatives. Leaving aside the extensive template changes and just looking at articles, you've started at least five discussions since February: Robert Stoepel on 27 February 2013, Peter Planyavsky on 5 March 2013, Johann Sebastian Bach on 21 March 2013, George Frideric Handel on 25 March 2013, and Richard Wagner on 16 May 2013. Kleinzach 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look a little closer: 1) Stoepel was in response to a discussion on project:Opera (I DO try to work with projects.) The author installed an infobox. 2) I didn't start a discussion on Peter Planyavsky, I installed an infobox for an article that I had created. (It was promptly reverted.) 3) I started a discussion on Bach, agreed. Some editors said it was too long, and could only be accepted if it contained only a minimum. 4) Trying to learn, I suggested a minimum for Handel. 5) I did NOT start a discussion for Wagner, I followed advice for a solution, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity: In only one case did I insert an infobox in an article: my "own". Please have a look at the Stoepel discussion, that was efficient and encouraging, if you ask me. It was an article I knew well, I had nominated it for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, All you have to do is follow the links I have given above. In each case you started the discussion. I think it would help you if you can be frank about what happened. --Kleinzach 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was learning. From 1) and 2) I learned that an infobox was possible for a composer, from 3) that my suggestion was too long, from 4) that it was not wanted even short, therefore 5) only talk, no hope to have it in the article, no discussion. Why we still had a discussion, I don't know. - I will not even try Infobox on composer talk again - and said so several times in this thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: link to another Planyavsky discussion, in case of interest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.
    For myself, reply to Slim Virgin: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is [41]. But whatever, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes as was done here at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know that was the last time (August 2012), so the ceasing you ask for seems to have happened already. - News from Andy is that surgery went well but he will not be able to edit for a week. Can this be closed, asking everybody to assume good faith and look forward? Nikkimaria and I had a nice conversation today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is alas not quite far enough if you want to stop storms of this sort. I evidence the state of affiars at Richard Wagner when Gerda 'playfully' inserted a infobox on the article talk page while the article was coming up for front page feature. When I archived the lengthy and futile discussion over this the day before the article was front-paged, (and incidentally was thus enabled to feature Gerda's very nice Wagner DYK box there), Mr.Mabbett stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving. This is presently the subject of a complaint elsewhere, as Mr. Mabbett is under a permanent ban from interfering with articles when they are coming up for front-page. So Gerda is perfectly aware that the 'ceasing' has not taken place (at the very least in spirit, although I note Mr. Mabbett quibbles about the details). Mr.Mabbett's surgery - and of course I wish the man good health - does not somehow restore the GF which many of us have alas found it impossible, from bitter experience, to assume in his case. It is because Mr. Mabbett and some of those in his train play these silly games that time which could be spent on editing is spent on mutual masturbation (oops - did I say that?) of this sort. I don't exempt myself totally for being such a prat as to rise to their provocations, but occasionally even an equable soul like myself feels the need to try to draw a line.--Smerus (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Gerda, just to clarify - I posted here in response to a very sensible suggestion SlimVirgin made and I added a concrete example using the words "the days before and the days after TFA" with the suggestion that perhaps that behavior should cease. As SV said "I'll stop doing X and you'll stop doing Y" - my example can be seen as X. This has now degenerated into a "that didn't happen", "that's ceased", "that doesn't happen anymore" when in fact three more examples have been presented. SV is quite right in saying that it's better to hash it out rather than having it go to Arbom, but we'll never get anywhere if it always degenerates in this fashion. I'll step out now; I was simply seconding SV's suggestion. Victoria (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Cease is not stop, right? - Putting something on a talk page a week or so before TFA, explicitly stating that it was not to be considered for the article but the talk, is not the same as on the article on TFA day, right. (And I will not do even do that again.) When the talk was archived Andy complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving, - was that "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving"? - That's what I am aware of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, do not misrepresent! - and do not imply that I interfered with an auto-archive. The page had always been manually archived, until Mr. Mabbett in his self-righteousness unilaterally (without any discussion) converted it to auto-archiving. This is all evident in the page history. I had no wish on the day of the article being front-paged to start another futile argument thread, so left it alone. When issues which I raise are turned into implicit accusations against myself, I detect that the spirit of the master temporarily in exile has found a worthy inheritor.--Smerus (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, so I don't know all the loopholes, but the best way forward is for everyone relying on a loophole to stop that way of thinking (e.g. I didn't add one, I just made an invisible one visible). The best situation would be if Gerda and Andy would agree not to add infoboxes to pages they didn't create or weren't in the process of significantly improving, and none to pages where they know editors will object (e.g. composers); and if Nikki would agree not to remove any, and not to look at Andy's contribs anymore. If someone does add an infobox and others disagree, open an RfC on the talk page, let it run for 30 days, have an uninvolved editor close it, and stick to the outcome.
    Ask yourselves whether you want to go through an ArbCom case about this, and if not make every effort to avoid it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since February, we have had at least 16 classical music-related infobox debates/discussions, plus an unknown number relating to architecture, visual arts etc. Anything that can bring this to an end will be welcome, even an ArbCom case. --Kleinzach 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a lot of time was wasted. Did you count Richard Wagner? No discussion was needed, the infobox could just have stayed on the talk as proposed by me, following advice by Newyorkbrad and Nikkimaria as a possible solution when an infobox is not wanted in the article. I thought that was a good solution, but if you are so strongly against it, I will not do that again. I don't have to stop adding one to a composer someone else created, because I never did that (as far as I remember). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: for those who don't look at that discussion (but it's enlightening, promised), here is the link to the advice mentioned (which was removed in the meantime): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda: So are you willing to stop doing this? That would be positive. Kleinzach 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped with Wagner, - that one experience of a "discussion" was enough for life, remember? See also Tristan, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bach cantatas are among my key areas of expertise, although I hardly ever visit the articles in that topic. I have to side with Slim et al. here: those articles are far better off without an infobox. I have a bunch of reasons. Let me know if you want me to list them. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; but I expressed these reasons—or something like them—at infobox discussions some time ago, so I'm not sure I'm adding anything new. I'm not per se against infoboxes in every situation, but for articles on complex-music composers and their works they add nothing and risk detracting from the articles. They present packaged and stripped-down information that is often not useful and is sometimes misleading outside a larger context ("Related" in the Mass in B minor box, for example). They can't help but repeat information that is or should be treated in proper context and detail in the main text. Why repeat it? Who is going to flip from one article to the next just to read the infobox info? We shouldn't encourage superficial reading, if the motivation exists for it (which I doubt for readers of these topics). They sacrifice what would often be an opportunity for an image right at the top, larger than can reasonably fit into an infobox. And I find the meta-data argument most uncompelling, I have to say. Infoboxes might be tolerable for pop-music articles and pop-bios, but not for complex-music topics, where greater reading motivation can be assumed. Tony (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wagner for example

    I am all interested in a good way forward. The past is shown here in a nutshell: "I am entirely against having a infobox for this article. Wagner's life and music is a very complex topic and I am certain that an infobox would damage the article by giving inappropriate or highly debatable prominence to some aspects, and/or by under-reporting other aspects. Moreover, Gerda, as you know, the whole issue of infoboxes is extremely ontroversial and the overwhelming opinion of editors on the Opera, Wagner, and Classical Music Projects is against having them.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" (quoted from the FAC in which I was involved)

    When I read that I had an infobox ready in a sandbox. I put it on the talk (!) stating that it was not meant to be included in the article. There still was a discussion that would better be archived. I did not mind the manual archiving at all, please see.

    I will have to understand how an infobox would damage the article but simply accept that view. I don't add infoboxes to articles (!) where I expect controversy, - as far as I remember I never did that, so I can easily agree to the request just above. - I just added one more item to the Wagner "DYK" collection, feel free to take it to the Wagner talk, Smerus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose I wonder why, if an infobox is known to be controversial, it has to be placed on the talk page, rather than not introduced at all. Can you agree not to add infoboxes to articles (or talk pages) where you know it is going to cause a problem? If you would agree to that, that would be a start. If Andy will agree too, and if Nikki will agree not to remove them and not to follow Andy's or Gerda's contribs, the dispute will be over. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the above modest proposal 100%.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda's part:
    Gerda, the possibility of placing infoboxes was not a 'recommendation', it was a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' suggestion for consideration by Nikkimaria, which indeed the latter subsequently withdrew. It had no endorsements or I think even comments by any other editors or Wikipedia fora. You were perfectly aware that the Wagner article was coming up for front-page featuring, and you were perfectly aware of the feelings of myself and other editors about info-boxes for the article; indeed as you mention you participated in the FA discussion, and you also participated in the TFA discussion. I am aware of the significant contributions you have made in many Wikipedia articles, which I unreservedly acknowledge, and thus I would never have credited that you had the naivety not to imagine or foresee that posting an infobox on the Wagner talk page, especially at this time, without prior discussion, would provoke animated debate; and moreover to realise that such discussion would inevitably bring in the causeurs who feed on such issues, whether or not they have any interst or contribution to make to the articles concerned. Clearly, I must accept your word that you had never anticipated this; but I am sure you have learnt from the experience. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Smerus, thanks for thoughts and feelings, - Fact: It was not Nikkimaria's thinking, she quoted Newyorkbrad, another respected user. - I will try to learn to anticipate feelings better, and there will be no next time, as said twice above. Thank you for a constructive GA review, I enjoy collaboration here, especially with you "after Wagner"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Redux

    I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion here), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing WP:1RR), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).
    If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. Kleinzach 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.
    My statements are above, repeating:
    I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)
    I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)
    To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)
    I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)
    I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.
    From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested here. That should solve 1–4.
    May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone needs to write WP:STALEMATE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --Kleinzach 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Done Kleinzach 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties

    As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page J.S. Bach talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.

    I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, an admin is stalking an editor; this means User:Nikkimaria creates a deliberate chilling effect. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at Sparrow Mass. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.

    I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.

    I suggest a strong warning for Andy - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.

    A Wikipedia-wide Rfc on infoboxes. This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Wikipedia community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have the obvious social handicap as far as User:Jusdafax is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps User:Jusdafax can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as Richard Wagner advises, that I need to seek Untergang? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on User:Jusdafax's part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but User:Jusdafax's pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of WP:NPA in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, Le Pas d'acier. Notice there is no info box. I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? Jusdafax 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Wikipedia. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But User:Jusdafax says that the outcome must include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Syngmung

    Partly at the request of User:Drmies, I am closing this. User:Syngmung is indefinitely topic banned from editing any pages related to rape, U.S. military personnel, or U.S. military bases, broadly construed. Although the requested ban was for only rape and the period of the ban was ambiguous, based on the comments by the supporters (there were no opposers), I am broadening the topic scope of the ban and making it indefinite, although Syngmung is free to appeal the ban at an earlier date, preferably not before six months have elapsed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Section header shortened because it was messing up the display of the TOC on this page. Original title: User:Syngmung engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:CANVAS and inserting references to rape and flawed comparisons to numerous articles — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's there in the title. I would like to propose a TBAN on "rape" for the foreseeable future. Syngmung apparently has some sort of axe to grind with the US military stationed in South Korea and the South Korean government that facilitates them. I am not a fan of either of these parties myself, but I can't condone any of the following actions:

    • SYNTH on 1995 Okinawa rape incident, insisting that kidnapping and forcible rape of an elementary school student "is compared to" prostitution, citing two sources, one of which does not appear to mention Okinawa and the other of which mentions the incident but makes no such comparison.[42]
    • Pretending in the article body to be citing a book but in fact giving a review of the book in the reference, implying that he/she has not in fact read the book but is inserting an out-of-context blurb in the article nonetheless.[43]
    • Inserting disproportionate discussion of rape by U.S. soldiers after WW2 into an article about brothels and apparently using a hypothetical suggestion about setting up brothels as an excuse.[44]
    • Canvassing numerous users with a misrepresentation of an ongoing deletion argument (accusing the delete/merge !votes of trying to "hide" something)[45][46][47][48] and canvassing numerous peripherally related WikiProjects with a misrepresentation of his/her opponents arguments/motives in an edit war.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
    • Inserting links to articles on prostitution (particularly in South Korea) to the "See also" sections of unrelated/peripherally-related articles.[55][56][57]
    • Adding a subsection about rape to the "Dramatizations of the invasion of Normandy" section, and then failing to get the point on being reverted numerous times.[58][59]

    I know the user is going to accuse me (again) of being an SPA whose purpose is to edit war with him/her. This may be taken as true, given the circumstances, but please consider that I was editing Wikipedia (anonymously) some years ago, and came back when I noticed during my browsing that someone was adding inappropriate rape/prostitution references and comparisons to an article (the Okinawa one) that I just happened to be reading. Now that I have that out of the way can we focus on Syngmung's behavior? The user got blocked a few days ago for edit warring and when unblocked went straight back to adding the same kind of questionable material, and I just wanted to bring this to the community's attention, at least to the point that it hasn't already.

    Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (BTW, I know my diffs are a little bare, but in order to give a full context for this user's violations, I would need to basically cite every single edit the user has made for the last week or two. A look at the contributions page should not contradict anything that I have just said, though. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

    Nonsense. I have already talked some of my points according to reliabled sources. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone argued according to his OR without sources. Besides, I have already been bloked as being edit wars. It is unfair, cos Eh doesn't afraid of anyone are bringing the former issues. So, now I make great effort to talke in talk page. But Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ignore my effort to talk in talk pages and try to exclude users who dont match with his view.--Syngmung (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing material is never OR. Drawing a completely original comparison between the forcible rape of a child with prostitution is OR, even if one has two separate sources that each mention one but not the other. Please stop making personal attacks against me if you can't demonstrate with diffs -- which users have I tried to exclude? What is my "view"? I have engaged you on talk pages every chance you have given me -- remember that one not long ago where you accused me of promoting a POV by deleting your rape subsection, to which I responded immediately?[60] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Edit warring by other editors on the same topic

    • I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof of this discussion as well. He edit warred with "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" more than Symuyang did on that one article, at least recently [62] [63] [64], while Symuyang inserted that rape stuff in several articles. I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof or "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" should receive any sanctions though. In the latter case sanctions would be rather ineffective anyway. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read WP:EDITWAR. If two editors have a content dispute and they resolve it peacefully by discussing it on the talk page, it's not technically an edit war. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After you two edit warred for a while, you indeed did compromise on the talk page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, he reverted me twice while I was trying to discuss on the talk page (I opened a section immediately on my initial deletion). BRD, man, BRD... Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that, as I pointed out on the talk page, you blindly reverted me twice as I was attempting to rewrite the section without commenting on the changes I made in a good faith effort to address your concerns, some of which were well-founded. You didn't say "Hey, good progress but I disagree with X Y and Z still," you just hit undo. [65] [66] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not blindly revert anything. I asked you to discuss on the talk page, as I had already posted there. The correct course of action would have been not to revert me blankly and then make a series of rapid-fire edits in order to fix the section, but to fix the section in a single edit. And, again, the first time I reverted you you hadn't fixed anything, but went straight ahead and blankly reverted me again. You also consistently set up a straw man by saying "these are reliable sources -- why are you removing them?", completely ignoring my given rationale.
    Anyway, this thread isn't about your behavior or mine, but Syngmung's. If you don't have an opinion on whether Syngmung should be TBANned, then please refrain from bringing up off-topic discussions (that goes for you too, 86.121.18.17).
    Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with your editing, "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone", is repeated edit warring. It's very easy to get on the high horse from your SPA account that you'll likely abandon in the next few days like you did with your previous ones. I know of another editor who registered an account to simply get others blocked for edit warring. That did not end well. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting long-term problems with other editors is one thing; the evidence can be judged by others on its merits, as it has been above. In contrast, trying to get several other editors into trouble by aggressively and repeatedly edit warring with your highly disposable current account is quite another issue, making you look like an agent provocateur. And discussing the behavior of all those involved in an incident is permitted at ANI, as explained at WP:Boomerang. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The ironic thing is, you arrived here solely to harass me, it seems. You have consistently misspelled Syngmung's username, and you seem to have totally missed the part where Syngmung (whose English is always at least comprehensible) has deliberately synthesized separate sources and/or pretended to be citing a book while in fact citing a blurb in a newspaper. And now, despite not having anything to add to this discussion, and even though NorthBySouthBaranof have not (and never have had) a significant dispute with each other over the content of the article, and the so-called "edit-war" lasted a total of two edits by me and two by NBSB, you insist on opening a separate subsection about me. Why are you doing this, may I ask?? Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are constantly a victim. Someone consistently pushes the undo button from your accounts & IP addresses when you're not looking. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And speaking of harassment: what is this? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You two, take this somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to close this with a topic ban. Proposed wording: Syngmung (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits pertaining to rape and US military personnel and US military bases, and the intersections of those topics. I'll let this sit here for a day or so to see if anyone wants any tweaks. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Literal here asks for clarification of your wording. Is this what you're saying? "Syngmung (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits pertaining to the following three topics: rape, US military personnel, and US military bases"? If that's a correct reading, why is it necessary to add "intersections of those topics"? Wouldn't any "intersection" necessarily violate the three-topic ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dodging a topic ban?

    Closing this. Jax is reminded of the following: any future evidence of on- or off-Wiki attempts to "keep" any of his templates is also a part of his topic ban. Jax is reminded that he is expected to help people clean up his mess, when requested. Other editors are reminded not to help anyone evade a topic ban by proxy. Jax is especially reminded that wikilawyering is not a positive behaviour, ever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently user Jax 0677 received a topic ban regarding templates. Off course, he was not happy with that but now I have the nasty feeling that he is dodging the topic ban with the help of an assistant/meatpuppet, in this case User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

    Evidence (more or less a random choice):

    I did not check every item but due to me nominating the templates, they are on my watchlist. And suddenly I see a lot of Frietjes-edits on templates that I have recently nominated, show up. Too many to be a coincidence. Request for help from Jax to Frietjes: here, here, here, here, here and here. These request started as soon as the day after the topic ban was issued. And as far as my superficial check went, Frietjes responded in most cases.

    It is possible that I am overly itchy to Jax after all the trouble in the past, so I would like to hear other opinions. The Banner talk 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    seems like this was constructive comment, which is in contradiction to starting an ANI thread. The fact that you see a lot of my edits could have something to do with the comments that I am making on the respective TfDs. Yes, I do read the notes posted on my talk page, and sometimes I add links to templates and articles in response to those comments. I also express an independent opinion at TfD, and more often than not, concur with the deletion of the associated templates. of course, that hasn't stopped you from attacking me there as well. also interesting that I was only recently informed of the topic ban, and the editors invited to comment on it did not include me. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have both the nomination pages and the individual templates on my watchlist. And even after a clear warning you continued. The Banner talk 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but how is saying "this starts to look at dodging a topic ban..." issuing me a "clear warning"? I am guessing English is not your native language, and I was never informed that I or anyone else was topic banned, nor was I provided a link to any topic ban. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a good old classic to attack the messenger when you have no arguments against the message. The Banner talk 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can both of you please just drop it? This is not helping. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Circumventing the ban wouldn't surprise me in the least. IDHT is a common issue with that editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that Jax is circumventing the topic ban by notifying another editor (a regular participant in TfDs) of articles that exist or that he has created on topics for which a template just happens to be nominated for deletion. I have no issue with Frietjes on this matter. Frietjes can do his her own due diligence on templates at TfD without Jax's sketchy attempts to manipulate their outcomes. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO Jax is circumventing the topic ban by his communications to Frietjes....William 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Open and shut case. Jax is editing by proxy - Frietjes is the proxy. Jax needs blocking, Frietjes needs a strong final warning about editing on the behalf of blocked or topic-banned users. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I made no "Request for help", I have violated no terms of my topic ban, and have worked very hard to obey the ban (which places no restrictions on editing any articles). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You made a comment to another editor who then went on to add it to a template. Your topic ban was broadly construed. This is basically an attempt to side step that ban no matter how innocent you try to make it out to be. Blackmane (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, you didn't make a request for help. Instead, you dumped a load of things on Frietjes' talk page for them to put in for you. You're circumventing the topic ban, and you know damn well what you're doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Frietjes and I are not collaborating. Sincere apologies if that is how my communication came across. Now that multiple editors have the same issue, I will do my best to stop leaving this type of message from here on out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what's allowable, but I'm in favor of a one-week block and another six months added to the topic ban. I'd like to see Jax learn some things on his own because it always takes more than multiple editors having an issue before he gets it (and, apparently, even a topic ban isn't enough). Many of us have asked Jax to take a step a back, maybe a forced break will do him good. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, Star. The topic ban is broadly construed. Anything that can justifiably seen as infringing on the topic ban requires a block, and a resetting of the ban, clear and simple. I still don't buy for a second that Jax didn't know what they were doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - I am "topic-banned from editing or creating" (as well as discussing) and that's all. The accusers have the burden of proof regarding "for them to put in for you", not I. I cannot control what others add to Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • We should keep the focus on Jax's continued disruptive behavior that needs to be deterred so he is encouraged to become a more productive and congenial editor. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - I strongly agree with Plastikspork, that this should result in a written warning, not a ban extension (one additional month at a maximum, and definitely not a block). --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • How on earth does this work, since you're talking about yourself? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Jax, no more leniency from my side. You made a deal with Plastikspork to save your failing templates by moving them into your own userspace. Your dumped links on Frietjes talkpage with the unwritten request (but everybody can see that) to fix templates that are subject to a deletion discussion. No, Jax. The Banner talk 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I have not asked Plastikspork to move anything to my userspace since the ban was enacted. Can you prove that I made an unwritten request? So far I have seen accusations with no proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventative block is required This is a gigantic load of pigshit, if you ask me. As I am the one who formally enacted the topic ban, I have been monitoring Jax's talkpage (as well as Banner's, BTW). I have found the utter level of obfuscation by Jax, combined with massive wikilawyering to be frustrating to say the least. For example, when asked a simple question about a template that Banner was searching for, Jax claimed that he would not respond without a formal representative of the WMF permitting it. However, on the other hand, we have Jax breaking the spirit of the topic ban with these interactions with Frietjes. Apparently it's fine to put roadblocks up when someone is cleaning up your crap, but on the other hand encourage someone else to try and save your crap? Violations of the spirit of the topic ban are just as serious as outright violations. Jax - your templates ARE THE PROBLEM. Do not under any circumstances attempt to "save" them, and ensure that you help people try and clean up your mess. I'm wholly in favour of a preventative block for a minimum of a month so that Banner and others can complete the process of cleaning up the shit without continued interference from Jax. This month should allow at least 75% of the problematic templates from being nominated, discussed, and likely deleted. For the very clear violation of the topic ban, I recommend a 6 month extension of the ban. As for Frietjes - I'll give the benefit of the doubt that she was unaware that her actions-by-proxy were inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While strongly protesting the idea that Frietjes has anything to apologise for (meatpuppetry? Really?), it's pretty obvious just from Jax's replies here that circumvention was the goal, and the less said about the train wreck that was the ban-enaction thread the better. On the other hand, I don't see what a block accomplishes here. Call this a final warning to go and do something productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also AGF that Frietjes was not aware of Jax's topic ban, being a bare 2 lines in a morass of TfD noms. Otherwise I'm on the fence about a block at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounds a bit naive to see loads of templates being nominated and see loads of links dumped on your talkpage and then not ask the question: "Why don't you do that yourself?" The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many chances does someone get to change bad and disruptive behavior? From an increasing amount of his template creations being nominated a full year ago, to editors showing growing concern and offering some friendly advice on his talk page, to an RfC/U in March and a topic ban less than two months after the RfC/U opened, to multiple efforts to dodge such a ban that brings us to this AN/I, Jax has been unable or completely refuses to comprehend how he is disrupting the Wikipedia community while he continues to defend his actions as an innocent misunderstanding. I doubt at this point that a block will deter Jax's behavior as I believe he will continue to test the limits of his topic ban even after such a block is lifted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Lukeno94, I am allowed one vote like everyone else. As far as I know, the part of the topic ban about leaving messages on other people's pages was made up after the fact. This is exactly why I asked for the rules of the ban to be laid out explicitly. The Banner has referred to me as a lazy cow, and others have used profanity on my talk page. I have not interfered with anything, and IMO the evidence is circumstantial. Many of the XfD's are from my work way back in 2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, pure bullshit. You were not allowed to edit or discuss templates "broadly construed" which you kindly defined yourself quite properly, EXCEPT you were permitted to edit them in your personal userspace, AND request copies of deleted templates using WP:REFUND. You were further forced to actually RESPOND to someone who was cleaning up your mess because you wikilawyered-up. Just like we EXPECT assistance from people blocked for massive copyright violations, we EXPECT your help in cleaning up the massive swath of crappy templates that you were told time mand time again to either stop making or FIX the few useful ones (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - If I am not allowed to discuss something, then I am not permitted to tell people where they are until I am given permission to do so. I was simply doing my best to obey the ban in its entirety, for which I was scolded. Once I was given that permission from you, I complied with the request immediately, as I did with the second question about the same. How are you authorized to use profanity on my talk page in a non-encyclopedic manner (which IMO is not appropriate conduct for any Wikipedian, much less a WP administrator)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And, of course, you notified Frietjes about articles only because you thought she'd be interested in reading them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Yup --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you remember the discussion that I started on 4 April 2013? That was a request to improve some old templates. (You can find that discussion here). To my opinion, that discussion showed a plain unwillingness to maintain templates that you have created. So even when I politely asked you to improve older templates you either refused or did it quite unwillingly. The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Their is indeed no formal obligation to maintain the items one has created, but most editors at least feel the moral obligation to do so. I don't think I am a rare exception.[reply]
    Reply - I updated Cavalera Conspiracy, and put Merge Tags on Steve "Boomstick" Wilson and A Rhyme & Reason expediently. Other than that, I am not required to keep things updated for an indefinite period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can we get some action on this, please? Given Jax's last comment to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (damn, your name is too long), it's clearly evident that Jax knew exactly what they were doing, and clearly doesn't give a shit about abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines and/or his topic ban. They're beginning to look more and more WP:NOTHERE every time they post. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which reply? Here Jax says he will abide by the restriction. On the other hand "The Banner" seems the one incapable of walking away from the WP:DEADHORSE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Agreed 86.121.18.17. I am trying to contribute constructively, as I have done to Pop Evil's very first articles about songs, and 5FDP's and Rob Zombie's latest singles. I keep getting hammered whenever I make an honest mistake. Lukeno94's last statement about me knowing what I am doing and WP:NOTHERE is inconclusive and unfounded, and you can not have it both ways (banning me from talking about something and obligating me to disclose article locations). Reading articles has NOTHING at all to do with my topic ban. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not pulling a dead horse, mr. IP. The mess is still there and I am still working to clean it up. To see the clean up hampered by a back-door trick is at least not so nice. The Banner talk 11:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of wrapping up this tedious thing, do you understand this?

    • If it involves creating, discussing, or editing a template, you have to stay away. If you think there is a grey area, there isn't, and stay away.
    • If you are asked to assist in cleaning up your mess, by someone cleaning up after you, you are expected to respond.

    Is that clear? — The Potato Hose 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply -

    1. I will avoid navboxes to the extent reasonable. As I understand, I am permitted to write articles about songs, albums, musicians and musical ensembles, and I am permitted to insert infoboxes at the top of articles (containing information including but not limited to the genre, track length, recording studio, etc.), and I am permitted to mark such articles as stubs to the extent that it does not violate my topic ban. If this is not correct, please let me know.
    2. I will respond to any reasonable request to assist in improving navigation boxes that I have created.

    Thank you for your attention. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop wikilawyering. Do you understand that you are not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates? Do you understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea? (Can you also please learn how to indent properly, and not preface everything with 'reply'? We know you're replying.) — The Potato Hose 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I understand that I am not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates. I understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea. I will do my best to indent properly, and I will take under consideration not prefacing everything with 'reply'. However, I think that it helps separate my posts better. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

    Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

    The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

    A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

    I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban. For some idea of the seriousness of the issue, see this AN/I thread, Request from uninvolved admin, from January this year. I might add that none of the other editors in that discussion have been involved in any disruptive mass editing since then, but Laurel Lodged still continues as before. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Scolaire 1. the quoted ANI case has nothing to do with the current case. The two are unrelated. This is about Counties of Ireland whereas the cited case concerned the Gaelic Athletic Association and their peculiar use of GAA county. 2. That case did not result in any censure for me or the other cited user - Brocach. So my account is still in good standing despite your attempt to impugn my reputation with the slur. 3. I have abided by the ruling in that case, even though I argued against at the time. 4. I defy you to find any edit of mine since that date that is in defiance of the decisions arrived at in that case. 5. No evidence of any misuse of wiki guidelines has been produced in support of the current case as presented (as opposed to the different case cited). 5.On any reading of our interactions over the years, which have usually been on opposite sides, it will become obvious to an uninvolved reader what may have been the true motivation for Scolaire's support in this case. There was a passing bandwagon and Scolaire gleefully jumped aboard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Both cases involve you trying to substitute all county names with the administrative county name. How many times have you been involved in discussions that point out to you that the traditional name is the most commonly used name, and the one that currently enjoys consensus? The point *you* should have taken from previous discussions and ANI wasn't that you "weren't censured", but that the reasons you provided for switching to using the administrative county names haven't been accepted by the community, and although the previous ANI was focused on the context of GAA county names, it did not give you license to switch to a different usage context and carry on as before. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to HK In the cited ANI case, it was not about my inserting county names. It was about my inserting the letters GAA into (shock/horror) GAA articles. So the two are not comparable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The strength of the previous case noted, plus the current case - added to the incredibly vindictive and attacking post above - all add together to say "topic ban as a minimum". Past behaviour always comes into play - especially if that behaviour has not demonstrably improved. To actually say what Laural said above in full view of administrators and the community really shows that they're not here to play nicely with others. As such, a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I thought a Topic Ban has received support previously, and I support the current request for one. This editor is simply not learning that these edits have really no support or consensus. Given that these exact types of edits from this editor have been discussed on several occasions before (especially the whole "traditional" county vs "administrative" county) and didn't find support, the onus was on the editor to ensure that future edits were in line with existing norms. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support County names should be used sensible. Sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option, sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option. But the endless edit wars and disputes are tiresome and damaging to the encyclopaedia. So I support a) a six month topic ban for Laurel Lodged, b) a 2 month topic ban for everyone who starts edit warring about county names, and c) an investigation into ways of avoiding these conflict (i.e. rules when to use the name of an administrative county and when to use the name of the "classic" county) The Banner talk 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Banner I agree that edit warring is tiresome and damaging. I fail to see how topic banning me while leaving the other warring parties untouched is either just or sensible or in the best interests of Wiki. There are always at least two parties to a war. Why would you assume that my arguments are less worthy than the arguments of the other parties? Let them present their arguments and then come to judgement. Those arguments will probably revolve around WP:Common. My arguments revolve around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. As HighKing commented in the WikiProjectIreland page, "There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary.". That's very true - there is a difference of opinion and there is conflicting Wiki policy guidelines. In my opinion, I am perfectly entitled to rely on the "Use modern names" guideline. There is nothing, nothing to say that it is in any way inferior to "Common". To say otherwise is just a matter of opinion. In short, who's to say that the edit warring is not caused by those editors who obstinately stick to the "Common" policy while refusing to acknowledge the presence, let along validity of "Use modern names". Let he who is without sin in this edit war cast the first stone. Secondly, I also agree with Banner when he says "sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option.". That is to say, context is all important. To give an example, there are times when it is best to speak of Byzantium, other times when it's best to speak of Constantinople and still others when it's best to speak of Istanbul. To stick rigidly to Istanbul when speaking of Constantine the Great would be wrong, even though the 3 sites occupied the same ground at various times. Conversely, to say that the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge is located in Constantinople is also wrong. Yet this is precisely what many of the supporters here would have us do - to ascribe historical, defunct administrative names to current realities. Context is important; when dealing with modern realities, use modern names. This position in neither capricious, OR, disruptive or unsupported by wiki guidelines. I have every reason to believe that the opposite is true. That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Laurel Lodged - there's the flaw right there. You're pushing "I've got a policy on my side" while ignoring the general consensus and other policies. Also, name-calling won't get you very far no matter how frustrated you feel. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - North and South Tipp have been around a very long time and have never really caught on as a method of location. They are just local government areas. It's the same in the UK. There are plenty of boroughs and districts which are never used in addresses and, effectively, these instances are also addresses in the sense that their usage is intended to convey to the reader where a place is. Tipp on its own locates a place perfectly adequately. Thats the sensible option. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Atlas I'm afraid there are a number of holes in your argument. Firstly, this is not about post codes or addressing issues, it's about counties. As proof of this, see Dublin 4 which is a perfectly legitimate postal district but is not a county (though the denizens of that district might like it to be. But that's another story). You say that "They are just local government areas". This is incorrect - they are counties per the Local Government Act 2001. County Tipperary, by contrast is not listed in that Act as a county. While we may speculate about that omission (was it an accident of legal draftsmanship? Was it deliberate? Was it a sop to nostalgia?), such musings cannot find their way into Wiki. It is what it is. The use of the word "just" is also inappropriate as it implies that NT and ST somehow occupy a space and status that is less than County Tipperary(CT). It is as if CT fulfills some function other than demarcating areas of local government. It does not. If you know of some higher order functions that CT fulfills but which NT / ST do not fulfill, please let us know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was about post codes. On the contrary I made clear it is about location. The reason we write that Dublin is in Ireland, or Clonmel is in Tipp, or Atlanta is in Georgia, is to assists users in 'locating' those places in their own minds as they read. Funnily enough, what most people use (and I guess there is a possibility that you don't do this, but most people do) is the various parts of an address. If you were posting a letter in Dublin to Clonmel, you wouldn't need to add 'Ireland' at the end of the address cos the chaps in An Phost would be quite capable of 'locating' Clonmel without it. Readers here c×an't be relied on to have the same knowledge as An Post workers, so we give them some help. We add some extra geo-location info to help. That this info is also shared by address databases is neither here nor there. It's just useful geo-location meta-information that we format and structure into readable prose. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thread was automatically archived by automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Unarchived to allow further input/action. --RA (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - I previously withheld support for a similar topic ban in the hope that the editor would see that their position was not generally supported and even disruptive. My mistake. I particularly resent the accusation above that editors who disagree with LL are a claque (sic) of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki. False! This clearly shows their ideological motivation. Iwould have supported an indef. topic ban as I have seen not a scintilla of evidence, over an extended period, that the message is getting through. RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case for the defence Now that the Prosecution has had it's say and has rested, it's time for the defence arguments. (1) Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that they're not out to get me. A claque exists (yes Rashers, claque, not clique - look it up) and has been very united in its position over the years. While I have no evidence of organising or canvassing, they have been sufficiently effective so as to drown out or bully off any dissenting voices. But that does not mean that they are right. Don't be fooled by the pious posturing. (2) Apart from the anticipated ad hominem attacks, it's interesting that much of the debate has been about the merits of the "Common" versus the "Modern" argument. It's also clear that neither argument is so solid as to overwhelm the other. This is typical of what happens in a regular debate; what's unusual about it is that it should be taking place at ANI. From this observation, one may legitimately conclude that it would not be possible to have such a debate in any of the usual fora due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU from the claque and that my actions have a basis in policy, not vandalism. (3) It is usually the case that a user is nominated in ANI only for the most egregious behaviour such as we see with mobile IP attacks, sock puppets, rabid holocaust deniers etc. From the total absence of any such evidence, either from the nominators or from the other supporters, one has to wonder why it was brought to ANI at all. To my mind there is only one reason - to silence a voice that would not kowtow to the irredentist agenda. (4) Nowhere has it been demonstrated that any of the actions complained of are as a result of bad faith, vandalism or gross ineptitude. Rather, what we have is a difference of opinion between me any a vociferous cabal. I have every right to believe that all my edits on restoring the integrity of North Tipperary and South Tipperary are justified by the facts. While the cabal will not publicly admit to their belief that NT and ST are not counties, by their actions they demonstrate that this is the underlying motive. (5) In the absence of evidence of bad faith, vandalism or gross ineptitude, one is left with the relative merits of the actions undertaken (i.e. does "Common" trump "Modern"). In which case, ANI is not the appropriate forum. Another forum ought to arbitrate on this question of policy (as opposed to discipline). (6) The citation of the GAA case that was brought to ANI some months ago is irrelevant (see comments at top). Even if it is relevant, let it be noted that there is no evidence that I have violated any of the agreed points. This is because I have abided by all ANI decisions. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note A contributor to this debate, Scolaire, has, against all etiquette, reverted an edit by another editor on this topic of NT / County Tipperary. See here. Had I done something similar, I'd have been hauled over the coals by him. Instead, he seems to think that my temporary, self-imposed suspension of NT/ST edits means that he can feel free to undo all references to NT. This should be condemned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As consensus is quite obvious (and Laurel's "defense" is well, indefensible), can we just get a confirmation of the exact wording to be used on this topic ban. This is clearly not a topic ban on Ireland articles, it's titles .. which will include article titles themselves AND anywhere in an article where an article title is referenced (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, the request is for a ban on edits relating to counties of Ireland i.e. a ban on editing any article on a county, changing the name of a county in any article, changing a link to a county in any article, or any edit that reflects a POV on Irish counties. Scolaire (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal Consensus on what exactly? What exactly is it that I'm guilty of that warrants the penalty of a ban? The only clue is in the nominator's rationale. Let's parse that line by line. (A) "has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties.". Guilty as charged. Normally this would result in a round of applause, but not here. I assume that the nominator meant to attach some evidence that these changes were wrong and made in the knowledge that they were wrong. Unfortunately, he adduced no such evidence. (B) "Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North)". Guilty as charged. Normally this would result in a round of applause, but not here. I assume that the nominator meant to attach some evidence that these changes were wrong and made in the knowledge that they were wrong. Unfortunately, he adduced no such evidence. (C) "Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus)." This is true. I have had a lot of opposition from a group that likes to hide it's true motives behind a veneer of wiki policy - when they can be bothered justifying the reversions at all that is. But again, just because they are controversial does not mean that they were wrong. I have (different) wiki policies on my side to justify the actions undertaken. (D) er.. that's it. So then, no evidence to support two charges, if indeed they are punishable things at all, and nothing more than "controversy" in the third, caused by the nominator himself in many cases. Not the strongest ANI case that I've ever seen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UT)
    Comment Dear LL, Will you please clarify why you believe a claque exists? Especially as by your own admission you have no evidence! Can you clarify which editors you are accusing of membership of this secret subversive group? In addition, can you elaborate as why you believe they are "out to get me".Moreover, can you please state what you believe to be the "true motives" of this group? Finnegas (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for Finnegas All together now...] Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately LL, a video of a children's cartoon aptly conveys your frequently, rather infantile and immature behaviour.
    • Support topic ban for all Irish and GAA topics anywhere the word county exists. Consider extending to England to protect Yorkshire and the like. Finnegas (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Surely this is an issue which will solve itself? In June 2014, North and South Tipperary county councils (and counties) are to be abolished and replaced with a single county council (and county). Say what you like about LL, but they are a stickler for the law of the land, and when the law says North and South Tipperary have been abolished, I'm sure they will edit Wikipedia accordingly. Snappy (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Snappy If/when the county councils for NT and ST are merged and the counties are abolished, bearing in mind that the two might not happen simultaneously, then I would be happy to edit accordingly. As Snappy observes, I'm a stickler for the law of the land, which is why I edit for NT and ST as I do - it's the law of the land. However, that will not solve the Fingal and South Dublin issue as there are no proposals to re-animate the rotting carcass of County Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose: the user may or may not deserve a topic ban, but the proposal offers no evidence besides a vague wave to "controversial changes" that the user makes. No diffs are provided. Proposer readily admits to canvassing a WikiProject. Without diffs, it is near impossible for an uninvolved user to knowledgeably comment on the accused behavior without going through the user entire contribution history. No one should come under editing restrictions in this manner. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikefromnyc and company articles

    User:Mikefromnyc just came onto my radar through a recent edit they made to the MicroStrategy article, where they first added an advert tag (not that big of a deal, though they appear to have the opinion that any article about a company is an advert), but then removed the external links section and all of the categories. I've just delved into their editing history and this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident.

    Here they add an advert tag and remove some references (of which I have no opinion on), but then remove the See also section and the categories. Here the user removes just huge chunks of well referenced section in the article, including the history section.

    This just goes on and on through their contribution history. Every edit they've done (which isn't all that many) has been to remove information from what looks to be a select series of articles. I don't know what to think of it. SilverserenC 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If this sounds snarky I don't mean it to, just the limitations of conversing in written text, but couldn't you have asked him about it? They're a month and a half old account after all(AGFing that there is nothing else sinister going on or that it's not a cleanstart account). Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that practically their every single edit from first creation has been to remove information from company articles, often information that was perfectly referenced or had no reason to be removed, it looks like they have some sort of campaign against company articles going on. I'm half of a mind to consider the edits outright vandalism. SilverserenC 09:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the edits are problematic, such as removing infoboxes, but not all are. Look at this one, which removes unsourced content that sounds like something straight out of Dilbert. I don't have time to investigate more fully, so I'll just note that we shouldn't treat this user as we would someone who's doing nothing but harm. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That problematic edit you linked is very emblematic of the problem though. He thinks that having the logo of a company in a company article is advertising. I suppose the best thing is to wait for him to comment here. I already notified him when I opened this thread, so hopefully he responds soon. SilverserenC 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he did respond on his talk page. I've asked him to move his response to this thread. SilverserenC 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike's edits are more or less defensible. There is promotional content on the pages he edited and he is right to call attention to that. Perhaps a better article would result from more selective trimming and rewording, but let's see if he D's now that he's been R'd. No idea why he removed categories and such - hopefully it was just a newbie editing accident that won't be repeated. Kilopi (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this edit, where he removed an infobox because he considers including a logo in it for the article subject to be advertising? Furthermore, this page's history] doesn't show much "D" going on. A lot of "R", actually. That's true for all the article's he's edited, actually. SilverserenC 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is NOT an advertising platform, is it? If advertisements are permitted then Wikipedia should remove their request for donations and charge advertisers such as MicroStratey, Ciphercloud, and all the others Mikefromnyc (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear from this editor's work that his view of what is advertising is very broad. His next edit removed far more than "marketing links" - the entire history and characterization of the company, and the URL of its website. Mikefromnyc, if you are reading here, please look at the criteria for notability applicable to companies and note that it is perfectly legitimate for a company to be the topic of an article, and that information on what it does, when it was founded and by whom, its website and any awards it has won are encyclopedic information that is not just traditional but necessary for proper coverage. --I've cleaned them up, including snipping out what I did consider puffery, but I don't see the articles themselves as exclusively promotional. (And if they are, AfD would seem to be a better course of action than extensive deletion of content.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With only 33 edits to mainspace and only 6 weeks at Wikipedia, it is clear to me that Mike is editing in good faith but has clearly misunderstood Wikipedia's differences between notability for companies and policy on sly or any kind corporate promotion. If Mike is on a lone mission to change those established principles, he's going to have a hard ride. My suggestion is that he take this ANI report as a both a warning and advice, concentrate on building the encyclopedia, and familiarising himself with WP:NOTABILITY and our various methods of removal of inappropriate content (e.g. entering in discussion with the contributors), and our deletion policy for blatant cases of true advertising and spam. When he's done that, I'm sure his work - if accurate - will be a great asset.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Nishidani

    On June 9, I reverted some changes User:Nishidani made in the article Itamar and tried to explain the reasoning as best I could in the edit summary. We have since been engaging in a conversation on Talk:Itamar about what is appropriate in the article and what isn't. He/she has recently started personally attacking me. This includes insulting my command of the English language, accusing me of POV pushing without substantial evidence, and calling me "incompetent to edit on Wikipedia". Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks.

    Here, on 10:40, 10 June 2013, Nishidani accused me of POV pushing to malign Ha'aretz. I have nothing against Ha'aretz whatsoever and have used it as a source in other articles. On realizing that some of the text could be construed as misleading regarding a Ha'aretz journalist, I altered it to specify that the journalist had made the comments described in a television interview, not the newspaper in question.

    The attacks on my diction started here, on 10:38, 11 June 2013, when Nishidani told me to "Please learn to construe English correctly before either editing or engaging in a discussion" and suggested that I "can't distinguish elementary points" of the language.

    I took it to his/her talk page because WP:NPA recommended doing so and asked him/her not to insult my English or to make assumptions about my motives and behavior without substantial evidence. I pointed out that some of things he/she said are defined as personal attacks according to WP:NPA and provided a link to that page.

    He/she responded by saying that he/she was only "[stating] the obvious". He/she insulted me again by saying that I "do not understand English with any degree of sophistication, or choose not to" and that I "don't understand simple English, or don't care too much about what is being edited and discussed, as long as [my] view prevails". He/she also claimed that, following the first revert, the "rest of [my] editing was to prettify the settlement's image". Every edit I made afterwards was directed at adding references where there was a "citation needed", adjusting the text so there's no original research, replacing unsourced information with sourced, and altering the description of one particular incident to show the Palestinian side of what happened, as it had previously only shown the settlers' (edits shown here and here). Before that, I had only fixed red links and added a date to the lawsuit section.

    There appears to have been some sort of misunderstanding, as Nishidani said that I accused him/her of "[passing off suspects to a murder, released for lack of evidence, as indeed murderers]".

    Here, I explained that I only objected to this text: "Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers". I was not saying that he/she accused the suspects (Gadi Tene and Yaron Degani) in question of murder but that I didn't think it was right to say that two settlers murdered a Palestinian man when none were convicted and the only two charged were released for insufficient evidence. I apologized for not being clear enough, reminded him/her that he/she was using personal attacks according to the guidelines, and asked him/her again to not verbally attack me.

    Instead, here, he/she called me "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Here he/she changed the title of the section to "Personal attacks (1ST7/ POV-pushing incompetence (Nishidani)". He/she went on to describe my explanation and apology as "Proof of [my] incompetence, carelessness with sources, indifference to verifying texts, and use of WP:OR". He/she insulted my English again, called me incompetent again, and accused me of "[ignoring] all wiki protocols".

    It appears that I did remove two sources Nishidani added without realizing it; that was an accident, and I would have restored them quickly had he/she pointed it out on the talk page, but the subject never came up until this most recent response.

    However, I don't see this as an excuse to insult someone personally the way Nishidani has been doing. I have asked him/her twice to stop attacking me like this and to focus complaints on the content of the article, but that has only escalated matters. This seemed to be the best place to go next. If an administrator could please help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. --1ST7 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was surprised that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" would be considered a personal attack, since, well, sometimes you have to question someone's knowledge, talent, or competence. So I looked - that line was added to the guideline merely two weeks ago without any discussion. So, let's keep that in mind, that while these may or may not rise to the level of personal attacks, let's not stick to the letter of a two-week old unilateral law on that. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying. I think that questioning someone's knowledge or experience might be acceptable in a situation in which a user is only being disruptive; but I don't believe it's alright for an editor to repeatedly call someone they disagree with incompetent, insult their English, or call them "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor" without any significant evidence. I think that last one would fall under "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --1ST7 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Its completely different when an editor quesrions another editors experienced. And another editor promotes or advertise the other editors incompetence, especially if its not true.Its spreading a reputation that cant be fixed, it discourages editors to even try to build consensus. AWp:NPA should be updated.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Because Itamar is an Israel-Palestine topic area, it is subject to strict discretionary sanctions as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Editor misconduct in this topic area should not be tolerated, although I am not expressing an opinion regarding misconduct in his case. I don't think that is correct to use the word "murder" when a legal case was dropped and no one was convicted of murder. Murder is a legal judgment. The article already uses terms like "lethal attacks" and "violent acts" to describe events near the settlement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The "belittling" sentence has been removed from WP:NPA and, by the look of the discussion on the talk page there, is not going to go back. There are times when it is necessary to inform someone that their edits are not up to scratch, be it on account of their language skills or otherwise. Whether this is a violation of WP:NPA depends on how it is done, not merely on the fact of it being done. Zerotalk 01:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that it is alright to politely explain to a user that their edits are problematic, but the manner in which this was done is hurtful and unproductive. I consider it a personal attack to directly call someone "incompetent" not once but several times. There is still the issue of making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", which I believe Nishidani did by saying that I "ignore all wiki protocols" and am "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state that editors should not insult others but rather "explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it". The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an understandably volatile subject, but I don't see why editors can't have polite debate. Lashing out at a user this way only causes problems and hurt feelings. --1ST7 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani does a lot of reading (books, not just Google), and it is extremely likely that he could produce compelling evidence to support any assertion that he has made (or to quickly acknowledge an error if found to be incorrect). In fact, a quick glance at User talk:Nishidani suggests he has made a solid start on explaining his position, so why not engage with the substance of what Nishidani wrote? It looks as if he is concerned that his reliably sourced edits were blanket reverted without discussion. For example, there is a comment on Talk:Itamar at "09:28, 9 June 2013" where Nishidani started a discussion on why he removed certain text, yet it appears that nearly all his edits were reverted ten hours later without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - these charges seem to be groundless, with or without recent edits to WP:NPA. User:1ST7 appears to have a set of WP:COMPETENCE issues in regard to fundamentals such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS and even a fine cool editor like Nishidani's patience being stretched would be highly understandable, except patience has been maintained. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained one of many problems with the plaintiff here. This is an extremely difficult area to edit. The villages and settlements in the West Bank have been variously defined as 'Disneyland with guns', 'the Wild West'. Law itself is suspended. Huge interests are at stake in spinning stuff, even in sources. Editors who do wish to work those articles must above all (a) read what sources say (b) not remove, as did the plaintiff, impeccable, university published books introduced correctly to improve documentation by prior editors (c) engage on the talk page and, above all (d) read and represent the views of editors they disagree with by correctly construing their views. The plaintiff, in my view, waived all of these procedures. I'm pernickety about grammar, and do get grounchy when I end up dragged into an exhausting conversation in which my interlocutor appears to me to be ignoring the niceties of English. Here I was being told that I must not say a Palestinian was 'murdered'0 by settlers. Well, several good sources use that term, and, if you check, the article has the word 'murdered' appropriately used of Israeli victims. I just follow RS language. I did not intrude my own judgement here, as the plaintiff asserted. I generally like to work articles thoroughly, in rapid succession. and, against the two preceding editors' views, do make errors, esp. with IR because I can't understand it. When poor editors intervene, this gets particularly troublesome. It's the trip wire that makes articles like these, desperately in need of several cool and close editors review, particularly hazardous.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the use of the word "murder", please consider Cullen328's comments above. "Murdered" is only used to describe the Israeli victims in cases where the perpetrators were convicted. I already explained that the removal of the university published book was an accident and that I would have restored it quickly had it been pointed out on the article's talk page. --1ST7 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a personal attack; I said nothing against Nishidani personally. I said that the wording used in the article to describe the Nasasrah incident ("Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers") sounded biased for reasons explained above and that that was why I changed it. --1ST7 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith can sometimes be more "insulting" than not assuming good faith. Explaining poor edits with the editor's poor command of the English language is IMO a very nice way to assume good faith – and certainly no personal attack. Ajnem (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:1ST7.
    This particular instance is clearly a content dispute. You might have an argument challenging ‘two settlers’, and asking that I write ‘settlers’, despite the fact that RS justify the use of two settlers. What you did was connect ‘ two settlers’ with the Israelis arrested on suspicion, and later released for want of evidence, and thinking that I was implicitly identifying the killers. I object to the WP:OR in this, but I’d quite happy to accommodate your anxiety by rewriting ‘settlers’. Let me give some background. The Dromi law allows any settler to shoot dead a Palestinian who he believes is intruding on land he or his community has seized.
    Your objections to ‘murdered’ are not acceptable, because you say a court ruling, not RS, must establish that, not reports by reliable sources. That’s very convenient for your POV. Why? (a) all settlers are entitled to a fully array of impressive rifles, machine guns, and pistols. They walks about armed with high-powered rifles and machine guns etc. (b) no Palestinian in occupied areas under Israeli military jurisdiction is allowed to have weapons, even if in self-defence. (c) where ‘unnatural’ deaths occur, the investigating authority is the Israeli military administration if a Palestinian is suspected, not a neutral body. An Israeli civil court tries settlers, and almost invariably they get off the charge. The court statistics, as relayed by B’tselem, for the specific period when that man was ‘murdered’ are as follows:-

    report published about four months ago by B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, documents 199 cases of manslaughter and murder of Palestinians by Israeli citizens; only six yielded murder convictions. In six cases of death, the police did not initiate an investigation, and in another 39 the cases were closed. The punishments were also minimal: The sentences of four of the Jews who were convicted of murder were reduced, five of those convicted of manslaughter were sentenced to less than four years in prison, and five of the seven Israelis convicted of negligent manslaughter did community service instead of prison time. On the other hand, in all 114 cases of murder and manslaughter of Israelis by Palestinians in the territories (up to March of this year), the cases were investigated. Thirty Palestinians were convicted of murder, 17 were killed by the security forces, 12 homes of murderers were demolished. No sentences were shortened, and of course there is no point in even mentioning a pardon.

    It’s quite astute, sorry, disingenuous (as an old man I can't help note the special status of that word as the default term to sidestep WP:AGF accusations!) to plead that wiki editors override sources and rewrite them according to the verdicts, reported in the Israeli press, of an Israeli military court system in occupied enemy territory which, notoriously, regularly absolves armed Israeli settlers of ‘murder,’ while consistently handing out ‘murder’ sentences to disarmed Palestinians. What you consistently fail to see is the way your judgements appear to consistently echo settler and military-occupational biases, privileging their verdicts.
    How do you resolve the problem of this ‘WP:Systemic bias when eyewitnesses remark on the presence of two settlers and the fact that as they arrived, shooting from one side began, and several people were hit, and one, well, 'just died'? To avoid the source 'murdered' is to espouse the military court system as the only adjudicator of our (neutral) terminology. The only solution is to follow RS, not the court files of the occupying power, as you ask we do.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrative action again User:Curb Chain

    This is my first time at AN/I during my time here on Wikipedia, so you'll excuse me in advance if I don't state everything the way that things are normally stated here. I was directed here by another administrator (User:postdlf) at the tail end of the recently closed AfD over the Wikipedia article List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I realize that the article in question here isn't a very high profile or "important" Wikipedia article. However, a few of us are disturbed by the actions of Curb Chain (CC) both at that AfD and in the article itself recently. Quite frankly, I've never seen the kind of behavior exibited there by anyone on Wikipedia in my 5 or so years as an editor.

    Consensus in the above AfD rapidly developed that CC's initial nomination had no merit, but that unfortunately did not deter CC from repeatedly, intentionally & disruptively blanking the list that was in question at the above AfD in order to try & "win" that doomed nomination. CC unilaterally (and against current community consensus) got rid of all of the entries on the above list that were already on List_of_death_metal_bands twice. The first time was from 20:24 on June 9, 2013 to 03:10 on June 11, 2013. He was reverted by the above-mentioned administrator (after discussion of CC's disruptive edits in the above-mentioned AfD) at 10:07 on June 11, 2013, then CC simply just re-applied basically the exact same edits again at around 22:09-22:17 on June 11, 2013 using the edit summary "Everything is unsourced or not reliably sourced", which CC knew at the time wasn't the truth at all. Most, if not all, the bands that CC has twice removed from this list in question have sources both in their own individual Wikipedia articles and/or on the massive listing entitled List_of_death_metal_bands.

    CC tried to deceptively describe his above edits on the list in question's talk page by saying that "I'm going to continue to remove more entries without sources after looking at the wikis' pages within the next few days", "I have added sources from the artists' wiki pages to source the ones that I found to have sources. I have not included artists that have been written to be playing this genre without a source", and "The AfD is not closed". CC did not attempt to engage in any constructive discussion about how the list in question should be edited on any talk page.

    I do not engage in edit warring. So, I request that the current version of List_of_American_death_metal_bands by reverted to the version from 15:25 June 11, 2013 so that more sources for the bands that should rightfully be on the list can be added in the near future.

    I have no previous experience in banning members of Wikipedia in any capacity, but I do not think that simply reverting the article in question will end this dispute between CC and other members of Wikipedia that are trying to improve articles here. Since I have no experience in this area, I'd like to leave any other decisions on other administrative action again Curb Chain to this body's collective judgment here. Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think Guy linked the AfD above, so I'll just leave it here for your convenience: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I don't intend to get involved here, though, so please try your best not to bug me about it. Ansh666 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the above AfD is now unfortunately at DRV here. Curb Chain also deleted my notice of this discussion here on his talk page with the edit summary "sign your post". Like I've said already, I'm newb at this whole thing here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment its a common or garden content dispute. Whats really annoying is that its on a list where every article is a blue link. I did a spot check from the last (seemingly complete) version and they all appeared valid, so its not surprising it was justifably shot down at AFD. However DRV *is* an option, and while its annoying and time wasting, its not really a reason for admin action. Suggest letting it run. Curb's changes have been reverted a couple of times with 'seek consensus' for what he wants. So if he keeps doing it, best place to take it would be at the edit-warring noticeboard. Hopefully it wont get that far because they will get the hint now and discuss it or try and work with people on the talk page. Oh and deleting talk page notifications is ok. You can take it to mean they have seen it and acknowledged it. They may choose to respond or not. That is up to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanx for the comments both above & below. I understand that DRV is technically an option. It didn't end well for Curb Chain (CC) recently, which is not surprising, and I was especially displeased to see CC misleadingly try & frame the issue there like all they were asking for was a "merge" of content from one article to another ("Formatting of the broader article is all that is needed to include the information present in List of American death metal bands so to merge with List of death metal bands"). I appreciate "Only in death's" reversion & subsequent edits to List of American death metal bands. As I said earlier today on that article's talk page, we're basically back where we need to be now, and another editor has attempted to expand & improve upon the list as well, which is good.
    I will, if necessary, take this issue to "the edit-warring noticeboard" (though I've never had any experience there either) if CC's actions don't change in the future. I haven't seen any recent edits from CC on Wikipedia since very early this morning.
    I've seen other Wikipedia users attempt to delete notifications before on their own talk pages, and then try & say later that they "never got them"...that's why I documented that behavior on CC's behalf above. Thanx again. Guy1890 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is actually a distinction between good faith content dispute and WP:IDHT behavior. Curb Chain is veering toward the latter by sending to DRV a SNOW kept AfD. Hopefully that DRV will be the end of this matter. If Curb Chain continues to edit war on the list itself in attempt to delete it by a backdoor, in violation of the clear consensus, then admin intervention should be swift, and I don't mean just reverting him. He did not seem to get the message though [67]. That list is not a matter of some BLP urgency to require immediate blanking of all entries without an inline citation. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Curb Chain were editing in good faith, he could copy the inline references from List of death metal bands, !–K etc., because that covers a superset of the list in dispute here, which is restricted to the American bands of this genre. He has edited those bigger lists most recently on June 7, so he is clearly aware of their existence. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Curb Chain's behavior is inching toward IDHT territory. Removing entries from the list when you are aware that sources exist in another article is problematic, as is citing the fact that the entries were removed as a reason to delete when you did the removal. It's hinky. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are now arguing that because a music journalist has not described a band as death metal, they cant be classed as death metal. Regardless of how the band self-identifies in primary sources. A band's website is a reliable source for non-controversial info. 'We play death metal' is such. I have explained this a few times now but its falling on deaf ears. All of curbs removals I have checked (to blue-linked articles) are sourced/linked (usually to the bands website or other sources) that they are death metal. I am not about to go through and individually revert each one when a spot check shows they are all problematic. He is now resorting to policies like WP:COI. COI? Over if a band plays death metal? I dont think Curb actually understands the policies they are quoting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, I've counted around 16 23 bands that Curb Chain (CC) removed from the list in question that are likely death metal bands. From what I've seen of CC's history of "justifying" their behavior, it's either that CC doesn't understand basic Wikipedia rules or CC is conducting themselves almost like a pseudo-troll. I really don't know how else to describe it. CC will go from one almost meaningless excuse for what they've done to another without skipping a beat. It's certainly frustrating. Guy1890 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does he do any useful editing on death metal or other music genres? I'm asking because I don't have the time to investigate his long-term history myself) If he's only messing with others' work, then a topic ban may be the best way forward; otherwise, if he does do some useful editing in that area, maybe a RfC/U should be started... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I can tell, there seems to be a "fixation" (for lack of a better term) on the part of Curb Chain (CC) with list articles. I first came across CC in April 2013 when I simply tried to add a few band names to the List of speed metal bands, only to have them removed twice by CC with the same line of "you need a citation or I'll revert you" line. Very soon after, CC showed up in a doomed AfD (CC's comment is the only, unsigned "Delete" vote there) that was trying to get rid of the entire genre of music called speed metal, after CC had been activtely editing the above speed metal list for over a year, which seemed, at best, very odd behavior. I ended up pretty quickly letting the whole issue go & walking away. I did, however, get so frustrated with CC as a result of this conflict over such a minor issue that I told him to "Stop commenting on my talk page", which he didn't comply with in the long run.
          • After doing some more checking recently, it turns out that CC's first edit to the above list was to try & AfD it in August of 2011. CC has apparently been on Wikipedia since April of 2011. I think that you'll see some similiar behavior to what I originally posted about here in these AfDs as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synthpop artists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power metal bands, which are both from August of 2011. Who knows...there might be other examples out there as well.
          • I hear exactly what "postdlf" is saying below, and I completely agree with him. This kind of behavior isn't really about enforcing some kind of "policy" on CC's part, it's really just about editing articles that way that CC (and maybe CC alone?) wants to edit them. I hate to say this, but maybe we're dealing with a child Wikipedia editor of some sort (?). I really don't know what else to say to try & explain CC's behavior here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Minor observation: Curb Chain has probably been editing for a substantial amount of time before his current account. His invocation of "wp:nsr" and "flagcruft" in the first few edits points in that direction. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Curb Chain needs some kind of sanction, but not necessarily a heavy one (a final warning or a brief block for incivility perhaps, although the latter probably would be unpopular.) Their behaviour in the AfD was evidently disruptive, as was the filing of a DRV so soon after a request for clarification. Furthermore, CC's logic escapes me, with regards to his issue with the name (I fail to see why it has to be a genre?), and it's far from the only nationality-based thing, like the List of American grunge bands list. Now, in fairness to them, they've been going through and referencing things themselves since the DRV was closed, but the systematic removal of things present on other lists yesterday was bang out of order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest mentoring if I thought Curb Chain would actually cooperate with it. I've seen this kind of editor many times before, and it's like they are so wound up on whatever self-appointed mission they have that they can't sit still long enough to either listen to others or to give a clear and focused explanation of why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, Curb Chain just rotates through rationales (which are borderline coherent to begin with) without ever developing them or without ever responding to counterarguments, like he's just saying whatever words might possibly get his way. You can't have a discussion with someone acting like that, and his blatant misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, not to mention misunderstanding of simple article content, means his edits need to be constantly watched. Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? There have already been a few complaints about his behavior in the ANI archives, often people concluding that he doesn't mean to be disruptive or whatever, but at the end of the day intent doesn't matter when the effect is clear. Someone who can't or won't collaborate with others should not be editing here, nor should someone who's demonstrated poor reading comprehension time and time again. Or we can all spend our time sifting through his edits (over 30 separate edits just today to the list he already failed to AFD), as he keeps trying to get his way on no matter how many other editors have told him he's doing it wrong. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the history of List of speed metal bands (suggested by Guy1890 above) I think Curb Chain envisioned himself as some sort of wikipolice early on. Basically he was just removing or reverting any entry or addition without an inline reference. While this ANI was open however, he seem to have understood that he needs to be more constructive and he is now also contributing by adding references to such lists (to List of American death metal bands). In view of this change of attitude, I think that sanctions are not warranted at the moment. The "rotation through rationales" mentioned by Postdlf above looks like someone desperately trying not to lose face in an argument (or maybe just WP:WIN). Hopefully that won't be repeated. Curb Chain has recently demonstrated that he can change his approach. He should seek advice from more experienced editors before resorting to drastic measures like massive pruning of content or starting AfDs on obviously notable subjects in the future. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I again understand what our (recently new?) Romanian IP editor above is saying, and I do respect trying to give editors the benefit of the doubt when possible. I disagree though that this is a case for that. When one indiscriminately blanks an article during a 2011 AfD simply because some list entries were currently unsourced (although they were likely sourced within other articles) contrary to editing policy instead of removing entries that one actually believes in good faith do not belong...then one does basically the exact same thing at a 2013 AfD & tries to decepitively describe their own edits in several other forums...I don't think that one is getting "the point" over time.
        • The next time that one of my arugments isn't going well at an AfD (and I currently do not frequent AfDs that much), do I just blank the article to make it look like the proposed deletion is "really no big deal" or remove valid entries/citations from an article and then try & claim that the article should be removed because it's "not sourced properly"? Consider that last question a rhetorical one.
        • I think that something (almost anything really) needs to go on Curb Chain's record at least to document that his past editing practices are not OK with the Wikipedia community. If, at another later date, something else needs to be done because of CC's subsequent behavior, then so be it as well. Guy1890 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this ANI thread does qualify as record-keeping for the behavioral issue(s); it will go into the archives, which are easily searchable. You can file a WP:RfC/U if you think it necessary to assemble more long-term behavioral evidence or if you want to give more editors the opportunity to chime in on the issues because RfC/Us are open for much longer time. It doesn't look like any administrative action is forthcoming for this incident alone. And my impression is that Curb Chain has changed some of his practices as a result of it. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Block proposed. No, I don't think "It will go into the archives which are easily searchable" will work in practical terms, because people don't in fact tend to search and read up on the background. Instead, net-negative users keep falling through the same cracks over and over, certainly as long as they have a clean block log. This lack of reading back is an insoluble problem IMO: we can't be expected to spend our lives on ANI. (Shudder.) I propose a block for at least a week, preferably two, for long-time, well-demonstrated collaboration problems and using up too much time and patience, per User:Postdlf's very cogent comment above (I urge people to re-read it).[68] The user has a clean block log (incredibly), and that's the only reason I'm not suggesting indef. I searched for those previous mentions on ANI and found this 2012 proposal to ban Curb Chain for demonstrated battleground mentality by User:Tijfo098 and this 2011 request for a block for intentional disruption by User:Mike Cline. (There may be more, as there were numerous mentions in threads not named for Curb Chain, but I can't spend my life here either.) The 2012 thread was diverted over unclear sock issues and opposed because the original proposal was badly expressed, and the 2011 thread was withdrawn on the assumption that the behavior was being dealt with elsewhere (which it clearly wasn't). Going back to those older threads, it's clear that the same problems have been causing exhaustion and attrition for several years now. See for instance the pre-echoes in the earlier discussions of Postdlf's "Curb Chain just rotates through rationales (which are borderline coherent to begin with) without ever developing them or without ever responding to counterarguments, like he's just saying whatever words might possibly get his way" (Articles for deletion/List of American death metal bands is a striking illustration). In 2011: "… the actions of someone who gets an idea in his head about what is right and cannot understand the nuances of the issue. More than one editor has tried to steer him in a more constructive direction … but our suggestions fall on deaf ears. All of this, plus his increasingly incoherent statements in response to all the objections, adds up to a pattern of incompetence, not malice." And in 2012: "His reasons for deleting material vary as the wind blows, but are always spurious.". This problem shouldn't fall through the cracks again as the user keeps, apparently year after year, "trying to get his way no matter how many other editors have told him he's doing it wrong." Incompetence + stubbornness is if anything worse for the encyclopedia than malice, and causes more burnout. I'm prepared to block to protect all the editors who waste so much time cleaning up after Curb Chain and bootlessly arguing with him. If a mentor can be found, and accepted by Curb Chain, that's fine, of course. The IDHT nature of the problem suggests to me that we'd soon be back here, but we're all about trying everything before we block, aren't we, and mentoring hasn't been tried. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    • I'm not opposed to a block, but I don't think it's the best solution. I think it would be better if Curb Chain participates here and makes a clear statement that he understands what are the objections to his behavior and that he explains how he plans to address the concerns. Although he has not directly participated in this discussion, he did change his behavior on one aspect pertaining to the current incident (the list pruning). He also seems to understand that at least one of his arguments (that related to COI) was flawed [69], although he still seems to think that all lists need inline references. If admins think those recent developments are "too little, too late" in view of Curb Chain's long-term history, then they should resort to the tools at their disposal in order to prevent repetition of disruption. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban is an interesting idea. All of the problems that have been discussed so far center on lists. When working on other kinds of articles, Curb Chain seems to get along pretty well with other editors; circumstantial evidence includes a contribution record with 72% of the edits in article space, and several barnstars (there is even one for diplomacy!). RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that unilateral actions by individual editors in the face of controversy are one of the most disruptive things an editor can do on WP. Editors may not know that an action is or will be controversial, but once that is known (as is certainly the case with CC) unilateral actions ignoring the controversy are disruptive. Energy spent reversing unilateral actions and dealing with the myriad of rationales for those actions is totally wasted and diverts energy from civil resolution of whatever is on the table. Unilateral Action in face of known controversy is editor behavior that should not be tolerated. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support administrative action: Probably a short block, maybe 48 hours, just to have something on record. I don't think we need a long block at this time, as this editor's pattern is to edit intensely for a few weeks, then disappear for a few weeks, and so length of block isn't going to change behavior. A ban is premature, given the lack of a block record. However an official record needs to be established: This user's behavior here is the tip of a very large iceberg. There is a clear pattern of editing against consensus and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. There are a minimum of two previous ANIs, both listed above, and it is worth noting that the one in archive 776 was part of a much larger storm of assorted controversy. There are more and yet more and yet more incidents, including one where it appears CC ran off another editor. There are also three sockpuppet investigations connected to this user: 1, 2, 3. Given the big picture, a short block is warranted. Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Curb Chain

    I've come here from User:Bishonen good faith request to ask for my participation in this discussion, which I thank User:Bishonen for. I understand the concerns raised by the editors in this section but have not looked through the whole thread in detail. I guess the request is for me to understand that lists are not to be deleted on the grounds that they are content forks, if I perceive them to be, otherwise I will be blocked. I am open to the idea of being mentored, but I don't know what I could learn from that.

    I've kept this short because I feel that User:Guy1890 and to a lesser extent User:Postdlf have created far too much drama than is warranted and also assumed much bad faith. Take into the account that they did not discuss why it wasn't a content fork on the talk page, AfD, or deletion review. (This is by no means me trying to be disruptive, this simply is how their actions look to me. (And I'm trying to be as neutral as possible.))Curb Chain (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waited99

    It seems from the various apologies that the user(s) concerned have taken the comments here on board. Further disruption may not exclude blocking or interaction/topic banning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user keeps removing an AFD template from Michael Collings (singer) and keeps removing warnings from his talk page. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rescind, removing content from talk pages is not against the rules. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But the page Michael Collings (singer) is, since it's a virtually identical content fork of Michael Collings, an article that has been nominated for AfD but is having the AfD-template repeatedly removed by User:Waited99. Thomas.W (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say a) we need to block Waited for EW on the article, and b) block Citrus for EW on Waited's talkpage ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Indeed. The relevant article is Michael Collings. He hasn't removed the tag since your final warning about doing so; given that he's blanked the AfD page, removed the tag a bunch of times, and told someone to "fuck off", he's lucky no-one has yet blocked him, and that's surely what will happen to him if he removes the tag again. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • apology from waited99: A wiki user AnemoneProjectors keeps repointing a legitimate page on Michael Collings the Britain's Got Talent singer who has gone on to releases 3 singles an EP and is working on a album, is 3rd biggest fast car on spotify, 5th biggest youtube video of 2011. tours, and has over 50 million hits on youtube on songs not related to Britain;s Got Talent.

      AnemoneProjectors has taken it upon himself to decide this Michael Collings does not deserve his own page and repoints the page daily to 1 paragraph on a BGT series page.

    Michael Collings was last on national TV this week for 5 minutes on ITV2.

    AnemoneProjectors has now nominated Micahel Collings for Speedy deletion and threatened to report me for undoing his re-pointing edits.

    I am glad that this has now caught the attention of other WIKI members and they can decide whether AnemoneProjectors campaign against Michael Collings is legitimate or not. I apologise for not knowing all the Wiki rules. Apologies for deleting other peoples messages off my talk page. I thought it was my message board that I could delete messages once read! Now I know this is not the case. Waited99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waited99 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Waited, actually it is a message board, and this edit by Citrusbowler is completely incorrect. Wait--Citrusbowler gave you a final warning for that? That's the pits. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waited, you can remove stuff (most stuff) from your own talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. What you may not do is remove AfD templates from articles, and if you do it again (I know you won't) I will block you: you have been warned often enough. I can't say I'm pleased with how either you or AnemoneProjectors behaved in that article's history; an earlier AfD nomination would have been better. Both of you have been edit warring there, there is no doubt about it, and you have not taken the high road. The only reason I'm not blocking you right now (though you kept removing the AfD template after a final warning) is my faith in your good sense. Don't disappoint me. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused. My last involvement with Waited99 was to give a level 4 warning. First for removing AFD template, second for telling me to "fuck off", third for removing AFD template, fourth for removing AFD template. I realise that I probably should have issued two level 1s, then a 2 and a 3, but he since received another level 2 and another level 3. The older warnings have probably been missed because of blanking, and though users are free to blank their talk pages, it's usually, in my experience, those receiving multiple warnings that do so and it could lead to those warnings being missed and users receiving softer warnings instead of being blocked. So I expected Waited99 to have been blocked by now. As for Michael Collings' article, I didn't feel there was a real edit war going on until today, as there were several days between reverts previously (and I was not the only person redirecting the page), and that's why I only decided to go to AFD today. I would like to point out to Waited99 that I did not mark the page for speedy deletion. –anemoneprojectors– 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So am I: I don't understand the back-and-forths in the history. Someone redirects, someone objects--that's the B and the R in BRD, but there was no D, only a subsequent set of Rs. It takes two to tango, and this probably should have been brought to AfD a long time ago (I'm doing the same thing right now with two redirects that were reverted). As for blocking Waited, blocks aren't punitive. I didn't get into this until--well, you can see the time stamp, and the first thing I see is Citrusbowler bullying Waited around with invalid warnings. Besides that, they quit removing the AfD template, so the goal of stopping that disruption seems to have been accomplished. No? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I posted all this I had not yet seen that BWilkins and Finlay McWalter had responded above. I hope that this can be handled without any blocks for those two overzealous editors. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not excusing my reverts but a) I (wrongly) thought it was clear that Collings isn't notable outside of BGT and (wrongly) assumed that Waited99 would stop recreating the article, b) the D part of BRD is supposed to be down to the reverted person (Waited99), not the person who reverts (me). Again, not excusing my reverts, and I fully admit that on this occasion I was also out of order, and I apologise for that. But yes, it's stopped now, which is good (again, I started the AFD to stop the edit war, but it didn't stop Waited99 from removing the template, which I was fully entitled to revert). In the grand scheme of things, no real harm has been done, right? –anemoneprojectors– 12:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bill Green (athlete)

    Page semi protected by Drmies. Let's see if that works before revisiting this issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've already requested assistance for this at the BLP noticeboard, to no avail--my guess is that lack of response there encourages and accelerates the problems: WP:BLP, WP:SPA, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR are issues for starters. Appears to be an unsourced autobiography, with long term ownership issue. I can't even make a maintenance template stick there now. Assistance would be appreciated. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, I recognize you from across the Mason-Dixon line. I'll keep an eye on it, and I've left the hammer thrower a note on their talk page as well. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP:Range block would work for that company. WP:SPI does not publicly connect accounts to their IP addresses. And it's not really important in this case if the connection is WP:SOCK or just WP:MEAT because the accounts and IP editors which keep adding the unsourced material are all single-purpose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh

    AFD is closed and the article has been deleted, article title salted. --Tito☸Dutta 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's a rainstorm of IP socks at this AfD (following blocks of various registered user socks [89], [90], [91], [92]) and they're becoming very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD now closed,article deleted and SALTed. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Canvassing by User:Hoopes

    No admin action required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Hoopes has left non-neutral messages about a dispute between him and me on a number of talk pages, including some users he knows from previous editing. Among other things, the message falsely asserts that I am trying to push my own POV - a charge I have denied more than a dozen times and repeatedly asked Hoopes to stop making. Thus, he has violated WP:CANVASS. I have replied to use message to point out the non-neutrality and the fact that I dispute his assessment on the situation. I request another editor delete the messages (and my replies) and replace them with a neutral message where appropriate (e.g. the project talk pages). Of course help mediating the actual dispute would be nice too, but to be honest I'm not sure there are many concrete points we disagree on except on whether or not I have a POV.

    The canvass edits are: [93][94][95][96][97][98][99] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review the discussion on my talk page and that of User:ThaddeusB concerning this matter. The issue of whether or not User:ThaddeusB is pushing his own POV in the editing of the article La Ciudad Blanca is the one at hand. I assert that he is while he asserts that he isn't and we are at an impasse. (Extensive discussion of disagreements can be found on the talk page for that article.) It was he who first suggested having a third party review our disputes. I think that is a viable and I have tried to follow through on that by requesting assistance from qualified editors. As stated on its talk page, the article on La Ciudad Blanca falls under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America. I think it also falls under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica, so I have requested assistance from editors affiliated with those WikiProjects. Hoopes (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, the problem is not with the requests but the non-neutral nature of them and selective notification of people whom he had previous positive editing experiences with. As I said, please leave the notices where they are appropriate, but edit them for neutrality. (As an aside, I have created a list of points that I think are in dispute on the talk page and encourage Hoopes to review/add to them.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute the charge that I have violated WP:CANVASS. The guidelines state, "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." The notices that I posted on relevant pages have these characteristics. I really don't understand why User:ThaddeusB objects to my having contacted Wikipedia editors with whom I have have had previous positive editing experiences. Surely that is not contrary to Wikipedia policy! Hoopes (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your notices are both selective (by your own admission you contacted 2 editors who had supported your edits in the past and also contacted a personal friend off wiki) and non-neutral. If you can't see why contacting editors who agreed with the POV expressed by your editing in similar articles is a problem, I don't know what to say. All I am asking is that this error be corrected. I am certainly not asking for disciplinary action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am saying that you are mistaken and that there are no errors that need to be corrected. I did not say that I had contacted editors who had supported my edits in the past. I did not say whether they had supported my edits or not. In fact, they have supported some and not supported others, which is precisely why I thought they would be good arbiters of neutrality. Hoopes (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated accusations of bad faith and refusal to stop making them by Hoopes

    In particular, progress on the article has been made utterly impossible (for me) because Hoopes feels the need to accuse me of bad faith editing in every "discussion" about the subject. See Talk:La Ciudad Blanca#Inappropriate behavior by Hoopes and previous requests to stop: [100][101] (among many others). Even if the content dispute can't be resolved, an admin really needs to explain to him why this is not helpful. He seems to feel that the attack is justified as long as it is true. (Full disclosure: I have lost patience and responded in kind from time to time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is incorrect. I do not feel the need to accuse User:ThaddeusB of bad faith because I think it will be apparent to an unbiased third party who reviews the evidence. There is abundant evidence now on the talk page of the article La Ciudad Blanca of ad hominem attacks on me (in spite of my repeated requests that he stop) and a pattern of hostile, unhelpful responses from User:ThaddeusB despite my attempts to engage in a reasoned discussion. Editing of the article has become almost impossible because my edits are being repeatedly reverted so that the POV of User:ThaddeusB prevails. It is really time for a neutral third party to step in. Hoopes (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoopes own words he just posted contradict the last statement (which is why I posted this) - just see the linked talk page. We both have engaged in attacks in the past. We agreed to stop a few days ago. I did' he didn't. Today I lost patience and reverted to commenting on his behavior since he felt the need to justify every "discussion" by accusing my of bad faith editing in his opening comment. For the record, Hoopes has been the one repeatedly reverting to his preferred version today; I have stopped trying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I have decided not to edit the article again until the situation cools off. I will also be attempting to minimize my comments on the talk page as I doubt any progress can be made without the help of multiple third party editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    With the exception of making a single edit requested by User talk:ThaddeusB (the addition of a citation to a source), I have also decided not to edit the article until we have more feedback from multiple third party editors. One has responded with helpful comments. It would be good to hear from others. I will continue to monitor the talk page for La Ciudad Blanca and to use it for discussing issues relevant to improving the article. Hoopes (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No Aedmin action requested, will someone uninvolved please close this?

    For the record, I came here through an automatic notification when John Hoopes mentioned me on his tak page. John made it clear there that he had contacted me. His posts as described above are not canvasssing according to WP:CANVAS. There's clearly no vote-stacking and he hasn't been " Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." Active editors frequently contact other users when there are problems - this is, after all, a collegial project. As no Admin action has been requested by the original poster I will not comment on the issues and ask that this be closed. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked for action (not blocking though, just commenting) on the repeated assumptions of bad faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you need is comments, WP:RFC/U is thataway. Admin comments do not carry any special weight, and unless you're specifically requesting that an admin use their tools, there's really no reason for this discussion to be here. --Jayron32 03:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with jayron32, not canvassing and no admin action needed MaskedHero (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is adding this news report from San Francisco Chronicle inappropriate?

    WRONG VENUE
    bring this up at WP:RSN or the article talk page instead. There's nothing for admins to do here.--Jayron32 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please let me know if there's anything wrong with adding this article to the Falun Gong wiki:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

    If you feel this article is not notable, not relevant, or inappropriate, I will agree. Or how best to add this news report.

    Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that Margaret Singer was a recognized expert on cults. Disclosure: I met her once. My thinking is that this is a halfway decent source, but that a claim this controversial should be backed up by a impeccable source, such as a book published by a university press, or something equivalent. And discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. They are bound to be controvesial. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically personal experience counts as Original Research which cannot be used here unless backed up by a reliable third party source. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the article itself. It seems to be reliable enough... (I have notified Zujine of this discussion as they seem to be involved in this. For future referance: You are supposed to notify them.) PantherLeapord (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads up, PantherLeapord. There are a few issues to consider regarding inclusion of this source. One issue is that User:Bobby fletcher has a conflict of interest, but I'll start a new thread in the appropriate forum to deal with that (see here). A second is that ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes. Otherwise:

    • The San Francisco Chronicle article is a reliable source for the claim that these three individuals presented their opinions at an American Family Foundation conference in Seattle in 2000. However...
    • When deciding whether this should be included in the article, reliability of the source is not the only concern. The notability of this event, especially when stacked up against the mountains of academic literature on falungong, is important to take into consideration, as is the broader context. If we include a news article saying three people giving a talk at an obscure conference 13 years ago, it opens the door to include all sorts of irrelevant things.
    • This article is not notable, and the views it presents are fringe views that have been discredited in more serious scholarship on falungong.
    • There are tens of thousands of news articles covering a range of views on falungong, and half a dozen excellent books, as well as journal articles. In order to summarise the views of reliable sources, some level of judgement and discretion is needed. Otherwise the article would become an endless battleground with people vying to have the news article they like included above the rest. To prevent that from occurring, when dealing with contentious debates, we endeavor to use the best sources available--namely high quality books dedicated to falungong, or academic journal articles, etc.
    • In the books and journal articles written on falungong, experts analysed why it was that a small number of Western anti-cultists were so eager to support the Chinese government's claims that falungong was a 'cult', and they explored the impact of that on helping to legitimise the government's human rights abuses and blunt the appeal of falungong to western audiences. That kind of secondary source analysis is worth including (and it had been included in various forms), but shouldn't be given undue weight. (An an example, Ian Johnson—who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of falungong—notes that falungong does not share the characteristics of a 'cult,' but that some members of the West's anti-cult movement had "a vested interest in attacking new groups" in order to keep their field of study relevant).
    • Back to the SF Chronicle article: the field of 'anti-cult' studies is a relatively obscure and marginalised one. The conference where these people presented was not an academic conference. None of the three 'experts' cited in the article held tenured professorships; one was an undergraduate student, another a grad student. None have published books on falungong. Their names don't appear in the bibliographies of the leading academic books on falungong (there are one or two exceptions, and in those cases, they are held up only as examples of how not to do scholarship).
    • Mainstream scholars and experts have thoroughly dismissed the idea that falungong is an 'authoritarian cult.' The views of Singer et al are fringe views on this subject. Mainstream views of real experts, published in academic and other high quality presses, should take precedence.—Zujine|talk 11:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, isn't it? I'm not sure how it relates to behavioral issues. The way the top scholars situate the cult argument when it comes to FG is to describe it as a propaganda tactic by the Chinese government - it is never actually taken seriously and analyzed on its own terms, largely because the term itself is disputed and vague. Bobby Fletcher appears to be using singular sources to further an argument that is roundly discredited by scholars. I'm not sure where that leaves us. "More discussion," perhaps. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Emmanuel College (Queensland)

    There's some trouble in this article on a secondary school in Queensland. Litigation of some kind is or has been happening, and it has spawned an edit war between, on the one hand, some (newly) registered accounts who keep removing the information (editing perhaps on behalf of the school) and, on the other, a couple of IPs (editing perhaps on behalf of the litigant). I've blocked two of the registered accounts (obvious socks or meats of a third) and have semi-protected the article for two weeks. I have removed the information, which relied on primary documents.

    Possibly the best way forward is for some knowledgeable editors/admins to have a look and see if any of that content is valid, if sourced to secondary sources. Or perhaps the content is valid with the sourcing there is, though I have my doubts, and it's certainly not written well. Your attention, Aussie editors, is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a punt at tidying the text and threw a lot of CN tags. I had a poke around on google briefly but found no news about the litigation, will have a further look Blackmane (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very minor affair. Litigation was at the lowest level of the Federal court system, finalised in a day, judgement given ex tempore, allegations basically were thrown out of court. Nothing at all in the noospapers for those very reasons. Mention would embarrass the plaintiff, not the school.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains that. I had a dig through with all the search combinations I could think of. Had it been major it certainly would have featured in SMH, Brisbane Time or the Australian newspapers, but nothing notable. I believe this can be closed. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's worth bringing to Admin attention, anyway.[102] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's absolutely and totally a legal threat, see http://aafm.us/wikimedialawsuit.html (linked in the edit summary). Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be a bit late to the party but this "lawsuit" is just... I have no words. PantherLeapord (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For an educational institute, they seem to have surprisingly poor command of the English language,
    HandsomeFella (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly interesting reading: http://www.visualcv.com/georgementz Peridon (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If only for the laugh, from http://aafm.us/press.html:

    "May 31 2013 - AAFM Sends legal letter to Wikimedia Legal Department promoting ethics, identifying conflicts of interest, spam and defamation. Wiki editors identified as non neutral. May 30th, 2013 - AAFM Becomes financial supporter of Wikimedia Foundation and sends"

    No, literally, it ends like that. Interpret how you may. --RAN1 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also one of the editors named in this and feel reassured by the comments above.Theroadislong (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Changied1, BooksWiki94, and Lovelky18881 - Multiple issues

    Involved editors:

    User:Lovelky18881 -- notified
    User:Changied1 -- notified
    User:BooksWiki94 -- not notified as user talkpage redirects to an article talk page redir cleared; notified per Thomas W.
    add User:Fresitabella‎ -- notified


    Admin Discospinster blocked User:Lovesexy189 [103] for abuse of multiple accounts. User:Lovesexy189 had just recreated a previously deleted page Yo soy Choncha [104].

    • Since that block, the above three user accounts have been created, with most or all of their edits having to do with Yo soy Choncha and its associated AfD where all of the above user accounts have posted keep !votes [105].
    • Additionally, User:BooksWiki94 moved his/her userpage in such a way as to create a double redirect. The resulting bot fix now means that User:BooksWiki94's userpage and user talkpage now redirect to Yo soy Choncha and its talk page.

    Taroaldo ✉ 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Another brand new account has popped up [106] and, of course, its first edits are to !vote to keep Yo soy Choncha. No subtlety at all. Taroaldo ✉ 02:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Redirect of User:BooksWiki94's user talk page removed and ANI-notice added. Thomas.W (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI-case has been opened here. Thomas.W (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tau article

    No one cares about your silly squabbling. ANI is not the place to re-hash your argument. Move it back to an appropriate venue please. No administrative action needed or requested. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After the recent RFC about the article not being a redirect anymore: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, which failed to gain support to restore the article, a number of editors John W. Nicholson Reddwarf2956 (talk · contribs) (most of his edits are about Tau) and Joseph Lindenberg (talk · contribs) (Tau is the only topic he has edited about in the last year), and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) have kept the argument going at Talk:Tau_(2π) and appear to be unwilling to accept the consensus and move on. This is despite numerous requests on the talk pages that they do just that. Rather they are again proposing a third RfC one month after the last one because they didn't like the results of the last one [107]. Can something be done about this situation? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Firstly, as a matter of fundamental principle, I do not accept that there can ever be a consensus on WP never again to discuss a particular subject, or even a consensus never to have any kind of article on a specific subject. So long as discussion remains civil I can see no reason at all why editors should not discuss possible ways forward in what seems to me to be a rather bizarre content dispute between pro-Tau and anti-Tau editors, of which I am neither.
    I agree that something needs to be done but there really was no clear consensus and certainly not one to delete the current article which is effectively what has happened. There was a AfD which resulted in a clear 'Keep' followed by a tactical RfC on merging with Pi. The merge never happened as only three sentences of the on the subject found their way into the Pi article; deletion by stealth in my opinion. Nevertheless, the so-called merge did result in significant disruption to the Pi article as aguments raged on a serious mathematical article about a subject of extremely minor mathematical significance.
    As I have said above and made clear elsewhere, I have no interest in the subject itself, it would be hard to find a less interesting area of mathematics, but I am interested in not allowing a group of editors to arbitrarily block the creation of an article or even discussion of the subject. For simply discussing the subject in a civil manner on the appropriate talk page I have been accused of disruptive editing, disruptive of what I am not sure. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesn't matter one iota if you aren't Pro-Tau. The consensus was in favour of maintaining the redirect. You are still arguing about the issue, despite the consensus against it, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestions on a way forward are welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    • The other side of the story needs to be told.

    "Editors here, please stop telling others to stop discussing this subject. There was never a consensus to delete this article and there was only a very dubious consensus to merge, which was never done; the article was effectively deleted against consensus. Several very sensible proposals for new names for this subject have been put forward which overcome the objection that an article entitled simple 'Tau' might mislead our readers into believing that there is any significant interest in the subject by serious mathematicians. One thing is for certain, there is no clear consensus that we should have no kind if article on this subject, in fact, I am not sure that such a thing is even possible within the ethos of WP." --- Wrote by "Martin Hogbin" at "09:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)" and backed by the current writer.

    In other words, the complete history of the tau (with multiple, different links which have been redirected to Pi#In_popular_culture), pi, and other related articles needs to be addressed and not just the most recent RFC. There is no acceptance of the article tau, no matter what is done, not even the suggestion of being fringe article which would put the article in a more neutral and rational light will work for them. It was even joked that even raising the dead would not be satisfactory because of their insistence and actions.

    The most resent ones on the other side of this issue which really do not want to 'stop it' and want us to ignore the article as to institutionalize it as keep it from having an existence even some time in the future: IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), RAN1 (talk · contribs), JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs), SudoGhost (talk · contribs), Tkuvho (talk · contribs), and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). Damage has already has happen to Tau_(2π) because of the ignoring of the article while they instituted a merge, as to delete, with pi. Clearly, it is not benefiting Wikipedia by not having information on an article, which also has a date of 6/28 (Tau day), available before hand.

    Note that, for the large part, the conversation has been civil, but threats have been made like the one at User_talk:Reddwarf2956#Tau.

    • I do not know the complete system here at Wikipedia, especially things like noticeboards and incidents, so I have only followed the link that IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) placed on the Talk:Tau_(2π) page about this section. If I knew who to write to and what to do, I would have done it sooner, near a year sooner, as to change the direction that this article has been following. I feel like I do not know what I am doing here, so if I do or don't something that is needed, then notice that it is not because I do not want to.

    John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would really appreciate some diffs to back up your accusation, because it seems like you're just listing names of people that have disagreed with you in some form on a talk page, which is rather pointless. I'm at a loss as to why you've included my name in some supposed conspiracy; I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, but you're welcome to try to find a single diff that shows anything beyond that. - SudoGhost 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to the notification system for letting me know my name was mentioned. So what have I done? I participated in the formal discussions that determined that there is no need for a separate article. Since then I have mostly been repeatedly referring to them to try and get some closure on this, as a small cabal of mostly SPA editors ignore consensus and process and refuse to accept the discussion outcomes. It's difficult to provide diffs to show the problem as taken singly the edits seem quite reasonable. But it's the pattern of tendentious editing as none of them accept consensus or take any heed of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the the three previous formal discussions
    Discussions since have taken place mostly at Talk:Tau_(2π).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I also do not like having my name being used here too. "it seems like you're just listing names of people that have disagreed with you in some form on a talk page" goes for Alternative account of User:Second_Quantization (dupe for spelling difference). I have never felt the needed to complain about how I was treated on Wikipedia editing until I made edits to tau and pi.
    When I say " the complete history of the tau (with multiple, different links which have been redirected to Pi#In_popular_culture), pi, and other related articles needs to be addressed" I do not mean one or two of the 'diffs', I mean all of them and including the talk and talk history pages, even the ones before I edited a single word on pi or tau. Listing each and every one of them would be ridiculous. If you (as a group) would recognize the 'consensus and process' and stop undermining of discussion outcomes this whole thing would not be an issue in the first place when some one tries to edit an article.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tau_(mathematics) "However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target." Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_3 There already was an AfD. While consensus there was to merge the article somewhere, there was no consensus as to the specific course of action. That was the purpose of the RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    "Result was merge to Pi. Delete votes were discounted, as this is not an AFD (although the accompanying text for a few delete !votes clearly suggested they supported a merge to Pi), as were comments along the lines of "keep because I like it. This leaves a good majority supporting a merge to Pi." -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

    "I would redirect this to a section in the article pi, I don't see anything in the article that warrants having a separate article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)" "That's because Slawomir recently gutted it, and we haven't rebuilt it yet. Here's what it looked like before. [108] Slawomir also deleted all mention of this topic from the Pi article. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)"

    "Merge and redirect into Pi. I defend Slawomir's removal of the blatant advocacy previously in the article and I don't feel that there's enough left to justify a stand-alone article. This can be revisited in a couple of months. Reyk YO! 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_2 "The result of the proposal was} not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)" "The result of the move request was: Page moved. Since the original move was done without any consultation of other editors involved in the article, I've reverted it, per WP:BRD. Any eventual move should be first discussed and agreed upon here. --Waldir talk 04:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)"

    And, more ....
    Note the dates of the two archives and the moves and RfC. These were happening at the same time frame but the results are what is important. It was the "removal of the blatant advocacy" that is the cause of the discontent. It is debatable if the information then was "blatant advocacy" then and even more so now. Clearly, the article was notable when the Articles for deletion happen, so what happen to it?
    The funny thing is I did not know what the word "cabal" meant until I started to edit pi and tau and saw how these article were treated and the word used some time back. In other words, I am not doing this for anybody else or even myself, but I am doing it for the reader and Wikipedia. But, the issue of any cabals holds a much longer standing for some of the other on the no-tau side. This is the reason I want the issue to be looked a back all the way to the start of the articles. If not, then there is a loss of actions and statements.

    John W. Nicholson (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A brief aside since I haven't had the time to write up a proper response, please have a look at Wikipedia's list of cabals. Take note of the preceding notices as well...On a more serious note, WP:TINC. I'll make a full response to the ANI mention later this afternoon/evening/late night/morning. --RAN1 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reddwarf, you have completely failed to address what I asked. You appear to have simply listed people that have disagreed with your position and listed them here as if it means something relevant; it does not. I don't care that you were brought up at AN/I, if you're going to in turn bring up others in response then have a reason for doing so and back up that reasoning with diffs, or don't bring it up. Saying "I also do not like having my name being used here too" isn't an answer to that and doesn't support any allegation you made or explain why you've included my name here. A few editors that just happen to disagree with you does not a "cabal" make. I'll say this again: I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, you are more then welcome to provide a single diff that shows that my edits related to this subject have been anything other than that, but if you are not capable of doing so then leave my name out of your nonsense. - SudoGhost 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank the notification system to do what lack of {{subst:ANI-notice}} can't. It's worthy of note that the IP 76.103.108.158 (talk · contribs), Reddwarf2956 (talk · contribs) (AKA Nicholson), Joseph Lindenberg (talk · contribs) and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) have not edited the relevant section on Pi within the last week and in fact have barely made any contributions to the Popular culture section in which the current information on tau resides, which makes it really dubious as to tau's "stealth deletion" as they haven't focused so much on adding to that section while waiting for tau to become notable enough to have its own article as to continuing to argue over an RfC where the result was no consensus. In doing so the aforementioned users failed to build consensus all the while, with the IP causing disruption in 2 section creates: [109] [110] [111]. For my part, I attempted to reduce disruption by refactoring (by collapse only) and asking the users to move their discussion to their user talk pages. The result was Hogbin and Nicholson reverting the 3 attempts I made at refactor. I tried to compromise in my last attempt by collapsing out a clearly disruptive section that served no purpose but attention-seeking, but in all instances my attempts at refactoring were reverted and contested with reasons that seemed to confuse Tau (2π) the crystal ball article with Tau (2π) the redirect, and afterwards simply resorted to WP:IDHT behavior: [112] [113] [114]. After those reverts I gave up to avoid violating WP:3RR and didn't refactor the talk page at any point afterwards. To put the main point forward, the aforementioned IP's disruption, along with a failure to just move on and start improving out the information contained within Pi's Popular culture section, has proved annoyingly disruptive.
    Furthermore, those users find it impossible to edit information related to Tau without a declaration of independence, viva la revolution! [115] [116] separate article for tau. I think it's also noteworthy that "Tau Day 2014" falls on June 28th, which is not-so-coincidentally in 2 weeks, which seems to be the reasoning for trying to shoehorn the creation of the article for this with disregard for process and is in fact the reasoning behind the first comment that resulted in this month's bag of worms. WP:DEADLINE seems very appropriate to consider here (although admittedly not policy, it does make a good point to this WP:CRYSTAL-related matter). Finally, I agree with Blackburne on the tendentious part, especially because the editing has been mostly WP:IDHT to literally no end as of this month. What should have been done was moving on from Tau (2π) to work on the Popular culture section in Pi, as arguing on the talk page of a redirect serves no purpose and until a new consensus has been reached it's dubious to discuss improvements to a nonexistent article on the redirect's talk page. The horse was killed, and it should have been left alone ages ago.
    As an addendum, though, why was Tkuvho mentioned? His only contribs to Talk:Tau (2π) that I can see here for the most recent discussions are [117] and [118]. The first one is a clear answer to the IP's question, and the second one is harmless. Not sure what he's been mentioned here for, so it would be nice to see some reasoning as to why he's been mentioned. --RAN1 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Not to mention David Eppstein, SudoGhost, and Arthur Rubin. I also don't know why I've been mentioned here, I'll leave my point of view up above. --RAN1 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the above claim by RAN1 that those of us in favor of a separate tau article haven't recently added anything to the section about tau in the pi article. That's because we've been repeatedly told it can't have any more space there. Three sentences. That's all it's allowed. Adding more about tau to the article on pi would supposedly be disproportionate. Which is why we've tried to recreate a separate article about tau, where more than 3 sentences could be written. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, where is the diff for the opinion that it should only receive 3 sentences? --RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously disputing the fact that on the Pi Talk page, we've been told again and again, ever since the tau article was merged into it, that tau could only have a couple or a very few sentences? Digging out all the diffs will take time, because there's been a lot of discussion about tau on the pi talk page over the last year. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seriously disputing your unsupported statement in light of the fact that you have not responded to any of my points, barring only this one. As for this point: if I don't know what you're referencing, there's no way to verify or identity the context in which you were told that the subject should only receive 3 sentences. It also applies to anyone reading this noticeboard since you've provided no links to support your statement, forcing readers to take your word for it. That doesn't help anyone with trying to decide how to discuss this, as one will be forced to make assumptions that may or may not be true to interpret this. With this in mind, could you please show the diffs for the opinions that tau should only receive 3 sentences within the Pi article? --RAN1 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Beginning just 6 minutes after the merge took place last year:
    [119]
    [120]
    I'll need time to go through and accumulate a full list. More wasted time for everyone. As I suggested before, if IRWolfie could just ignore the occasional posts on the tau talk page, instead of trying to silence anyone who breathes the word "tau", we'd all waste a lot less time arguing. Now, we're going to start a whole new round here. Great. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Something that needs to be understood by people not familiar with this dispute is that tau is a pretty recent phenomenon. A number of the editors who opposed creating a separate tau article now, acknowledged that it could very well continue to gain attention, and would then indeed be an appropriate subject for a full article. The votes in the last RFC were evenly divided between Support and Oppose for creating a separate tau article now. This is an issue in flux, not one that's been around for decades and won't likely change. However, I certainly agree we shouldn't have RFCs about it every few months. But there's no harm in letting people occasionally discuss the matter's current state on the Tau (2π) talk page. It's the best place for it. In fact, it shows real consideration, by keeping such discussions off the Pi Talk page, so as not to overshadow other issues there. There are no other issues to discuss on the Tau (2π) talk page. And it's where most of the discussion has happened over the last 2 years. I encourage IRWolfie to just tune it out until somebody actually opens another RFC. (Which has not happened. Somebody floating an idea on a Talk page is very different from actually bothering everyone by formally opening an RFC process. You know, kind of like opening this process here.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two problems with that. First it's the talk page of a redirect, not an article. There currently is no Tau article. There's nothing to stop you creating a draft of one in userspace, as Tazerdog did, which would let you (and others) work on it outside of article space without being disturbed, and would also mean you were talking (on its talk page) about a concrete thing, not an abstract "if we had an article maybe this would be useful". If you were able to resolve the issues raised in the last RfC the article might then be suitable for mainspace. Second much of the discussion on Talk:Tau (2π) is not about improving any article, but is simply thread after thread disruptively re-asserting that the page should be created, i.e. ignoring the outcome of the recent RfC.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, IRWolfie tried to silence people on the Talk page in Tazerdadog's user space too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two problems with having the discussion elsewhere. One, the history of the whole debate is getting scattered to too many places. I think it was a bad idea to have the last RFC on the Talk page of one temporarily involved editor's subpage. To examine the history of the debate on Wikipedia, you have to look through that page, the Tau (2π) talk page, the Pi talk page, the AfD page, and the WikiProject Math talk page. Let's not add yet a sixth place. The second problem is that new or returning people should be able to easily find out that the discussion is taking place. This whole debate started with the creation of Tau (2π) a little less than 2 years ago, and it's where most of the discussion has happened. It's the logical place where people would look to see if there's any new discussion. The Pi Talk page would be the other logical place, since it's where Tau (2π) now redirects, and where a lot of the discussion has already occurred. But we're being respectful of requests to avoid cluttering that page with discussions about tau. Finally, in the spirit of "Don't Feed The Trolls", I will again say, if you guys would just ignore the occasional post somebody makes that you don't like on the Tau (2π) talk page, that page would be a whole lot shorter. And we would all spend a whole lot less time arguing. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The history is that τ was coming along nicely until 2012-03-14:

    http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_(2π)&oldid=481917070

    When πists decided to wage war against τ. ¿Is not the timing interesting? The article clearly has sufficient notability and material. We even have a move-target:

    http://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/tau_(mathematical_circle-constant)

    The RfC had a consensus to keep and no consensus to merge. The consensus was to either merge of keep the article. The πists interpret this as only merge. The πists allow less than 1 paragraph about τ in π. I conjecture that when we pointed out to them that the radius defines the circle (see: unit circle) and that so therefore, the circle-constant is d/r, it upset πists to learn that they focused on the wrong constant.

    76.103.108.158 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • As stated, it is my conjecture, but if you look at the edit history, it in an incontrovertible fact that attempts to gut, delete, or merge τ started on 2012-03-14. ¿Do you know what people call YYYY-03-14? On πDay-2012, the πists started their war against τ. ¿Do you claim that it is a coincidence? just look at what the πists did to τ in 1 day:

    http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_%282π%29&action=historysubmit&diff=481930993&oldid=481917070

    That gutting which occurred on πday-2012 was only the beginning. πists have waged war against τ ever since then. ¿Do you deny what they history clearly shows:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_(2π)&offset=&limit=500&action=history

    76.103.108.158 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For those who claim that someone can add content to Pi#In_popular_culture here you go [[121]] [[122]]. John W. Nicholson (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For those who think the anti-tau people are are not emotionally invested when they have tried to hide writings [[123]], delete writings [[124]] "restore RfC: no you don't get to change the question mid discussion because you're losing the argument" [[125]], or simply will not stop antagonizing against τ. Or,is this just being overtly wikilawyering WP:WL on what really clearly should be a fringe article? Why are you not looking at the point of 76.103.108.158's statement "Is not the timing interesting? The article clearly has sufficient notability and material." Clearly, with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tau_(mathematics) results it is notable. John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wolfie's right. This is pure disruptive and tendentious behavior. If this were a call for a topic ban, I'd vote "support". Watchlisting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So now, you and Wolfie would censor discussion about how to improve an article on its talkpage. That says something. 76.103.108.158 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Slavić

    Slavić (talk · contribs) left a very profane message in Croatian at my talk page indicating he's disgusted, that we might as well remove all of his articles about Bulcsu Laszlo (and go fuck ourselves). This is just the last in a series of fairly consistently rude and intolerant messages from him. He has generally advocated a minority point of view on the matter, and in some aspects a fringe point of view; Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs) confronted them about it, and things just went from bad to worse. I got involved, trying to explain the policies, but without any real result, so I'm now asking for a fellow admin to end this silliness by enforcing WP:CIVIL on Slavić, as they're apparently unwilling to listen to reason. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But WP:CIVIL is typically not enforced by blocks (WP:NPA is, however) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not typically, but there's no reason it can't be. Regardless, he violated both of those policies, several times. WP:NOTHERE also comes to mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I right in saying that Slavić is essentially a single purpose account promoting Bulcsu Laszlo? Also, am I right in guessing that Slavić's use of Croatian on our discussion pages displays the same kinds of idiosyncracies that Laszlo is known for promoting? Has he ever indicated he might have a conflict of interest with regard to that person?
    I have speedied two of his stubs that were basically just plagiarized-and-translated copies of the abstracts of individual academic papers by Laszlo. If he continues to act up, WP:ARBMAC can be applied (since part of the conflict is evidently politically motivated and has to do with ethnic identity issues, that decision is pertinent here). On the other hand, I'd also like to point out that, if indeed Slavić is connected with Laszlo (or if he is Laszlo), then he may have a point in being not too happy about Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs) being active on that article, because the earlier incarnation of the article that was created by Stambuk in 2009 (and deleted per AfD in 2011) was initially a pretty blatant BLP-violating attack piece, so I'd caution Štambuk to keep some distance from the topic if possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be the same thing, yes, all that funky orthography and vocabulary. I suppose it's possible they have a direct COI, but I wouldn't go so far to assume that this minority is so minuscule that they couldn't simply be disconnected yet like-minded people. The references in the Vukopis article (that I recently deleted as it was an attack page) show that they occasionally get mentioned in Croatian mainstream publications.
    I've already informed Slavić of ARBMAC - I initially gave them the benefit of the doubt and didn't go for the harsher version of the template; in retrospect, I could have done that, too. Also, I've already censured Ivan Štambuk for the recent BLP violation on the topic.
    --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabarez = Tabarez2

    Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Tabarez2 as his sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their names and contributions to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I explained fully this with admin that blocked me. Please leave it in his opinion. Tabarez2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) To my mind, very obvious - but possibly mistaken in intent (WP:AGF). Blocked and warned. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no doubt about it being a sock of Tabarez, he even admits it here. Thomas.W (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've posted at the Tabarez blocking admin's page too. I've pointed out to Tabarez2 that a block on one account applies across the board, and feel there has been a misunderstanding on their part of how we work. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He returned again, this time as 2.178.181.147. Again, same contributions as Tabarez and Tabarez2. --Sundostund (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thereby moving his actions from the category "possibly good faith" to the category "bad faith". Creating socks even though he now knows that the indef block applies to him as a person, and not to a specific user account. Thomas.W (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it seems that he plans to start an edit war on List of Presidents of Iran. Of course, I have no plan to follow him in that. I guess he wants to add edit warring to his breaches of Wiki rules (copyright violations, sock puppetry and block evasion). --Sundostund (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has been blocked 48 h for block evasion by User:Future Perfect. Thomas.W (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He's back again, now as 2.178.181.45. --Sundostund (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now 2.178.185.87, this really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now Namejavid, same contributions as before. --Sundostund (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent abuse of rollback tools

    Quibbling about technicalities does nothing to help the encyclopaedia. No action required. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like a sysop to take a look at persistent abuse of the rollback tool by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs). Instead of reverting simple vandalism, he uses the tool in case of legitimate edits/content disputes [126], [127]. I warned him once already, but he deleted my warning [128] and continued to violate the rules [129], [130], [131]. Today, he did it again [132]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense. This is just part of Miacek 2 year+ long campaign of harassment and stalking, which has included edit summaries like shut up finally your fucking shouting mouth, crybaby! (directed at me), emailing other users and asking them start arguments and disputes with me [133] (!!! How in the world that isn't blockable I have no idea) or showing up on my talk page to leave highly insulting messages despite being asked not to do so [134] (this is of course why I removed his "warning"). For longer list of diffs see this [135]. Note that there Sandstein stated "I strongly advise both of them to avoid each other as much as possible". I have not interacted with Estlandia/Miacek since then. On the other hand he seems to want to continue with this bullying.
    Oh, and it's perfectly legitimate to rollback copyvios (or banned users, which is what those IPs were), especially when there's a big damn sign at the top of the edit page that says "do not insert X because it's a freakin' copyvio".Volunteer Marek 15:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not legitimate to use rollback for purposes other than reverting simple vandalism. None of the examples I brought deal with simple vandalism. As for your attempts to derail the discussion by your highly aggressive 'counter-examples' of my alleged wrongdoings, well, they just demonstrate your battleground mentality and have absolutely no connection with the issue at hand, i.e. your continued impudent violations of the rules of our community.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, pointing out that you're filing this "report" as part of a long term pattern of abuse, stalking and harassment is "battleground mentality" (which the diffs above clearly show). That's the Wikipedia way, if someone punches you in the face and you say "hey, that guy punched me!" then the attacker always accuses you of "battleground mentality" or not assuming AGF. It's a tired and frankly unimaginative old tactic.
    You also need to read when to use rollback, specifically "To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit and To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia). Yawn.Volunteer Marek 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Marek, just undo changes/use twinkle and leave a more appropriate edit summary and we can move on. Basic rollback is supposed to be used only for vandalism to avoid precisely this sort of dispute. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't use twinkle and I probably use edit summaries more then most. However, as I point out above, the policy states it's fine to use rollback to revert banned users or "misguided edits" (which is what repeated re-insertion of copyrighted material is). If you think that rollback should be used only for simple vandalism, then go and rewrite that policy page. But whatever, sure.Volunteer Marek 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no obvious proof to third parties, that you were reverting banned users. I for one, whom you reverted, am not banned. Say, where is the simple vandalism or banned user here [136]? Nowhere. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RE:Basalisk. I don't think this is enough here. He was warned - he ignored and continued - the matter was brought up here - all he did was to blame the user who reported him. No remorse, no understanding, nothing but aggressive assaults. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one, whom you reverted, am not banned - you mean this diff [137]? No, you were not banned, but you were asked repeatedly to stay off my talk page because you had a habit of showing up there to insult or abuse me. Yet you kept coming back. And *that* was disruptive (not to mention extremely rude), not the fact that I rollbacked your edits from my talk.Volunteer Marek 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest Marek, I don't disagree with you. I just think you'll have less trouble that way. This debate pops up every now and then and it's always the same drivel: is it just for vandalism? Is the guideline really relevant now that everyone can have Twinkle? It's just easier this way.
    Estlandia - what exactly are you asking for then? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Russavia's privilege to use rollback tool was revoked after the first case of misuse, I don't see why persistent and impudent violation of rules should be treated any other way. An official admin warning might be an alternative. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never bothered following the Russavia stuff and so I don't know the details of what happened there. This isn't really a clear-cut example of breaking the rules. Marek has already discussed how the wording of the guidelines endorses the use of rollback to deal with "misguided" edits and I think it's fair to say that there are problems with some of the edits he reverted. I've already told him to be more precise about he uses the tool (for his own good). Remove his rollback access? Really? On the basis of the smallest of technicalities? He could simply use the "undo" button next to the rollback one and have exactly the same effect he's had here. I don't really see the point in removing rollback access unless editors are edit warring with it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) And if you want to we can get specific about it. This supposed abuse of rollback occurred here. Of course Miacek/Estlandia doesn't link to the history of the article, which is here. Notice something? A red linked editor (probably a banned user, but nm) using two different accounts repeatedly tried reinserting a copyvio into the article. My first revert of this had an edit summary [138] which explained the reason. There's also a large orange banner on that article which appears when you try to edit it which says "For copyright concerns, please do not reproduce the list of estimated IQs from the book in this article. Pending permission from the copyright holder, it must be removed. See the talk page for more information. Thank you.". The continued reinsertion of copyvio was then reverted by two other editors, also with explanatory edit summaries "rm copyvio", "rv: remove the copyright violation (see the edit notice at the top, when editing the page); material is either unsourced, or is copied from the book; both are unacceptable". At that point, when the copyvio was reinserted yet again, after three reverts by three different people, all with descriptive edit summaries, AND a huge freakin' banner on top of the page which says not to do it... do you honestly think an edit summary is necessary and rollback cannot be used in this case?
    Which is why this is a spurious nonsense report filed by a guy that's been harassing me for more than two years on here. What *I'm* asking for here is some serious WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Basilisk, you know, out of my 40,000 edits, I've probably used rollback less than 30 times. Exactly because I do try to leave edit summaries or explanation etc as much as possible. But what you've got here is Estlandia who stalks my every edit who thinks he found a couple of instances which he can mis-portray as "rollback abuse". Of course rollback doesn't matter much anyway, his purpose here is simply to annoy and try to humiliate me.Volunteer Marek 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subpages and User:Nyttend

    Back in 2009 there was a discussion that got communithy consensus to deprecate using subpages for articles to contain comments. Some fall under comments, to do and the like. As of June 2013 there are still more than 22, 000 of these uneeded pages. I have been working to eliminate these by submitting them for deletion.

    I have started with the blank ones and the redirects to CSD. Others I have submitted to MFD. Multiple editors and admins have participated in deleting some and several have stated openly they agree with deleting them. Only one user, User:Nyttend has a problem and is claiming I am abusing AWB and has needlessly reverted about 100 of these submissions here. I previously asked the user to start a discussion if they disagree and they have refused intead to choose to simply accuse me of violating policy and threaten to take away AWB rights if I don't comply with his wishes. There is a clear consensus to get rid of these and Nyttend is violating consensus and policy by reverting them and threatening me. Can someone please ask him to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please provide a link to the 2009 discussion you're referencing? It's not clear, reading your post here, what the "subpage" issue is, or where/what consensus exists regarding that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages explains it and has a link to the original discussion. The discussion says the pages should be redirected and or blanked after any needed comments have been moved to the talk page. That has been done to these pages long ago so there is no longer a need to keep these empty pages. Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it sounds to me like the complaints you're getting on your talk page aren't over the fact that you're trying to delete these pages per consensus, but over the fact that you're using AWB to do it, because AWB is making a lot of errors, which means that in a lot of cases you're creating the pages just to insert a CSD tag. As a first step here, I'd say you should clarify with Nyttend whether his objection is to "CSDing comments subpages" or to "what he perceives as an unacceptably high error rate in tagging/creating comments subpages" - his answer to that will have a lot of impact on what the upshot of this discussion should be. If it's the latter, the issue is not the 2009 discussion, but instead what kind of error rate with AWB is unacceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec with Fluffernutter] I have multiple times warned Kumioko that these do not qualify for speedy deletion. This is not a simple case of "Nyttend is thumbing his nose at everyone else"; this is a case of Kumioko trying to get pages speedied that don't belong. I already explained the situation to him, already started (at his talk page) the discussion that he claims hasn't happened, and yet I'm being brought here for enforcing the CSD policy's wording of Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Kumioko's own words here demonstrate the absurdity of his argument: he says that the 2009 discussion decided to redirect and/or blank these pages, and he uses that as justification to get the blanked pages speedy deleted. Topping all of this, even after I explained on his talk page that these didn't qualify for speedy deletion, he used AWB to tag three hundred pages for speedy deletion, despite AWB rule 3, Do not make controversial edits with it — and after reverting them, I didn't even need to start a new section at his talk page, because people were already objecting to the way that he was using AWB to tag pages for deletion. I daresay it's controversial to tag pages for speedy deletion after an admin tells you they don't qualify. Are we now going to take admins to ANI when they call us out for tagging pages wrongly? Finally, note that Kumioko has started MFDs for some of these pages, and I've not participated because I don't particularly care; I'm interacting with Kumioko purely in the administrative role of going through CAT:CSD and deleting or untagging pages as appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I've changed the header — you didn't even follow the rules given at the top of this page, New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's partly true. Fram identified a few that I accidentally recreated a few because the toolserver was behind. Not because of AWB. There were only about 8 pages out of 500+ this happened too. I also asked for a change to AWB. I already verified all these and none are missing pages. Nyttend's issues are different. He disagrees with deleting these pages at all and instead reverting about 150 of the submissions. It has nothing to do with error rate. He doesn't seem willing to follow the consensus of the discussion. I agree that the pages could be kept and they aren't technically hurting anything. But why keep blank pages for a subpage system who's use has been deprecated. Some of these pages link to a WikiProject banner and some might leave a comment there thinking they are supposed too.
    I have submitted some to MFD and to CSD. In both cases all of the folks think they should be CSD'ed except Nyttend. In fact some of the MFD's I submitted were CSD'ed by the MFD folks and then Nyttend removed the CSD tags from them as well. So this is an issue of Nyttend not wanting to abide by consensus because he doesn't agree with it and doesn't like me. These pages are appropriate for CSD. I totally understand if Nyttend doesn't want to do it and he doesn't have to. But accusing me of AWB abuse and reverting them because he doesn't agree with consensus is unacceptable behavior and abuse. There is nothing controversial here except one admin not agreeing with consensus. And changing the header of this discussion to look more favorably on you is totally unacceptable. Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend. Also, most of the comments on my talk page have nothing to do with AWB and you are exaggerating what they are saying. Fram had a good issue and I addessed that. But it was an issue with the toolserver lag, not AWB and I asked for a change to AWB to mitigate that in the future. You have no valid argument. Swamping CSD isn't a big deal, there's no rush so the admins can deal with these whenever. I did all the work to identify them and submit them. All you have to do is delete them and there are about 1400 admins to spread the workload. I don't want to make work for anyone. I would rather delete them myself but I can't so you get to do it. Its not fair, but that's the way this system works and we all have to work through it. There is another comment asking for me to group the submissions together at MFD, but then at MFD they think the submissions should be CSD'ed not MFD'ed. But I can't CSD them because Nyttend will revert them. So one user, Nyttend, is causing extra work for a lot of other editors because he doesn't agree with a clear consensus. That is a violation, not me rgardless of how much some editors want to make me the villian. I'm just trying to get rid of some trash we don't need, isn't encyclopedic and is against consensus. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "why keep blank pages for a subpage system who's use has been deprecated" Because our speedy deletion policy doesn't permit it. You want a discussion, yet you try to get them deleted without discussion. You're trying to get me to violate policy, yet you complain that I'm violating it by enforcing it. Speedy deletion = no discussion, so stop objecting to an admin action and take them to MFD, which is what you're supposed to do if you want to get a page deleted after your speedy attempt gets declined. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your not even making a valid point. First, I'm not making or trying to make you do anything and I don't think I could. If you do something, its because you did it, not because I seduced you into it. Second, the discussion already happened, back in 2009. Additionally our policies clearly state that content that is blank, non encyclopedic, etc. can be submitted. It happens all the time. Third, at least a dozen admins have deleted articles I submitted with this process for these types of pages. More have commented at MFD or on my talk page that they think CSD is the right way to go. So either you don't like me being the one doing it (possible), you don't understand the policy (doubtful) or you are violating a consensus that CSD is appropriate (probable). Its also possible that there is a need to keep this trash that wasn't taken into consideration in 2009 which supercedes that decision and I need to stop submitting them. So that is why I started this discussion. To clear everything up. Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at like a dozen it seems apparent that these were empty pages, which had previously contained a bunch of vandalism, nonsense, or BLP violations. CSD was definitely the right route to go and Nyttend's rollback of all those tags is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially, some of the submitted subpages were not blank, and I declined those as speedy--the material ma y have been copied elsewhere but I had no easy way of telling, and I wasn't about to decide on my own whether the discussion was substantial. some purely blank ones I have deleted, and I continue to delete them-admitted, it's taking on trust that there's nothing in the history that hasn't been transferred.
    The part of this I think was wrong, was not giving notice somewhere of this deletion project before it was started. It's not just the WMF that goes ahead with something substantial without adequate notice. ~ that.
    I don't think I submitted any yet that weren't either blank or redirects. I did submit some to MFD and the MFD folks retagged them as CSD's. Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone else have any comments on this? I would like to get back on cleaning these up. Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Weirdness

    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suri_100. They seem to be creating an awful mess with page moves that will take considerable admin time to fix and generally blanking huge sections of articles with frivolous edit summaries. Pol430 talk to me 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea wtf they are doing... I think an explanation needs to be forthcoming (so far Suri has not responded). The most recent archive move makes no sense to me... Paulmcdonald has not changed his name either... and besides the point, we don't move RfA archives when people change their name anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Try clicking on Wikipedia:5yt... <shrug /> Based on their talkpage, which includes the fact that yesterday they turned off Cluebot, I would suggest there is a substantial competency issue here. Pol430 talk to me 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the Lear's Fool RfA to its proper name. If Suri 100 makes another page move, block them for disruption. Weird. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going through and deleting the implausible typos, and yes, by all means, block them if they do that again. Its a mess to clean up all the unnecessary redirects. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their sandbox User:Suri 100/sandbox, combined with the "I want to be an admin someday" userbox on their user page makes me wonder even more. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    sockpuppets at talk:phyllis schlafly

    Investigated; complaint has no merit. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:rjensen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User:schlafly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User rjensen is a sockpuppet of user sclafly aka roger sclafly her son who wants to own the article against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.54 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like the IP has a bias he or she is trying to push. Doxing Liberals (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have asked a User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, user persists.

    This user converted an article's citations to templates unilaterally contra WP:CITEVAR. This was an article he never did any other work on, it was IMHO a drive-by, and pursuant to CITEVAR, I reverted. Ever since, has refused to listen to anyone else's opinion contrary and badgered those who expressed such opinions and observations--and several users have informed him his actions were incorrect per CITEVAR. Regardless of that discussion (which I'd rather not get into here again because it has continued ad nauseam elsewhere...one of those discussions that will never end because of factional intransigence), I have asked this user on several occasions on my talk page to not contact me, and that I consider any further contact from this user to be harassment. User:Bender235 continues to contact me, and it draws me away from contributing to more productive work (i.e. adding information to articles) because of his badgering. Please warn or sanction him and instruct him to not contact me. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It took almost nine years on Wikipedia for me to see something as pathetic as this. As anyone can read on User talk:ColonelHenry, I conciliatorily approached ColonelHenry, and got rebuffed. Just today I pointed ColonelHenry at an open question User:PBS directed at him on WT:CITE. It is that friendly notification he considers "harassment". It is just pathetic.
    Right now, I realize ColonelHenry was never willing to engage in constructive discussion—one of Wikipedia's pillars. I have no intentions to contact him anymore, just in case this was not clear. --bender235 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When someone tells you clearly "DO NOT CONTACT ME" you don't contact them. The first time, not the twentieth. You have repeatedly ignored my clear, unambigious request. SERIOUSLY, BENDER235, DO NOT CONTACT ME EVER AGAIN. STOP STALKING ME. STOP HARASSING ME. STOP BADGERING ME. DO NOT CONTACT ME. Whether you consider it friendly or not (I DO NOT), I do not want any contact from you. It is a simple clear request. I don't care if you want to ask a question or point me to a discussion. I do not want any contact from you. What about that was not clear the first few times I requested it??? --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a second; are you seriously upset that Bender235 has converted and cited sources to verify the content on sites like JSTOR because it alters the citation format? Honestly; you should owe Bender235 some thanks because he has allowed readers to personally verify the sources contained within the document through online sites. This diff shows you removing links to valid JSTOR links which verify the content and expand the "Further Reading" aspect. Your removal of these valid links is itself disruptive. Bender235 replaced the links hoping you would know how to fix them for "your" style.[139] Also, WP:NOBAN, Bender235 seems to have made good-faith and clear improvements to the article and you wiped them out. He's tried working with you and you start screaming at ANI no less. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not the issue. The issue is I've asked him to not contact me, he persists. If he hadn't relentlessly badgered me on the issue, I probably would have incorporated the JSTOR material into the format already existing. If he were willing to accept any of the mine or other users opinions that opposed his conversion from non-templates to templates, it would have been easy to work with him, but he has resisted anything other than his own opinion. His refusal to acknowledge the other people who opposed him only increased his badgering myself and other users. Other admins informed him his edits were contrary to CITEVAR regardless of their good faith intentions. But that is immaterial. I've asked this user to stop contacting me, he continues to contact me. I am here today only to get him to stop contacting me.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOBAN, If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests
    How many times am I supposed to ask Bender235 to not contact me before I should expect him not to contact me?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote: "If he hadn't relentlessly badgered me on the issue, I probably would have incorporated the JSTOR material into the format already existing". There seems to be a serious ownership problem here too. Thomas.W (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas.W -- WP:OAS. Even User:SlimVirgin saw this wasn't ownership in discussions on the template issue. On the other hand, I do not want to be contacted by Bender235, I'd ask you to please focus on core of my reason for coming to ANI for assistance. .--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin is so negative on the topic of citation template that I would suspect this falls into one of her blind spots.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ColonelHenry refers to a discussion on Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Those "other users and admins" he is referring to are actually just one: User:CBM. The debate between CBM, ColonelHenry, and me was whether the above mentioned article should use citation templates the way I implemented them. We came to no consensus.
    Despite being constantly insulted by ColonelHenry, I stayed calm and polite. I "badgered" neither him, nor CBM. Anyone can re-read our discussion, if interested. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally find that when one editor tells another "DO NOT CONTACT ME" that it is the person making that request that is the source of the problem. This case would appear to confirm that general rule. Which of Bender235's communications do you see as harassing? Can I see an example of the reason you are declaring your talk page off-limits?—Kww(talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I want him to stop contacting me, and have already established my reasons for my request. I should not need to justify my reasons beyond stating "I do not want Bender235 to contact me". --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't established any reason for your request. That's the problem. You seem to believe that the issue of citation templates is one that no editor on Wikipedia should discuss with you because you won't listen to any of their arguments, regardless of their validity or merit. That's not a reason to ask people to stay off your talk page, that's a reason to seriously contemplate your own behaviour. As I said, the general rule is that people making the "DO NOT CONTACT ME" requests are the source of the problem. Here, it's clear that it's your intransigence over citation templates that's the root of the difficulty.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)x3 Actually it is an issue. You may not like Bender235's actions, but at least he's copyedited and provided a reason for the actions. You express on your talkpage that you reject the templates because you "hate them" and don't understand them. The templates made things easier to read, verify, and standardized the information. I'd consider that "good reason" to implement the changes; but Bender235 hasn't edit warred over it with you, instead began asking why your objection exists and try and resolve it through discussion. You are simply trying to avoid the question and consensus building process by trying to force no-interaction. WP:CCC may be happening and you seem absolutely against any changes you do not want; no matter the reason given. That's a WP:OWN issue. And you also added your "warning" inbetween posts which looks like you warned him twice, when he the timestamps show otherwise.[140] Generally; the one screaming "do not contact me" is typically the one engaging in WP:DE to drive the editor away and continue to exert an their established WP:OWNership over the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure someone will come along and claim that ColonelHenry's behaviour is justified by WP:CITEVAR, I will point out that it actually isn't: WP:CITEVAR discusses articles with "an established citation style" and the edits that ColonelHenry is objecting to were on an article with four or five different styles, depending on how you categorize the existing references. It specifically encourages "imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles".—Kww(talk) 15:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ColonelHenry just tried the WP:MEAT tactic to draw User:CBM and User:SlimVirgin into this. I recently expressed my concerns of seeing an incident like this happen under the watch of administrators. --bender235 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of the reason that this little skirmish started, a) did ColonelHenry actually tell you to stay off their usertalk page, and b) did you EVER return to his user talkpage after being advised not to? That is the question. The content/formatting stuff can and should be dealt with in another manner - this is about the issue as presented (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after I pointed him at the aforementioned open question on WT:CITE, he called this an "harassment" and asked me not to contact him anymore. I replied by reminding him a collaborative project like Wikipedia requires people to display a certain willingness to engage in dialogue. He then reacted with this AN/I.
    From now on, I will not contact him anymore. It is now obvious to me that he is unwilling to engage in any type of discussion with me, or anyone. --bender235 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really need to get the extra dig in there at the end? I can see why he wouldn't want to communicate with you if you insist on doing things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But then again, I felt I needed to remind him that discussions aren't bug, but a feature of Wikipedia. Plus I felt deeply disturbed that ColonelHenry is of the opinion that if he patronizingly decides a topic merits no discussion, everyone else has to obey and shut up (or "back off", as he called it). Maybe I'm misguided, but I still believe I did nothing wrong when I applied the above mentioned fixes to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, saw them being reverted, and then started to debate on the article's talk page (per WP:BRD). Was that wrong? --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - discussions about improving an article belong on the article talkpage - there's no argument about that. However, as the policies/guidelines you have now seen show - of course, as does basic human kindness - when someone asks you to stop posting on their talkpage, it means one thing: stop. Period. That does not ever prevent continued discussion about improving an article on its talkpage. Accusing him of never wanting to discuss with anyone is a bit of an unwelcome personal attack, in addition to your continued harassment on his talkpage after being asked to stop. Your communication regarding the article was never removed, merely one editor who did not want to hear from you further on their talkpage. You don't get to bypass that, nor do you get to add snotty retorts (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but when ColonelHenry first told me I was "harassing" him, I thought he misunderstood my question. Because all I asked was to hear the problems he had with citation templates. He replied unfriendly, and I apologized. In hindsight, I realize, it was actually his "first warning" for me to stay off his talk page, because he not only "hates" citation templates, but he also doesn't want others to asking him for the reasons. Now I know, back then I didn't. Again, I'm sorry.
    Let me explain: in my nine years on Wikipedia, I never meant to "harass" anyone. So when I'm asking a sincere question, and the other person replies indignantly, my immediate thought is that I have been misunderstood and therefore have to apologize. The thought that the apology itself is regarded as further harassment, and is ostensibly prohibited by WP:NOBAN, never crossed my mind. From now on, I'll approach discussions on Wikipedia differently. --bender235 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @BWilkins - To answer your first and second questions posited above. The first time I asked Bender235 to stop harassing me was 11 June 2013. He persisted, I told him to move on politely and forcefully. He persisted. I told him to move on several more times, increasingly agitated. He persisted (although he mentioned he would give up). Four days later and he still badgers--hence why I'm here. I've had enough of it and I want him to leave me alone--it has taken most of my energy away from contributing this week. What was wrong in this? He won't stop even if anyone (and several people have) told him why they disagree. Instead of going away, and getting back to something productive (realizing it's futile to argue when both sides have no reason to budge), he persists. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Psst...the question was not directed to you...it was actually rhetorical because I knew the answer, and wanted Bender to recognize it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with you on that one, Bwilkins. Asking people to stay off your talk page is a warning sign of misbehaviour. Certainly there are cases where it is necessary, and I won't deny that, but in a case like this it's more reasonable to focus on the reasons for the request than the infringement. Using such requests in an effort to refuse to collaborate isn't something we should be endorsing or enforcing. It's clear to me that ColonelHenry is refusing to edit collaboratively over this issue and is supporting himself with an intentional misreading of the guidelines involved.—Kww(talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ColonelHenry asked Bender235 not to post on their talk page. Bender did so anyway. Bender has now promised to stop. I don't think anyone wants to sanction Bender for the earlier refusal to honor Colonel's reqeusts. @Kevin, unless you believe that administrative action may be justified against Colonel, I would be inclined to close this as resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it specifically requires admin involvement, but I think that to effectively have given admin endorsement to ColonelHenry's behaviour was wrong. As long as your closure includes some statement to the effect that ColonelHenry is reminded that the purpose of such requests is not to stifle collaboration, I'll be quiet.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second Kww's sentiment and note that after reading User:ColonelHenry I'm concerned about an overarching WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. And while any user certainly has the right to ask any other not to edit their talk page, when they do so without just cause and seemingly to avoid a friendly content discussion it is generally a red flag. Sædontalk 19:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read User:ColonelHenry, I realize I better had not attempted to discuss this citation template issue with him. Apparently, not all contributors appreciate the cooperative modus operandi of Wikipedia. In hindsight, I wish I had read this "warning" on his user page earlier. It would've avoided a lot of frustration. --bender235 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be careful: I'm only endorsing ColH's authority to request someone leave their talkpage alone. I was quite clear in stating that it's important to review his editing issues separately, and encouraged that ... but this was not the right location to do so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm questioning whether that authority extends to this circumstance. I've never viewed these requests as as having much legitimacy, and this struck me as being a case where the justification was so weak that there was no need to treat the request as having any force whatsoever. The conversation certainly took a turn for worse on both editors' sides, but it was the refusal to discuss that triggered that.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It always does. You're right, however: if an editor is doing it simply because they don't like being told they're wrong (rightly), then it shows other problems. However, the protection of one's-self from perceived harassment always needs to be paramount. If it's necessary to address other behaviours through administrator assistance (who CANNOT be told to stay off) then so be it. You know, in the old days, Bender could have gone to WQA for that kinda help ... too bad such a place no longer exists (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiwide, there is not consensus about cite templates. So we all have to respect each others' opinions, and try not to "stir up" arguments that we know are likely to be intractable. To that end, Bender235 should have disengaged as soon as it was clear that anyone objected to his converting an established article from one style to another. Although there was already a conversation on the article talk page, Bender235 took it to the ColonelHenry's page, and continued prodding there after it was clear there would be little benefit. The best resolution here is for Bender235 to move on to something else and disengage from ColonelHenry's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bender235 asked multiple times which of the five citation styles used in the article was the one that should be consistently applied, and was rebuffed. He certainly got pissy towards the end of the discussion, but he started out trying to do exactly what WP:CITEVAR recommends: installing a consistent citation style across the article.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As CITEVAR said, he should have just used the style that was originally established. But in this case Bender235 was trumping up minor differences between citations in order to convert the entire article to use citation templates. He knows perfectly well there is no consensus to convert articles from not using template to using them, and that people are likely to object to such changes.
    Now, while using a minor variation in style as a way of gaming the literal wording of CITEVAR is a brilliant idea, in fact one of the key motivations behind CITEVAR is that if an article was established without citation templates, as that one was, then that is the default style if anyone objects to their introduction (and if the was established with citation templates, that is the default if anyone objects to removing them). It is entirely unproductive for Bender235 to badger editors, or try to open discussions on each article's talk page, when the general principle has been established for years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "unproductive [to] try to open discussions on each article's talk page" why? -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not care about some site-wide consensus, but only about the consensus at T:LSJAP. Instead of switching the article back to the citation style orginally introduced in 2006, I tried citation templates. Maybe, within this article, new consensus for change would establish. Unlike you, I don't believe the lack of site-wide consensus on citation templates should be used as a blank cheque to revert citation templates introduction everywhere.
    Also, if there's only "minor variation" between
    • Luthy, Melvin J. The Case of Prufrock's Grammar. (1978) College English, 39, 841-853.
    and
    • Sorum, Eve. "Masochistic Modernisms: A Reading of Eliot and Woolf." Journal of Modern Literature. 28 (3): 25-43. Spring 2005.
    then I don't know how "major variation" looks like. An interesting thing, too, is that the article's original citation style looked totally different from the one ColonelHenry imposed recently. One example:
    • "On 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'", from Blasing, Mutlu Konuk. 'American Poetry: The Rhetoric of Its Forms'. New Haven: Yale UP, 1987.
    and after ColonelHenry's change:
    • Blasing, Mutlu Konuk, "On 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'", in American Poetry: The Rhetoric of Its Forms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987).
    The only thing these two styles have in common is that they don't use citation templates. Plus, in the abovementioned edit, ColonelHenry first introduced {{rp}} to the article, which of course is a citation template as well.
    It baffles me to this day how an administrator, who's not favoring citation templates, can misinterpret WP:CITEVAR so bluntly. How he can allow one user to completely switch a citation style, but prohibit it to another one. And how, above all, he is entitled to cite his misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines to cut off a consensus-finding debate on an article's talk page. I see grave misbehavior on CBM's part. --bender235 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's cool how pretty much anyone can claim ownership of an article in three easy steps: 1) Revert a change, insist on talk page discussion; 2) Wait for talk page discussion to end up as no consensus (let's face it, on any article that's not one of the top-100 "hot topics", barely anybody reads the talk page); then 3) Demand, in a petulant, childish manner designed to push as many emotional buttons as possible that the person making the change refrain from posting on your talk page. What's even cooler is how few people on this project manage to see through this garbage, and instead make sure to patronizingly tsk-tsk the "change-maker" for the most far-fetched definition of "harassment" this side of the local BPD Support Group. No wonder people troll this place to oblivion, and no wonder so few new editors bother sticking around - nobody hangs out at the reject lunch table if they can help it. Also, shout-out to Bbb23, who caught my earlier screwup, but, in his haste to slap a level 4 warning on me, neglected to restore this particular edit. I'm not going to participate in AN/I under my I.P. address, so enjoy this obvious new-accountDaret Masampullmor (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I am here because that little box at the top of my window went red and linked to this page. IMHO there are in only four fundemental citation styles used on Wikipedia:

    1. Harvard (with a general references section containing the full references);
    2. footnotes (ref tag pairs) containing full references;
    3. footnotes containing short references (with a general references section containing the full references);
    4. footnotes containing full references to a source but the page numbers are displayed in-text (outside the ref tag pair) usually using {{rp}}.

    With an underdeveloped article with a few references, usually number 2 is the style chosen. But once the number of citation to the same book but different page numbers increases, many editors think it appropriate to use three. As {{harv}} automatically links the short citation to the long citation, this is often an appropriate time to introduce templates. As an alternative option 4 can be used.

    For reasons best known to themselves some editors are vehemently opposed to some citation templates such as {{Citation}} "I hate them. PERIOD.-- ColonelHenry", and use WP:CITEVAR to oppose the introduction of such templates (and they are often successful see Daret Masampullmor's comment immediately before this one for some of the reasons for this).

    In this case ColonelHenry was vehemently opposed to an edit by Bender235 and made that very clear by using the word "UNILATERALLY" in caps. However when previously editing the article to which ColonelHenry had reverted Bender235's edit, ColonelHenry had unilaterally introduced the citation template {{rp}} and hence introduced a new style (option 4 above) to the article. When I pointed this out by asking some questions in the section Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The point of CITEVAR, ColonelHenry chose not to answer.

    User:Bender235 requested that ColonelHenry answer my questions (because on the face of it his behaviour seems hypocritical ("do what I say, not what I do")). ColonelHenry chose not to answer my questions, (which is a valid response by ColonelHenry), but it allows other neutral editors to draw their own conclusions. User Bender235 should have accepted this and let it lie.

    This is a spat that should never have ended up here. User:Bender235 having been requested not to post to ColonelHenry's talk page, you should have respected that. ColonelHenry there is still time for you to reply at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The point of CITEVAR to the questions I asked.

    I suggest that User:Bender235 unequivocally states here that (s)he will now drop this specific issue (about the edits to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and the follow up sections on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources) and not contact user:ColonelHenry about it again. Given this promise no further action should be taken. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "For reasons best known to themselves some editors are vehemently opposed to some citation templates ... and use WP:CITEVAR to oppose the introduction of such templates". That is, of course, the entire purpose of CITEVAR, just like ENGVAR - to cut short a particular interminable discussions by making a firm rule that the status quo in each article should be respected. Personally, I like citation templates - but I have to remember that, apart from CITEVAR, there is nothing to prevent someone from removing all citation templates from every article they edit. The rule cuts both ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    protection of deceased users' userpage

    Class dismissed ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, could you please protect the userpage of User:Woffie, who is deceased already in 2010 [142]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why should it be protected? Are you familiar withWP:NOTMEMORIAL ? Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that's what Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines, the result of a looooong debate, says to do provided it's confirmed the user is deceased? – iridescent 19:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Toddst1, are you familiar with WP:NOTMEMORIAL? "Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space." postdlf (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is the why. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, I learn stuff every day here. Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issues with a User and with an Articles of Deletion page

    Closed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to raise some issues and concerns regarding an AfD I am currently invovled in, as well as a a particular user specifically. First off, I would like to request some kind of admin to try to bring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Beckwitt to an end. The arguments seem to be between a number of established accounts arguing delete (myself included) and a large number of anonymous (IPs) arguing keep, one of which should be banned (I'll talk about that later). The page has been kept despite all of that.

    Second, there is one user in specific who seems to have demonstrated a clear Conflict of Interest. IP:98.215.9.100 has been arguing to keep the page, as well as previously added the subject, Daniel Beckwitt, to the page List of computer criminals despite him having questionable notability. IP:98.215.9.100 has also been very vocal and combative on the AfD page, debating with many of the users saying delete. These things combined lead me to believe that IP:98.215.9.100 should be banned from wikipedia, at least for a period of time, and have his comments purged from the AfD since they are all very redundant and (honestly) pretty bad (lots of rhetorical fallacies, blatant attempts to compare X to Y when they have no real connection, FE compaing Daniel Beckwitt to Yves Chaudron claiming that the two cases are identical in notability).

    I am unaware how to use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to alert the other users of the AfD, but as my greivance is only with one user, who doesn't have a talk page or a way to communicate with him/her, I don't know what to do. Please feel free to edit this to alert others.

    Thanks,

    Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not uncommon for AFDs to be protected, which removes the issue with the IPs and SPAs. Although it does look like it would merit an early closing at this point. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason the IP address did not have a talkpage is because nobody had yet posted there. I have dropped a {{ANI-notice}} on their talkpage to alert them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As the admin who applied the protection, it was not done due to the arguments of 98.215.9.100 (talk · contribs). Protection was applied to due a mass of other IPs and new accounts making a variety of trolling/BLP !votes. I also revdel'ed those edits because they were way out of line. As I noted in the AfD, the closing admin (or any admin, for that matter) is welcome to review the revdel'ed !votes and accept or decline as they see fit. But I seriously doubt that any of them will be accepted. The protection has expired because I set the protection to the time that the AfD would normally close. I did not expect it to be relisted. Should the trolling resume, I would have no reservation in reapplying the protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Zvazviri

    User:Zvazviri continues to upload copyrighted images to the commons under a Creative Common' licence, and uploading and reuploading copyrighted text to Wikipedia. Administrators have failed to engage such user. 93.186.22.113 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there - Any chance of any diffs of the problems? I've had a quick flick through his contributions, but can't quite see any copyrighted text. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I've got through some more and I see quite a few issues. I think Bbb23 (talk · contribs) is on the case so I'll leave it in his capable hands. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm off to bed in a second, but I think there is more to it than we first thought. I've only properly checked one edit and I've found at least two copyright problems. The diff is here;

    Issue one
    His edit: "Led by young and vibrant team of advocates, East African Law Chambers has attracted clients from all sectors and industries, not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, among other African countries."


    From cb-lg.com: "Led by young and vibrant advocates who have achieved a strong reputation in the legal market and profession, East African Law Chambers continues to attract new clients from all sectors and industries. Our lawyers’ track records show that we have invaluable experience of not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, among several other African countries."
    Issue two
    His edit: "founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga Advocates has established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."


    From afmpanga.co.ug: "Founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga, Advocates has firmly established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."

    If someone could take time to look at a few more of his edits and warn/block/do nothing as appropriate that would be great as I'm about to go to bed. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo soy Choncha

    Could we please get an uninvolved admin to close this AfD? It's for a promotional page (already deleted and salted on es-wiki), and a slew of sockpuppets (see here) are vandalizing and personal-attacking. Thanks, Ansh666 06:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just thinking the same thing. Some of us have been dealing with this all day; I've had more than one on the go. Deletion is a foregone conclusion. Could we add salt and move on? Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and deleted the article because the outcome was so clear despite the discussion only opening yesterday. I've closed it to try put an end to the disruption; if anyone thinks this is a bad idea I'll re-open it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits

    User:151.230.165.242 (talk) made disruptive edits to three articles which have already been dealt with. However, the last person who posted on this user's talk said that this is your last warning. But he also made a disruptive edit on Xbox (console), which was reverted by another person but whom did not report it on the user's talk - so this user exceeded the limit and should now be blocked. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the last time this user edited was 4 days ago, nothing needs to be done here. GB fan 13:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is good, but if he makes disruptive edits again, I feel that we should block him from a time period of 1 week to a month depending on the edit circumstances. Leoesb1032 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP and 1RR

    The article List of cancer victim hoaxes is before {{afd}}. User:AndyTheGrump's excised all information about a famous hoaxster -- asserting BLP. They initiated a thread at BLPN#List of cancer victim hoaxes - person with mental illness included on list, asking those who focus on BLP issues to endorse their excision.

    At BLPN I said I thought the famous hoaxster was covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, and reminded AndyTheGrump that, at the {{afd}}, I had already provided 22 links to RS that showed that coverage of the famous hoaxster's hoax was (1) worldwide and (2) long-standing.

    When the BLPN discussion seemed to have run its course, I reported back at the {{afd}}.

    AndyTheGrump has subsequently disputed whether I was authorized to revert their excision:

    I think it is likely if I did revert the excision they would report me here for violating the special 1RR rule for BLPs. Could I request pre-approval of reversion of this excision, on the grounds that WP:WELLKNOWN means BLP never authorized the excision in the first place? Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admins cannot make content decisions. I'd say you need to discuss this on the article Talk page and go with whatever consensus develops - and I personally would avoid risking a 1RR violation until I had a clear consensus supporting me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, what "1RR rule for BLP's"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boing, discussions on the talk page, at BLPN, and at the {{afd}}, have already taken place. No one endorsed this excision. In the end, at BLPN, I think it is fair to say, even AndyTheGrump found his excision indefensible. Nevertheless, it seems to me he is acting like he can continue to oppose reversion. So I thought I would ask for assistance at ANI, as I see his apparent intransigence as a policy question. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked editor

    This ia a case of where the user, originally as User talk:202.43.188.6 ‎ has WP:PA another editor in editing the article Suharto with little or no explanation as to why, has been blocked for edit warring, [19:35 (Block log) . . Gnangarra (talk | contribs) blocked 202.43.188.6 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎(Edit warring)], the article was also edit protected [ 19:47 (Protection log) . . Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) protected Suharto‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)) ‎(Persistent vandalism)] and the editor is now wandering around the various scenes of the crime with a sock (duck tested not needed, so obvious) User:Purnomor as if his/her version is the 'right way' to edit the article [143], and that normal protocols of wikipedian editing or behaviour can be totally ignored.[reply]

    Seasoned editors of the Indonesian project had tried over time to reduce the size of the article, and have had similar issues with very similar editors - if it isnt the same editor as previous attempts on changing the article. It is highly likely that the language of the editor is not native english, which might have created some of the total reversals of the actual situation in the editors attempts to deal with the issues so far.

    It seems the protection of the article encouraged this editor to do [144] and also almost surreal comments at [145].

    Also re-tracing steps at Page protection - with comments in odd locations [146]

    If there is indeed someone prepared to look at this, please be careful not to be misled as to who it doing what, a careful examination of edit history should explain the issue.

    I suspect such an intrepid and incessant candidate for totally reversing the actual issue, might be a somewhat difficult character to hold a mirror to, in explanation. sats 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Purnomor (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I have appealed against the tyranny of editors who seems to insist that their way of editing is the only right way, and always seek to undo the hardwork and research done by others. This attitude is certainly very negative and will discourage others from positively contributing to Wikipedia. The editors show contempt and disrespect for contribution made by volunteer editor using well-balance reference articles. Hence, I've made formal complaint against this particular editor (Merbabu).[reply]

    Which I think goes to show what we are dealing with here. A limited of understanding what WP:ABOUT actually involves. sats 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So with the IP number blocked, and the new sock created - It is my understanding that a sock of a blocked editor cannot launch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/merbabu - as it would in effect be allowing a blocked editor to continue WP:PA unabated. I believe other remedies for the IP and the user need to be rectified beforer further damage to other processes within wp en ensue. sats 15:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Purnomor (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I will not be silenced on this issue. I also do not accept constant undoing and vandalization of valuable hardwork based on solid references done by certain editors. I also object to the constant personal attacks used by some editors to intimidate people attempting to add valuable information into Wikipedia.[reply]

    • @Puronomor, you should sign your posts at the end of each post, not at the beginning. It is obvious that the IP who was editing the Suharto article and Purnomor are the same individual. However, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with an IP deciding to register an account and stop editing as an IP. The article itself is semi-protected, meaning that Puronomor cannot edit the article as he's not yet auto-confirmed. That said, his brief history here has been disruptive. He has asked that the Suharto article be unprotected. He has started an abusrd RFC/U against User:Merbabu, in addition to posting at WP:AIV that Merbabu is vandalizing the article. He has also contacted User:Crisco 1492 and complained. He should probably be blocked for disruptive editing, which any admin is welcome to do, but I'll give him a little more rope to see if he has the ability to change course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Spencer

    An IP editor removed a small part of the lead sentence regarding what the musician Jeremy Spencer is best known for, i.e. being an early member of Fleetwood Mac.[147] The wording had been in place for seven years with no instability. I restored it, regarding it as uncontentious wording [148], and the IP again removed it [149]. I added a reliable source to verify what Spencer is best known for [150], and the wording was removed for a third time [151]. I engaged the IP on his/her talk page, which before long, became abusive [152]. I'd appreciate some admin input, please. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What he is "best known for" is a matter of pure opinion. To me, until yesterday, he was not best known for anything because I'd never heard of him. You ad nothing to the article by saying "X is best known for being Y" when you can simply say "X is Y". One cannot turn opinions into facts simply by finding a source for them. Want to start deciding which of Fleetwood Mac's songs were the best, or which of their guitarists were the best? I'm sure you can find sources for such claims. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=560184369"