Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EyeTruth (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 19 June 2013 (→‎Editor EyeTruth: tendenitious editing in Battle of Kursk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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]
    I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I think a statement from you would be positive, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --Kleinzach 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Too late. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should apply, but the self-fulfilling Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties already has lift off. Kleinzach 01:05, 18 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]
    "Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." User:Smerus wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:48, 17 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]
    My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. It's about power: the power to tell others what to do. Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Wikipedia that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, User:Nikkimaria who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes. Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. Jusdafax 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.
    Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we have arguments: "has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. [emphasis added]" Toccata quarta (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example WP:CITEVAR or WP:SHE4SHIPS. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of WP:OWN, that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a topic ban last year.

    This is not a new phenomenon. He was banned for a year by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.

    Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. Choess (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice from my daughter

    My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Wikipedia issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including BRD, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is more valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of WP:OWN who do not understand the policy that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sphilbrick: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

    User pages

    Classical Music Project

    Composition articles

    Composer articles

    MOS

    Templates for deletion (TFD)

    IMO a one revert rule-based approach would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. Kleinzach 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • @ Sphilbrick: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata BWV 103: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a cute example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    @Snappy, the up-coming change may mean that the problem with LL RE: County Tipperary may resolve itself. The issue with regard to County Dublin and Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown won't. And (without wanting to provide WP:BEANS), LL may then go on a crusade against Limerick city. So, no, I don't see this as a problem that will go away. --RA (talk) 19:03, 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]
      With regard to posting a notification of this thread to WikiProject Ireland, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing for examples of appropriate notifications.
      With regard to providing diffs, the issue is not individual changes but rather mass changes. So, unfortunately, you will need to look at the editor's contribution history. However, the more significant point is the community's patience breaking with regard to this editor (after several years). Hence, links to previous community discussions of his/her behaviour is more informative. --RA (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed wording

    In reply to Bwilkins, here's a proposed wording for the topic ban:

    Laurel Lodged is placed under an editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties (broadly construed). This restriction applies to all namespaces but does not prevent Laurel Lodged from participating in or initiating talk-page discussions with respect to the names or significance of Irish counties. The restriction will be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and may be removed by any administrator at Laurel Lodged's request after a period of 6 months.

    --RA (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked this thread be closed at the administrators noticeboard. --RA (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment about broadly construed

    I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted from editing adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties then let that be it. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To my mind, "broadly construed" is a way to ward off gaming. In the past, Laurel Lodged has sworn innocence by making distinction between "GAA counties", "administrative counties", "traditional counties", for example. It is what is mean by "Irish counties" that I mean to be "broadly construed".
    But, I'm happy to delete it (and I've struck it now). --RA (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that it means that discussions like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Overarching category structure and the GAA can go on. With the addition of "broadly construed" it is blocked off in my opinion. The Banner talk 18:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrative action again User:Curb Chain

    Curb Chain is topic banned from editing list articles and their talkpages, and all listrelated entries on noticeboards, broadly construed, for six months. This means, for example, that they can't nominate lists at WP:AFD or take part in list discussions there. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

    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 [42]. 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).[43] 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 [44], 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]
    • Curb Chain's response doesn't entirely fill me with confidence. I'm pretty sure the fact it wasn't a content fork was quite obvious to most editors, and the assumption of bad faith seems to have been based on facts (ie, your constant changing of arguments, and your blanking) as opposed to groundless reasons (whether you were actually acting in bad faith or not.) Particularly with a worrying history presented above, (note: I'm ignoring anything to do with the Deutsche Telecom IP range here) I feel something needs to be done, even if it's not a big sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 16 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]

    Topic ban proposed as alternative to block

    No, the response doesn't fill me with confidence, either. Curb Chain's interest in mentoring seems quite slight, which is perhaps as well, since nobody has offered. Curb Chain, I don't understand very well why you haven't even "looked through the whole thread in detail", or why you didn't respond to the first ping, seeing as you've been editing ever since it was posted.
    Topic banning Curb Chain for six months from lists, broadly construed, seems a good alternative. Lists, their talkpages, listrelated discussion on noticeboards, etc. Anybody for, besides 86.121.18.17 and RockMagnetist above? Please comment below. If not, my first suggestion to block for one or two weeks stands, since there seems to be consensus that the user has been disruptive and wasted much time, per discussion above, especially Postdlf and Mike Cline. Montanabw makes a good point about previous ANI discussion and the lack of record, too. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comments on list topic ban in lieu of block:
    • Sounds about right to me; given the history of this editor, and their very mediocre response to this thread, means I support the topic ban, although I'd prefer it to be more like 3-4 months as the first iteration of such a ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with list topic ban, broadly construed. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on ban, support something: This editor has a pattern of just going on to another topic when things get too hot in one place, I mean this editor has edit disputes everywhere from ice luge to banofee pie (really: here and Talk:Banoffee_pie); I don't oppose a topic ban, as something is better than nothing, I just don't think it will do any good. I think a short block is better. Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support list topic ban, broadly construed. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Per the evidence presented above. As Montanabw says, this specific problem is far from the only disruptive behavior CC exhibits, but it's the one under discussion at the moment. It's my hope that a sanction in this instance might convince CC to reign himself in in those other areas as well. It seems likely to me that having gotten away with a variety of things, CC may feel somewhat invulnerable to community action, and a specific well-deserved topic ban may help to pierce that feeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as long as the broadly construed language is present. Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment about broadly construed

    I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that you've posted this exact same comment in three separate pending ANI postings regarding three different proposed topic bans for three different users, and so this has nothing to do specifically with Curb Chain and whether any kind of topic ban is appropriate. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No not specifically and I am seriously thinking about wasting some time on an RFC to discuss the broadly construed verbiage in general but I cannot support a ban or sanction as long as it contains the broadly construed logic that all too often only proves to give people a justification for enforcing their POV. Its too open to interpretation and is counter to fostering a collaborative environment. If an editor does something wrong I support that we need to do appropriate action to remedy the situation. But giving car blanche to 1400 Admins with a wide variety of interpretations isn't appropriate. We need to be clear and if necessary revise the sanction later. Not just add fancy wording for "and other stuff". Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [63]. 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 IRWolfie- (talk · contribs). 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. [64] 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: [65] [66] [67]. 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: [68] [69] [70]. 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! [71] [72] 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 [73] and [74]. 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:
    [75]
    [76]
    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 [[77]] [[78]]. 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 [[79]], delete writings [[80]] "restore RfC: no you don't get to change the question mid discussion because you're losing the argument" [[81]], 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.

    Incorrect close?

    As an involved admin, I'm not going to revert the closure, but I believe IRWolfe was asking for a topic ban on certain editors, which would be an administrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this close does not make sense. The issue is direct and about behaviour, something which ANI is amply suited to deal with. The editors named won't move on, I'm suggesting a topic ban on Tau discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have to do is stop telling people to stop talking about tau, and they will stop talking about it. Somebody occasionally posts some small post, and you immediately try to hide it, or delete it, or tell them they can't talk about it. You're doing it again here. That really offends some of us, and we end up in a long drawn-out argument. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur, topic ban for what?? For discussing a subject in a civil manner on its talk page?? As the closing admin suggests let us continue to discuss the subject in the proper venue, the Tau talk page. Those not interested need not join in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no closing admin; it was a non-admin closure. And the issues of editor behaviour, as detailed above, were not examined in the closure. This really should be looked at by an administrator.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some quotes to think about:

    "The close of the RfC looks suspect. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'd indef block that non-admin until they learn their place. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"

    "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)"

    ".... The result of this RfC is that this article is not yet ready for mainspace. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)"

    So, are you saying that your shopping for a closer, which has now backfired, is not good anymore? I think you do not except his close here you also can not honestly say this: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, was not a good close for the same reason that you state here plus shopping for a closing "Superuser" with:

    User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#Closing_RFC:_suggest_creation_of_the_article

    "Closures cannot be overturned simply because the closer in not an admin. This is not the correct venue for a review. See above and this RfC. (Though I do agree with that the close was more a supervote than a summary.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

    the link "1.60.151 User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability" at [[82]]

    It is your choosing to resurrect or to bury it.

    Your arguing shows everyone that you do not want to drop it and not the pro-tau side. And, realize that by resurrecting it you have nothing to complain about with the pro-tau side trying to keep things fair and balanced by requesting someone, hopefully an administrator or a group of administrators (odd numbered as to end this), to resurrect the RfC (or starting a second one), but with a twist. The person who does the closes must be fair and balanced (and show it by doing the following). The new RfC would request a review of all of the history, including deleted statements, even back to the start of every 'tau' page and pi. All of the talk, personal pages like talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant), and edits on related pages like (as to mean 'not limited to') Circumference, Radian, Radius, and the link "1.60.151 User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability" located at [[83]]. Also, this RfC reviewer would look at the article notability as a fringe article as well because the first RfC was commented on many times that the was was intended to be a fringe article. Finally, if the article is closed without creating a article or restoring an article, then the closer needs to state what is needed as a fringe article to be an article without resurrecting Euler and peers. In other words, state what is lacking with all of the references stated in all of the article attempts and both in and since the attempted close of Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant) in a way that shows the fringe notability and show what happen to the notability and the article of tau since the following qoute in the AfD?

    "The result was keep. An interesting discussion, with a few different points of intersection. First, the keeps have the better of it from a notability standpoint. The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage. Thus, the administrative action here is to close the discussion as keep. 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. So, I am making an simple editorial decision (which anyone should feel free to revert) to move the article to Tau (2π), and there is absolutely no prejudice to further move or merge discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)" [[84]]

    We (all involve in this article) don't want to waste your or my time right now (I am sure you don't too). We are all tired of all this gaming the system just to keep this one article from existing. We are tired of the Wikilawyering. We are just tired too. We can keep on, but that is up to you. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I see we're back at WP:FACTIONS again. Joy. --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On a slightly more hilarious note, I would also like to request, in keeping with your above provisions for your "RfC with a twist", that the designated closer be a Defender of The Truth as only those who defend The Truth are fair and balanced enough for your RfC, not to mention capable of reviewing half a dozen un/semi-related articles and more than a few hundred comments across multiple talk pages, and then after all that be able to single-handedly judge the notability of a fringe topic. As if that wasn't enough, they have to crystal ball when that topic is sufficiently notable for its own article. I think the person you are looking for is one whose knowledge of The Truth is so expansive that his or her title is, to borrow (and slightly modify) a term that you used, a WikiJudge. I have never heard a more convoluted attempt to try to shoehorn an article in.....by spamming RfC conditions so consensus ends up taking the back seat. I think that's enough said for your "RfC with a twist", I'm going to sleep. Good night. --RAN1 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to go to sleep too, so I'm just going to suggest that a little time can be the wisest judge of all. Instead of empaneling two juries of Solomons (one jury to decide the issue, then to be ignored, when we appeal their decision to the second jury), let's see if the answer isn't clearer after a few more months. In the meantime, pro-tau-article-now editors please stop demonizing anti-tau-article-now editors, and anti-tau-article-now editors please stop shushing pro-tau-article-now editors. Good night. (This is beginning to sound like the Waltons.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:53, 18 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]
    Blocked by FuturePerfect. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That guy is really stubborn. I've caught him on five different IPs by now, plus this sock account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an RFCU should help, considering he's evading this block now. I'll open one now. Dusti*poke* 19:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tabarez Dusti*poke* 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, some additional information is needed to kick off that SPI. --Sundostund (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They declined that SPI request. I don't understand why, its so obvious this is a sockpuppet case... Maybe a new SPI request should be open. --Sundostund (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Subpages and User:Nyttend

    Might as well close this since no one cares or is willing to do anything about an admin violating policy and consensus. Kumioko (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 may 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    Ok, if no one else has any comments I am going to continue on with the cleanup of these comments pages. I am going to take silence as consent unless someone tells me otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've said here is sufficient explanation and notice, and if you want to do the work, just continue. But it would help us at patrolling CSD if you didn't do more than about 30 in a batch because otherwise it tends to take away attention from the urgent stuff. It helps if CAT:CSD is on a single page. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I can do that. I still think that there is no rush so they can sit there until you get the time to get to them but that's fine. I think there are only about 200 blank ones left including the ones that got reverted. Kumioko (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can some admin please take action on this. User:Nyttend has again reverted my edits, against consensus because he feels that his opinion over rules what is a clear consensus from multiple people here, on my talk page and at MFD that these blank comments pages are CSD appropriate. He just reverted another 30 and threatened to block me for reverting his reversion. Here is an example of where he is now edit warring over these CSD submissions: [85], [86] and [87]. Certainly this isn't acceptable behavior for an admin! For one of the trusted elite! Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, hold them horses: this is serious copyright violation. You cannot merge comments to a talk page and then delete the page that has the contribution history. This should stop for all pages where the material has been merged (redirection is fine, deletion is not), and all speedies where this was the case should be undeleted.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no copyright violation involved. Most of these contain BLP violations, vandalism or unneeded comments like this is s a stub from before we used the WikiProject banners. Keeping them is more of a violation. Kumioko (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That logic is impossible to square. If the comments are unneeded and certainly if they're BLP violations, they should never be merged in the first place. And if we don't merge content to the talk page then there's no copyright problem in deletion. It's the comments that are being merged to the talk page whose source page histories must be kept. That's a patent copyright problem. Are you implying that you've studied each of the pages you tagged for speedy deletion and that had merged content on an individual basis, determined for each that the content that was merged should not have been, then didn't bother removing the merged BLP violating content and then tagged the source for speedy? Obviously not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Some comments are useful and need to be merged. Others are not and should not be merged. Also, even if these pages are deleted they are still available its just that an admin would need to look at it. Not that it is being lost forever. Most of these contain outdated and irrelevant information like "Article is a stub", "Article needs references" , etc. Some contain vandalism, blp violations or are just blank as I mentioned. Nearly all of them are prior to 2009 and just not needed. And there is no copyright problem copying comments from a Wikipage to another wikipage. Wikidata isn't copyrightable, its freely distributable. And actually I did look at the vaste majority. Of the 500 pages, I pulled them into AWB, then I isolated the blank pages from the roughly 22, 000 other pages. Then from that last of about 500 pages I scanned through each one and using the history tab on AWB reviewed the histories. Many didn't even have one, the page as created and that was it. So yes did review them. Although it is possible I missed one so if you do happen to notice one that isn't correct, please let me know. Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears from his talk p. that I have persuaded Kumioko to use MfD instead of speedy. ( I myself have no objections to speedy, but if someone else does, then mfd is the way to go.) That should end the matter here. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Weirdness

    User has acknowledged the issue and the current editing doesn't appear problematic. Glitches happen. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    I think at this point a block would work, if for no other reason than it forces an explanation. But mjy spidey sense says this is an experienced troll. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wondered about compromised account, but 'little brother' wouldn't start off by moving AfDs. Possible, but vanishingly unlikely. Peridon (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [88]...if we want to AGF then that shows that the user has no WP:COMPETENCE whatsoever; if not, then it shows that they're a liar. Both fairly undesirable. Theopolisme (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked editor

    Purnomor indeffed by User:Gnangarra.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 [89], 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 [90] and also almost surreal comments at [91].

    Also re-tracing steps at Page protection - with comments in odd locations [92]

    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]

    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). Purnomor (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[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]

    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. Purnomor (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KhabarNegar

    I believe that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.

    He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions Against Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. He was taken here before but it feel through the cracks (result here).

    Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article (eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does (edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio (article history). He ignored the discussion in the talk page unless his version of the article is not the current version (eg here).

    Currently, there's an opinion piece being used to support facts, rather than opinions (WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion demands an inline qualifier). Furthermore, the supported text is taken directly from the article without quotes in violation of WP:COPYVIO. I don't think he actually understands any of these concepts, due to a language barrier. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.--Isaacsirup (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that Khabar's edits are problematic. First, they are edit warring. Second, their version has three copyright violations, two in the lead, and one in the body. Third, their edits are non-neutral as they are supported by opinion pieces (mainly one). I don't think their language skills are the problem. They may not be perfectly fluent in English, but their communication skills appear more than adequate. At best, they have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor's viewpoint: User:KhabarNegar has been frustrating to work with because he doesn't seem to understand policies and takes offense easily. Just one example below; too tired to look up a few more:

    • June 7 at Right-Libertarianism using very poor sources he attempted to define the term as an actual philosophy, against the existing sources which support the consensus on the talk page.
    • June 7th I reverted this writing in relevant portion: "can't used self-published webpages and little known groups as refs"
    • His response was to revert to his material and put "citation needed" next to every one of his sentences.
    • At this June 8 diff left an edit warring notice on his talk page
    • Complaint on my talk page about edit warring notice: "When I see your harassment on my talk page, based on nothing just a harassment attack I couldn't believe what I seen there. Never try to put your view on anyone using force even if you think you will make him frightened. It is just not good, & I think it is not just you. I really cannot believe your harassment there based on nothing when actually you were not true, where actually I talked to you on Talk page of the article."

    At the very least he needs some strong mentoring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of those who has been patiently trying to explain to this user for many months why his behavior on Sanctions against Iran is inappropriate, I am glad to see some serious discussion. Mentoring hardly seems sufficient. He has had his chance. Even though he sometimes makes valid edits, he often makes problematic ones and then will not permit any corrections to his edits, even with a clear consensus against him. As a result, any article he edits loses credibility. I don't know what the appropriate sanction is for this behavior, but something needs to be done to correct the damage he has done and prevent further damage. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Comment

    Thank you guys, First of all The stories you have given are not true stories... I will come here in next few hours, meanwhile kindly please gather anything else you may think is useful because I will comment just once, so please don't make anything remain. Specially Users:TippyGoomba & User:Isaacsirup you better have explanation for some edits by you. So, I will be here in few hours(right now I'm busy) please gather everything you think may can be useful. Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the beginning of your statement, and is a precursor to seeing your overall attitude, this will not be going well for you in the near future ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    KhabarNegar, please remember that contributors to this page are not paid staffers, but unpaid volunteers, many of whom lead busy lives as well. Each will contribute when they can. There is no deadline, so this doesn't have to be resolved today. While I haven't been here forever, I've been following this thread for quite some time, and do not recall anyone whenever requesting that all other parties should respond quickly so that a single response will be sufficient. I'm quite sure that no such request has been granted. If you would like to propose a change in policy, we can show you where to make such a request, but I urge you not to waste your time, as I am quite sure the community will not find such a request reasonable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Above there are lots of words mostly wrong stories and lies, and only 11links provided which are about 5 different interesting issues:

    1- [93]

    2- [94]

    3- [95]

    4- [96]

    5- [97]

    6- [98]

    7- [99]

    8- [100]

    9- [101]

    10- [102]

    11- [103]

    1- According links (1&2&3&7&8) User:CarolMooreDC should be warned not to give fake wrong warning to other user and should be mentioned about WP:Ownership.

    2- According link (4) I should give one explanation and some links, although it doesn't against about violation of a Wikipedia rule.

    3- According links (5,9) User:TippyGoomba acted against WP:3RR, and done WP:Trolling. Its easy to prove that and you will read it below...

    4- According link (6) you will see its actually again removing sourced parts of the article ignoring Talk page of article & again WP:Trolling, all details provided below.

    5- According links (10,11) you see personal attacks and trying WP:harassment, which is continued till now by making this section here.

    OK, now details and the real story with more links:

    Case 1:

    The lead section of Right-libertarianism have no source so editors come and add anything they thing is true to the lead [104] .

    And this continues [105],

    I was watching that [106], and so I decided to make the lead section sourced so to stop this [107] . User:Carolmooredc revert me, and made the lead without sourced again [108] the reason she gave was that the sources are not Reliable! my reason was at least they are better than no source original research so why you revert me? Then she gave an alert of edit waring in to my talk page also actually she was the one which revert me twice, plus in talk page of the article I was discussing and they are users who tell she is wrong. This is the warning she gave me[109] just because of editing on the article, she had told I will be blocked? The question is why? and isn't it an attack?! When there is actually no edit waring giving warning for what? telling you are going to be blocked?

    You may check Talk Page of the article for more information. It is so useful, I strongly recommend checking the talk page of the so called article.

    Case2:

    Case tow is the only case which is actually not a lie. I'm talking about these edit[110].

    And now the reason of this edit:

    Here in this edit User:NickCT joined User:RightCowLeftCoast & User:TippyGoomba in remove of a part of the article. In this RfC [111]. As you see the reason he gave is "Remove' - Poorly referenced. Clearly a matter of opinion and Wikipedia is not opinion."


    He is talking about this [112],

    By the way when I explain to him that [113] & [114], because it was obvious he didn't even see the sources, as you see.

    Then instead of changing his vote, he changed the words[115].

    So then I said this at last [116],

    and he told this[117], that is the main whole story.

    Case3:

    About this[118] User:TippyGoomba Forcing to archive the Talk page of the article and the reason I am disagree with that now.

    User:TippyGoomba starts this RfC[119],

    although we have talked about anything before in the same page above.

    When I joined the RfC User:TippyGoomba said:"I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion."! [120]

    Then I said!:

    ""I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion.", Nice joke, Thank you. But don't forget all people are able to read and understand this.... "[121]

    Then suddenly he decided to archive the talk page! [122]

    ...

    Once again read above if anyone don't get the point...

    ...

    [123] No Comment...

    Then he went to Village pump on about this Talk page & the answer he got is interesting: [124]

    But he continued putting archive bot on page...! again. [125] & plus again & again...

    I said: "They are necessary PLEASE DON'T DELETE THEM AGAIN. STOP IT."[126]

    and this continued by him again & again & again...

    I said:"Its says It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, there is no rule. Its helpful, There is active dispute in this article do not archive previous discussions." There was active discussions and RfC in the Talk page[127]

    No Use:[128]

    I got tired...

    and its done[129], talk page is archived...

    and this is the only link he is giving to you [130] :))


    He this time make it 60d [131] Archive bot...

    Case 4:

    About this removing by him [132],

    I asked[133] him to say which part have problem and he wants to remove first in Talk page, so we can see if he is right...

    But no use he didn't answer and continue removing parts of article, [134]

    and this removing continued: [135]

    Case 5:

    I want an admin take action I'm tired of these attacks and harassment, here User:NPguy [136], Then he copy pasted the same thing in WP:ANI! I was unaware of this![137], [138]

    Thanks, if anything else is there please bring it here. Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. WP: TLDR is another issue added to the list. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Friendly bump :). TippyGoomba (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Still hoping someone can have a look at this. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy cow, I would rather slam my head repeatedly in a car door than read all this mess, but I'm reading all this mess. I don't have the full story yet, but it doesn't look good for KhabarNegar so far. I see a serious clue deficiency, warring over archiving using arguments like "don't worry about performance" (we don't worry about server performance, we DO worry about people trying to read using a smart phone or tablet, or who don't want to read a million lines of text on any computer...). Still reading, but wanted to say I'm looking at it, and encourage any other input here as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read virtually everything here, trying to understand the context of the entire sequence of events to the best of my ability. I absolutely hate these types of conundrums. The short version is that KhabarNegar's enthusiasm exceeds his clue to the degree that it is causing disruption for a number of people. While he may have some good intentions mixed in there, his methods are fatally flawed. Edit warring, copyvios, misunderstanding policy to an extreme degree, not understanding what is and isn't a reliable source. I don't want to claim incompetence, but it is an inability to cooperate in a collaborative environment and abject misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I think his language skills are adequate to communicate, even if not perfect, but there is a serious listening problem. There are only two possible scenarios here and both require mentoring, learning the policies on sources and copyright as well as pledging to cooperate in a way that does violate the spirit of WP:TE. The only real question is whether or not a block is needed. At this point, the disruption and intensity is such that I can't help but to think an indef block is the only way to immediately stop the disruption while he works on the other issues. This shouldn't be seen as an infinite block, but it should stay in place long enough that the editor is able to gain some clue on what the community expects from every editor, themselves included. Unfortunately, I feel like I don't have a choice here. I have implemented this block and would ask that volunteers work with him to get him up to speed on the expectations around here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roscelese behavior

    User:Roscelese has issues edit warring, violating the 3RR, taking ownership of articles, and frivolously using warning templates to intimidate others. My first (and last) interactions with this user occurred tonight, so this really isn't about me. If Roscelese has this much disdain for the rules and has bullied and stalked at least 2 editors this month, then it's probably safe to assume that this has been going on for a while, pushing other editors away from wikipedia and lowering the quality of articles. I'm sure that this intimidation and warring will happen again without some formal intervention. After my encounter with Roscelese, I glanced at her editing history for this month and observed a disrupting pattern. I'm sure there's more than what I include, but I don't have the time or will to dig through months/years of her history.

    Issues in the False accusation of rape article

    Falsely accusing others of POV edits and assuming bad faith
    My edit that simply restored someone else's addition [139] and my subsequent edit elaborating upon rationale to avoid any disputes [140]. My edit reason: "Article is 'false accusation,' not 'false accusation by a fake victim.' (And the text isn't ambiguous) . adding more colour: perhaps the lede should be explicit if this is only to cover false accusations by victims. as of now, it's general so the re-added text fits"
    Roscelese's reversion of my edit (which was merely the restoration of someone else's sourced content) where she maliciously accuses me of doing personal unsourced POV edits - [141]
    Violating the three revert rule and edit warring
    [142]
    [143]
    [144]
    More Edit Warring
    [145]
    [146]

    Stalking, edit warring, and attempt at intimidation

    It also seems like Roscelese stalked me after she made the false POV accusation above. 2 minutes after she made that reversion, she reverted another edit of mine in a separate article.
    My edit adding specifics and sources (in fact, my source for this change was the lede, which i conformed the paragraph to) [147]
    Reversion/ownership [148]
    Based on my two edits detailed here, which clearly included 0 personal analysis or commentary and which were not even related to any POV, Roscelese issued me an obviously frivolous "POV" warning: [149]
    I responded with a notice asking her to please stop misusing warning templates, [150] , which she promptly deleted [151].

    Intimidation and personal attacks on others

    Roscelese also seems to accuse others of bad faith and assumes they have agendas
    "No, really, it's not okay to misrepresent research to push an agenda..." [152]
    "Rv agenda edits." [153]
    And I don't know anything about this user or incident, but this seems like another frivolous POV warning:
    User:Danpiedra's reversion claiming POV at 19:00 on 5/30 when there doesn't appear to be any POV issue (if anything, Roscelese's edit seems to be more of a POV issue)
    warning user for POV for that edit at 19:06

    This is the type of troubling conduct by an editor that has made me avoid editing in the past and should not be tolerated. I don't think the intervention should be something permanent, but I do think it should be more than slap on the wrist given previous warnings. Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I'm also posting a notice of this on the user talk page of the other editor that was involved in the edit war I linked to, User:Federales. I do not anything about him/her other than seeing the name on the differences I linked to 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is this dispute simply because Roscelese interprets "false accusation" in this context to mean only deliberate lies, while you take it to include mistaken accusations as well? At a first glance, I agree that it should include both because that makes for a more informative article, but why did the two of you not try to discuss the issue to resolve the ambiguity? Instead of throwing clearly frivolous warning templates at each other. Reyk YO! 04:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I thought my edit history was clear enough to defeat the need for a talk discussion. I even added a second edit to add more detail. But the assumption of bad faith and labeling it as a POV edit plus the warning really made me think that my effort would be wasted. And then I looked at the page history and it's clear that this was part of a long pattern of behavior (evidenced by the subsequent reversion of my edits in another article). I didn't really open this to solve the content dispute; it's more because of the fact that it's clear that everything is going to be disputed and because I'm sure that other newbie editors have just gotten frustrated and walked away. I just think something formal (but not permanent) needs to be done to stamp out incivility like this 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @IP. If you want edit controversial subjects like PRISM or rape, please register as a named account rather than editing as an IP. This is very important for accountability reasons. If there was a WP:3RR violation, this should be reported to WP:3RR noticeboard. If this is related to abortion (which I am not sure), this should be reported to WP:AE noticeboard [154], not here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MVBW; agree IP would have an easier time if registered, but that SHOULD NOT be an issue here. Similarly, while it is best if 3rr goes to the 3rr noticeboard, ANI is set up to be flexible and CAN consider 3rr complaints, especially within the context of other behavioral problems. Just in case the above was not helpful advice to a newbie (which I assume it was), but passing the buck. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I'm avoiding registering because I have a big work project coming up soon and know that I'll get too addicted to this once I sign up (I already feel addicted from the past few days!). I looked at the discretionary sanction page but that seems geared more towards repeated content issues with an editor rather than behavioural issues. Does the 3RR noticeboard also deal with the related incivility and bad faith stuff? If so, I will move this there. Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 3rr does deal with edit warring, and incivility and bad faith would play into that, but are not the primary topics for the page; it has to be 3rr and....--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP user is apparently unhappy that the definition of "false accusation" in all the relevant literature isn't in tune with his own personal definition. (I'm sure the desire to grossly inflate the rate of false accusations plays no role in these edits.) The troubling thing here is his acting on this unhappiness by going through several weeks of my edit history and coming straight to ANI (with, pardon the term, false accusations about my behavior - such as the ludicrous claim that I "stalked" him to an article that I've been editing for many months and that I edited almost immediately before he showed up - I must be prescient!) without even trying the talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think my point about incessant incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and frivolous POV accusations was just confirmed. And just to repeat, the notice I put on Roscelese's talk page was immediately deleted. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI; removal of a notice from a personal Talk page is not regarded as a violation of WP rules, unless there is a RULING. Your 3rr and edit warring allegations, though, have merit. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As best I can tell, the IP editor has not made any attempt to resolve this issue at Talk:False accusation of rape, nor even made a single post there. This matter is probably best referred back to the article talkpage, and the IP editor gently instructed to make at least a token effort to resolve disputes on the article talkpage before filing a lengthy AN/I complaint. MastCell Talk 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize if I was unclear, but I'm really not interested in solving this particular content dispute. I came across the relevant articles haphazardly and I simply don't care enough about the topic to resolve that dispute. This is about an editor's behaviour. While I may be the only one who has spoken out about this terrible behaviour, I'm sure that I am not the only IP editor/newbie/veteran who has been negatively affected by it. Solving this problem will do more for wikipedia than putting so much effort into some minor content dispute. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not saying it's intentional, but that seems a bit biased against an "IP" editor. Roscelese was just as capable of starting a talk page discussion.--v/r - TP 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, but Roscelese didn't bring the issue to AN/I - the IP editor did. You need to make some effort to engage with an editor - like at least a single talkpage post - before filing a grievance at AN/I. That's pretty basic. MastCell Talk 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really cannot fathom that your ONLY defense of Roscelese, whose violations are clear, is to insult newbies (DONT BITE) and to basically blame the victim...... On an article on rape accusations.......If everyone's head hasn't exploded, let me add that, as several editors have noted, while IP did not go to Talk, their edit summaries are pretty easy to understand, and factual (meaning that explanations are there, just according to WP, technically not in the right place). Roscelese's arguments, while they can eventually be understood, aren't at all obvious, aren't civil and are problematic, since you really can't ascribe the same legitimate ignorance of best process (AGF) to a senior editor.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither Roscelese nor IP went to Talk, but Roscelese is the one who violated 3rr, AND has been on Talk before when OTHER editors raised the same objections to the non-obvious, highly limited definition of the subject Roscelese favors. I understand the specific technical definition that Roscelese wishes to apply, but given that over several years, it has become absolutely apparent that that definition is NOT obvious to someone who would assume COMMON usage, the behavior of Roscelese is unjustified. The IP would not be expected to follow a definition that is NOT stated on the Article page, nor one an average reader would expect. I had to read the whole article, the Talk page, the fights AND read the references themselves to understand why Roscelese is being so narrow. A page on False accusations would almost universally be expected to include sections on those who were Falsely accused, as covered by such things as the Innocence Project. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PantherLeapord, again.

    PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to show conduct that I have concerns about, such as an aggressive stance on several NFCC 1-related discussions. He has also publicly accused several editors (such as me and Masem) of being "deletionists", and listed them on his user page; which I had removed for being an attack page. After being warned of this policy, he then refactored the warning given on his page to say "Please do not create pages that show the truth about their subject. These pages and files are not tolerated by the people having the truth revealed about them." (in violation of the talk page guidelines). He also removed further comments clarifying the rules on refactoring talk page comments with increasingly aggressive remarks ("Is this YOUR talk page now" "EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK I AM ALLOWED TO DELETE SUCH COMMENTS ON MY OWN TALK PAGE" "Again; WHO'S talk page is this!?" "Stop harassing me about removing comments from MY talk page")

    He was blocked for edit warring an image out of Xbox One that he felt was of a poor quality (and then began campaigning to have a non-free image restored because his interpretation of NFCC 1 does not consider the free image to be of good enough quality), on the condition that he stop edit warring over PlayStation and Xbox images. I don't think any of the things he's done today are worthy of blocks, but I'm becoming concerned about his conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not a molehill. As has been explained in a statement that you deleted with no apparent effort to read and understand it, if you repeat an edit like that, you will be blocked again. I'm unlikely to repeat the last go round where you were unblocked after a few hours, as your behaviour since your last block has been pretty abysmal, including using your user page as an attack page.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well pardon me for pointing out how stupidly powerful free content purists that always prefer worse content that is DETRIMENTAL to the encyclopedia because free have become! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you continue to fail to understand that the exception to using non-free content is when suitable (note: I did not say high-quality) content is available, AND your attitude is going to be one where you create attack pages to disparage those who actually uphold the law, the rules, and policies, then I do not foresee your username appearing on Wikipedia for much longer. Do it again - ever - and you will be blocked, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that if you're going to express your opposition to our non-free policies, it is probably best to (a) dial back the attacks on people with different opinions, and (b) perhaps choose an issue to debate which isn't actually cut and dried - the PS4 image issue was absolutely straightforward as regarding our policies and not even close to a grey area. People are far more likely to engage with you if you make your points in a reasoned manner. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No; the only problem here is how free image purists have brainwashed people into thinking that fair use is bad and the crappy and unencyclopedic free > encyclopedic fair use. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your level of cluefullness < 0 ... you have not read a single fricking thing that has been presented to you? You can't make your own shit up - especially regarding copyright and fair use. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think claiming that anyone on a project that contains many dozens of thousands of non-free images - most (if by no means all) of which actually do meet WP:NFCC - is a "free image purist" is never going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ~473k non-free files exist on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like everyone sees what's going on pretty clearly, but just to chime in: this user has been rather difficult to work with. There's no discussing policy with them, every time its "I want to use this image, so IAR!" And every time they're told "No, that's not how it works", then we get an earful about "power hungry admin", "conspiracy", etc etc. Its one continuous example of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest topic ban from NFCC and related areas since this user refuses to get a clue, is extremely hostile, combative, and rude. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support that, but will note that I am "involved"- I have been discussing non-free content issues with this user this morning, and I am one of the people listed on the deleted userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that a very clear warning that such a topic ban will be imposed if the behaviour continues would be better at this stage. A very last chance, but leaving no doubt as to what the next step will be. That'll probably still mean we are a bunch of brainwashing dictators, but at least we will have offered every possible opportunity for change before sanctions. I know, I'm an old softy... Begoon talk 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add IMMEDIATELY that ANY referring to an editor or group of editors as "deletionists" lead to immediate block? This guy is quite clearly creating a WP:BATTLE by his sheer forceful lack of competence and compassion for the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to apply that as a criteria, Dream Focus would have been banned ages ago. For better or worse, we've legitimized the use of that term by not acting on it in the past.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, that's a very good point. But regardless of the use of that term or not, WP:BATTLE is the crux, and that's what mustn't be allowed to continue. Competence can sometimes be learnt or taught, battling with other editors is a style choice. Begoon talk 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, being called a "deletionist" as a pejorative merely elicits a "yeah, whatever" from me and an assumption that the person using it isn't capable of creating a policy-based argument; however the major problem here is incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia, which definitely is a personal attack. That needs to stop. As I said above, it isn't constructive and will result in editors not engaging with even any reasonable points one makes. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As on involved presently and in past issued with DF, at least DF argues the point for decent debate, which is the core of consensus building, even if DF refuses to budge. On the other hand, PantherLeopard is making no attempt to understand the rational of non-free and thus making any chance of debate nil. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. That kinda undermines my earlier suggestion of a "very last" warning, doesn't it? You'd have to assume he's reading this, and that's his reaction. I support the topic ban immediately now, since I agree with incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia ... definitely is a personal attack. Begoon talk 00:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my cynical take; what we have here is a generation gap, a wave of new adolescent-to-young-adult editors who grew up in an age of having every virtual thing at their fingertips. Want a song or movie? Torrent it. Want a picture for meme generation? Google it. Welcome to the collision of Web 2.0 and the 21st century, this is just a taste of things to come. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's cynical at all. Just observant and realistic. A whole new use for the term "free culture" perhaps..? Begoon talk 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban

    Although User:Werieth proposed it, let's formalize the wording, as it appears to be necessity:

    I propose: User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, participating in all image-related discussions, and from any other mention of images or those who have uploaded images across the English Wikipedia, added broadly construed. This topic ban is for a period of 6 months. After 3 months, User:PantherLeapord may appeal for a loosening of these restrictions on WP:ANI. Violations of these restrictions will be met by escalating blocks. The restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

    • So what you are saying, is that editors are free to (clearly, and absolutely) violate our policies and then (clearly, and repeatedly, after warnings) personally attack those that point this out, calling them destructive? Interesting idea, can't help thinking it wouldn't be generally constructive though. Although, given that the issue is NFCC it doesn't surprise me; there appears to be some sort of exception for WP:NPA when it is aimed at editors upholding NFCC. Nothing changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a good point. I will point out that NPA isn't exactly our most enforced set of rules--I think you'd agree many editors get away with personal attacks stronger than these. Though yes, this user has going past what I think is blockable under NPA (Kww's block was a good one and further blocks for NPA would have been quite reasonable). But I'd personally prefer a short block for NPA (week?) rather than a topic ban in the hopes of improvement. That's what we generally do I think.
    Further, I do think our NFCC enforcement is broken. And I can fully understand why people get extremely frustrated with it, because I'm extremely frustrated with it. When we have people speedying pictures when it is claimed to be the only picture of the creature (and that wasn't disputed at the time of the speedy though it is false) or arguing that a picture of an 80-year old is sufficient for an article on a person famous for his boyish looks. Yes, it's frustrating. And yes, I understand the anger. Further, and more generically, I really don't like topic banning people with minority opinions without first trying other options. Mentoring, escalating blocks or other options haven't been explored. Not sure it would work, but it hasn't been tried. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment about broadly construed

    I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I take this as anything regarding files/images. Upload, FFD, DRV, NFCR, and anything else that we may have forgotten to spell out in regards to files. This basically means anything to do with files is topic banned. Using a broad brush prevents attempts at wikilawyering around the edges Werieth (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But it also allows 1400 people with differing views and interpretations of the rules that they can do whatever they want. If you say anything to do with files fine. But adding broadly construed some admin that doesn't like the editor could justify that editing Photoshop is a blockable offense because its releated to files "broadly construed". It has happened a lot. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's pushing it a bit, but I get your point. How about "User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, commenting on image files or their usage, and participating in image-related discussions or discussions of policy related to images, across the English Wikipedia"? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin would make that leap. You are building quite the strawman. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, I think that's much better thank you.
    @Djsasso, I wish I was just building a strawman, but I'm not. It has happened many times. Liberal blocks have been doled out many times by admins, frequently involved ones, for things that are far removed from the purpose or intent of the block. I've seen it here on this page, at Arbitration Enforcment and in other venues and frankly I'm tired of editors being beaten up over poorly worded sanctions. I'm also a little disappointed you think so little of me for trying to improve the project....but I don't really care either. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting specifically on the language as I've not read the rest of the thread. The counter argument is of course that many editors have tried gaming a ban by editing a closely related topic in the same problematic way while technically obeying the wording of the ban. This is an attempt to avoid this happening. Although I agree somewhat with your concern we also don't want editors gaming a ban. Striking the right balance is difficult. I do hope however that if a single admin interpreted "broadly construed" too broadly their action would be overturned here. Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that as well but historically that has not occurred. I also understand and I sympethize to a degree but we shouldn't be dealing in what if's. If we say they can't edit images because editing images and we are afraid they may start editing videos, then by all means say images, video's and files. But we should leave it completely to the discretion of the admins becaue unfortunatly best intentions aside we don't operate in a utopian society where best wishes prevail. If the user starts editing something else (infoboxes maybe or Portals) in the same problematic manner then they can be brought back and we can revisit the issue. But we shouldn't be so generic that we have this "and stuff" language. On a related point and although I didn't fight this issue yet we should be specifying a duration. Is it 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, forever? The way these are written they infer forever when in many cases 6 months might be sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Kumioko and Dpmuk's views. Not to mention that having a "broadly construed" topic ban implies that the editor being topic banned has been consistently disruptive in too many places such that a broad ban is required when in reality this is not necessarily the case. It's analogous to being banned from going into all bars in a city because you got rowdy in one or two places. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    POV Editwarring at List of Freemasons (A - D)

    User:‎Underlying lk is POV edit warring at List of Freemasons (A - D) to omit the inclusion of Ataturk in the list. I have tried amending the entry to alleviate his/her concerns (rejected), I have tried adding additional sources to support the inclusion (all rejected), and I have tried explaining on both the talk page and at WP:RSN why the sources provided are, in fact, highly reliable (arguments ignored). It is clear that he/she is determined to omit the entry, and plans to reject any source that supports it, or any effort to reach a compromise. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The matter is thus: his sources have been rejected by multiple uninvolved editors at RSN diff, diff. For my part, I provided multiple scholarly sources that implicitly reject his claim. Failing to achieve the consensus he wanted, he resorted to threats, and WP:FORUMSHOPping, hoping to find a more sympathetic audience here. His conduct is definitely uncivil, and I think a ban for incivility would be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Blueboar here. He has (at least 3 that I checked) sources that explicitly state that Ataturk was a member of the freemasons and you expect an implicit non-mention to counter-weight that? I would say that you'd need a biography on Ataturk's life to explicitly state "It is a mistaken belief that Ataturk was a freemason." It's not my area of expertise, but I don't see why the sources must be scholarly.--v/r - TP 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TP, this has been discussed in detail at the Reliable Sources board. Bluboar's sources are weak, and scholarly literature on the specific subject of Freemasonary and the Young Turk movement does not state that Ataturk was a member. Paul B (talk)
    You'll have to educate me a bit, this isn't my area. Why are scholarly sources required here? Would I need a scholarly source to say that Steven Seagal was a member of the Screen Actors Guild? We have 3, maybe 4, sources that explicitly state a thing is true and another user arguing that no sources exist saying otherwise is evidence of the contrary. Please tell me how this is anything more than a "truth" argument? Because if it is, I'll remind everyone that we report on what the sources say, not on each person's own truth.--v/r - TP 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea what a "truth argument" is. Blueboar's sources are generally either weak, or they are overall histories that mention Ataturk in passing. Mistakes in such sweeping histories, even by experts, are common. I happen to have some expertise on William Blake. You can find many sources that say he had Irish ancestry. In fact this was a fantasy created by WB Yeats based on someone's speculation. Books on Blake by Blake specialists do not say this, but you'd be hard put to find one that explicitly denies it, because it's irrelevent to deny. You do find it in books on the Irish through history. You have to look in detailed historical literature on Blake to find rebuttals. In this case we are dealing with a list of freemasons. People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A truth argument. And can you explain what "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established" means? What level of sourcing is needed to clearly establish a fact? In your example above, you failed to counter my argument. Why would a book on a person's life not mention common misunderstandings such as "It's a common misconception that Ataturk was a freemason"? Spell out what is needed. Because as it stands, that list should probably go up for deletion because it seems to me by your standards that none of those could be uncontroversial or clearly established. What is different about this guy? Why is his membership controversial? I feel like someone is dancing around a relevant fact of this argument that would make them appear to have a POV and I don't have a clue what it is.--v/r - TP 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fully aware of Wikipedia:Truth. This dispute has nothing to do with that whatever. The only person who claims to know "the truth" is Blueboar. I have great difficulty understanding what the rest of your post is trying to say. Why don't you read the Reliable Sources discussion? I have no interest in whether any other person should or should not be in the list. That's irrelevant distraction. The question is whether or not Ataturk should be. It's not a "common misunderstanding" about Ataturk. It seems to be something that only interests some Islamists (for whom Freemasonry = evil western conspiracy) and Freemasons, who want to associate their movement with great people and progressive movements. This is commonplace - just like Irish poets wanting Blake to be Irish. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I've seen you around and I've generally had a good impression of you, but you must have forgotten your coffee this morning. Blueboar has sources. He's not saying he has "the truth," he's got sources to support it. All you've got is your insistence that Blueboar is wrong. Luckily Zero found a single source for you, but Blueboar still has four. So, my question, if you're not trying to be deliberately obtuse, is what level of sourcing is required to reach the level of "their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established."--v/r - TP 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I've seen you around and am surprised by the vey confused position you are adopting. I repeat read the debate. BTW, this is not about me. I came to this from the Reliable Sources board. I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over: 1. Bluboar's sources are poor. 2. Other sources contradict his. 3. Specialist sources do not say what his - poor - sources say. You introduced the irrelevant wp:truth link. I replied that Blueboar is the only one who is claiming to have the truth, because other editors are saying that we do not know or cannot be sure based on the sources. Note that all independent editors have taken the same view. You are the "outlier" here, because you dived in without reading up on the debate. BTW, I found the same source Zero did, as you would know if you bother to read the debate. The debate, by the way, is essentially over, and Blueboar is now forum shopping. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the debate. What I don't get is why the level of sourcing required was raised to "scholarly sources." Here's what I see and I'm begging for you to help me to understand: Blueboar wants to add Ataturk. Sources are required. He finds them. Those who dispute the claim raise the bar by requiring scholarly sources. I question why the bar was raised and you say "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established." If it seems I support Ataturk being included, I really don't care about the guy. What I don't understand and why I'm inclined to support Blueboar is I don't understand why the level of sourcing is higher for this subject than what is required by policy. By that argument, you can dispute ad infinitum, or filibuster, any topic on Wikipedia to it's exclusion; which is why I brought up the subject of no one on the list being included. So, what is the logic for the higher sourcing requirement? I understand why things like WP:MEDRS exists. So please, explain why this is necessary.--v/r - TP 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It was obvious you hadn't read the debate when you commented that "Zero found a single source for you", since several sources are disussed in the debate. I was the person who added reference to the source you claimed Zero found, and this was not a conflict between Blueboar and me, but Blueboar and eh bien mon prince. Still, I'm sure you have read it now. I don't know why eh bien mon prince first disputed Ataturk. You will have to ask him/her. All I know is that when the dispute came to the RS board several editors, including myself, looked in sources on Freemasonry and Ataturk. It became increasingly obvious that the claims were problematic. Disussing the reliability of claims in sources is not a matter of simply following clear and simple rules. There are degrees of reliability. There are cases in which nominally reliable sources are clearly in error. That's why we have the board: to examine disputes. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh puh lease. I'd argue some of those sources as well on better terms than "I just don't like them." The last one, for example, was paraphrased incorrectly unless the untranslated text says something drastically different. That discussion has very little merit, in my eyes, which is why I'm barely acknowleding it. Why you ask? Because I've yet to understand why the discussion jumped to scholarly sources so quickly. Moving on, you said that the claims are problematic. What determines it so? What prevents someone from arguing for higher and higher sourcing? What prevents a dissuaded party like Underlying_lk from continuing to demand more and better sources to push his POV? That's what I see happening here, and that's what I'm questioning. What is RSN's process to determine when 4 sources arn't enough? The way the process has worked in this case, it seems and again I'm trying to understand why my perspective is wrong, is that if someone argues loud enough that any level of sourcing can be disputed. I've got other questions, like Kmhkmh's argument about Freemasons writing on Freemasons automatically becoming primary, but this seems the most glaring.--v/r - TP 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid your responses are degenerating into taunting. This is frankly pointless. If you wish to join the debate about sources do so on the appropriate board. Your "questions" are so generalised as to be useless. This has nothing to do with anyone arguing "loud enough". It's about the quality of the sources, the context of the claim and the nature of scholarly writing. I've stated this repeatedly, so I see no need to do so yet again. It's getting into "I didn't hear that" territory. That's why we have detailed discussion of real examples at RSN, not of abstract claims that anyone can question anything. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Taunting? It's not taunting if you've avoided answering a very simple question. Be gone then. If you can't tell me where you derive the authority to raise the bar on WP:V because you don't like what the sources say, and you can't explain yourself, than you should not be making these kinds of decisions. All I asked was for clarification.--v/r - TP 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I answer a meaningless question? You are acting like a spoilt child repeating "why" over and over after every answer. No-one in particular has the "right" to raise the bar on reliability - everyone does. It happens all the time when issues are contentious. Reliable sources are often in conflict, even over matters of fact. Somnetimes they are demonstrably wrong. There are degrees of reliability. I've said this repeatedly already. The debate revealled the complexity of the issue. That's what such debate ideally should do. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, so when the answer makes you look bad, you deem it meaningless and resort to name calling. The question was, why was the bar raised. Policy is WP:V which was met. The counter-"sources", with the exception of Zero's link below, don't hold water. It's a decent thing that User:‎Underlying lk was kind enough to actually explain what the issues are. You should've tried that first instead of dodging the question. It was a simple one.--v/r - TP 14:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blueboar is as much involved in edit-warring as ‎Underlying lk is. At RSN, Blueboar has failed to receive any support for his position. Reports here are not supposed to be for the purpose of winning edit wars after failing to achieve consensus. I first saw the argument at RSN (having had no involvement in freemasonry articles and barely any interest in the subject) and consider that the evidence regarding Ataturk is highly suspect. Some books and an article by senior freemasons claim that Ataturk was a freemason, with none of them mentioning the basis for their claim (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, of the vast number of academic studies of Ataturk, nobody (again correct me if I'm wrong) has found even one making the claim. A book published by the Turkish government example claims he was not a freemason (but such books are also suspect, for different reasons). These guys should seek mediation or something. Zerotalk 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Zero, did you read that? It says "For Mustafa Kemal, who was not a Freemason..." It didn't claim Ataturk wasn't a freemason at all.-v/r - TP 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, TP, you do know that Mustafa Kemel is Ataturk? Paul B (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not.--v/r - TP 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Something to note... there is a strong Anti-Masonic movement in the Islamic world (where Freemasonry is associated with a "Jewish conspiracy")... and thus there is a concerted POV effort to reject the idea that Ataturk might have been a Freemason at some point in his life. Whether this factors into the edit warring at the article I will not say, but it should be considered at least a possibility. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That argument cuts both ways. Islamists who see Ataturk as an evil agent of secularisation want to say he was Freemason, which is just as likely to be the origin of an erroneous meme as denial of it is. Likewise Freemasons have a motivation to associate their organisation with the modernising values of Ataturk. It's easy to understand how the involement of Freemasons in the Young Turks (which is undisputed) can slide into the assumption that Ataturk himself was a Mason. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I search for Ataturk and freemason, I get a hit from Radio Islam and a website called atajew.com on the first page of google. So at least we know some of those who might have interest in promoting that. And how great Google Panda is (or not). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And if the article attempted to use such sources, I would be the first to say the entry should be deleted. The fact is, the sources that support Ataturks inclusion on the list have no axe to grind. They are reliable secondary sources written by very respected Masonic historians.
    But I did not raise this dispute here to argue sources... I raised this dispute here so admins could examine an editor's behavior. As I said in my opening comment... I have attempted to resolve this dispute in multiple ways... when User:‎Underlying lk challenged a source, I went and found a different source. When that was not good enough, I found a third. When he/she quibbled that the sources disagreed over the specific lodge, I agreed to omit mentioning the specific lodge... still not good enough. Every time I have attempted to resolve the situation to his/her satisfaction, he/she sets the bar higher. It's become clear that he/she is not interested in anything other than removing the entry for POV reasons. That's a 'behavioral' issue, not a sourcing issue... and that behavioral issue is why I raised this here at ANI. I would like it to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You only came here because you didn't get the 'right' answer at RSN. You should be mindful of your own highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour, rather than blaming others.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No... I came here because of your behavior during our dispute. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You came here because you didn't get your way with either consensus or threats.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blueboar is correct to write that there is an anti-masonic movement in the Islamic world. It seems a lot of people in Turkey believe in conspiracy theories involving masons and Jews. In Turkey it is illegal to slander Ataturk (a ridiculous law from the 1950s I think) and calling him a mason has been judged by courts to be slander. That's why a government-published book about Ataturk is not reliable for a claim that he was not a mason. But, as someone wrote above, the same can be said for the masonic side of the story. How better to rehabilitate the image of masons in Turkey than to co-opt one of the most respected people in Turkish history? Where is the independent scholarly study of this question? Did Ataturk himself ever make a public statement about it? Zerotalk 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User persistently adding promotional content and edit-warring.

    Promo names softblocked by Qwyrxian. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Main (problematic) users involved:

    Other users involved:

    Page involved:

    Since February, Sheradio has been editing WSHE-FM to reflect a promotional viewpoint. This stopped for some time, but recently started up again this month. Earlier yesterday, Sheradio was reverted by Stereorock on the grounds that it was adding in promotional material. Sheradio started reverting him, as seen in the page history. Then Sheradio maliciously blanked Stereo's talk page before starting to edit-war with an administrator, leading to a block. Just before the block went into place on Sheradio, SOFLORADIO came along and picked up the same trend of promotional editing and edit-warring on the same article, leading to a block. Sheradio has shown a long history of promotional, unsourced, disruptive editing and may have created SOFLORADIO to circumvent the block. Both usernames on the accounts also appear to be somewhat promotional in nature. Neither account has made a single edit that has not been reverted for one reason or another, and I think both accounts qualify for indefinite blocks to prevent them from posting more and more promotional content. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cncmaster is correct on all accounts. My talk page info was deleted to just read the word "Welcome" as was stated above along with the promotional material they kept including on the WSHE-FM page reappearing. I see now both users have been suspended and/or deleted.Stereorock (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If both accounts pick up again, I'm going to open an SPI. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefniitely blocked Sheradio and SOFLORADIO. Both of the names are obviously promotional—the first for the article in question, the second for SoFloRadio, which is a second "internet only" (or wi-fi only, I'm not quite clear) radio station in southern Florida. It appears that the users were trying to somehow argue that the "real" station is no longer the one on the radio waves, but in fact the internet-only station, including lots of promotional links and non-neutral phrasing. I've added the article to my watchlist, though if another new editor pops up, feel free to take it directly to WP:RFPP in case I'm not around. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why is this guy getting unblocked every time he is blocked for a long period of time?

    I personally feel that we have more than exhausted any value in this discussion. Everyone has had their views aired and the law of deminishing returns has now set in. Lets go do something useful instead. Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There are so many issues that I don't know where to begin. I have skipped reeling off diffs with the hopes that you'll believe me. Here is an editor, Darkness Shines who is a persistent POV pusher, typical recidivist who is adept at seeming civil to those who he thinks matter (BTW I don't matter. I am a nationalistic prick according to him). He is an editor who was just recently blocked for two weeks (First time by Bwilkins), that block was upheld again, you'll see. The remarkable thing is that the block was lifted with claims that are, at best, vague and inadequate. He was unblocked by an admin (i.e. RegentsPark) who was, both the times, deeply involved with him on multiple threads about controversial topics. RegentsPark has, in past, unblocked him several times, no wonder he unblocked him after the first two weeks block, claiming he has changed. Bammm! DS gets blocked again (by Spartaz) within days of his unblock, again two weeks block. RP again amazingly deemed it fit to unblock him even when he again claimed that "this block is bollocks". Right way to appeal blocks? Here is his block log. Also, discretionary sanctions are allowed on those articles he usually edits. He isn't amenable to discussions[156].

    Read what Mr Spartaz wrote after he blocked him, [157].

    "DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatantly baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable."

    Admin Fut.Perf said,

    ″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″[158]

    Even RP seemingly agreed with this view.

    You may ask what was his fault, in short I don't know all of them it will take three or four editors to rightly explicate what violations he committed within the last few months. Save me the repetition, read this. He created a purely offensive article, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources and highly distorted claims. The moment it was deleted, he added this link of the closure of the AFD to his to do.

    Now no sooner had he been unblocked he resumed his previous pattern of disruption.[159] This guy is as unrepentant as any banned user I have seen. This guy is not only a danger to the project but also a danger to others because he has the capability to test others' patience. He is a guy who, if kept unblocked, will lead to not only his own block but also others' along with his. This comes after months of attempts to reconcile.

    Check his latest archive and see how many rejections his unblock pleas received. So the question is how long will it continue this time? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it too much to expect that you might name the subject of your rant somewhere, and also post the required notification on that user's talk page? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My net speed sucks but I did it now. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My notice is reverted [160]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    AlexTiefling, please allow at least ten minutes to elapse before complaining about an editor not being notified, and twenty minutes is better. Some editors have motor or dexterity impairments, others are forced to reboot or reconnect at inconvenient times, or they get a phone call, etc. Six minutes is not enough time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These accusations are quite troubling. With a block log like that, a user should not be so quickly unblocked, especially by an allegedly involved administrator when other administrators have declined to unblock. Can you substantiate this alleged involvement with links? I will notify RegentsPark of this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can but my wife is eating my head. GOD DAMMMMMNNIT! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [161]This should give you an idea. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume the assumption of good faith. Although I am not happy with how he credulously dealt with DS's issue, the primary subject of my accusation is not admin RegentsPark but Darkness Shines. I am not assuming anything on RP's efforts. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bwilkins was not 100% happy with the first unblock either but he let it go[163]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • RegentsPark has certainly given the impression of consistently holding a protecting hand over this and other tendentious editors. He has now unilaterally unblocked DS three times within one year, each time cutting an intended two-weeks block short to a few days. This is worrysome and I would definitely ask RegentsPark to keep out of any such further events in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period. Disruption over and time to get back to content. As for the rest, I can assure you that I'll block DS if necessary. I like good content editors and prefer to see them unblocked (be they DS or Mr. T) but that doesn't meant that I have some sort of special protective thing for any particular editor (well, one or two perhaps, but definitely not for DS).--regentspark (comment) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is precisely the problem with you: after all the disruptive tendentious shenanigans from these two editors and others like them, you can still claim you consider them "good content editors". Obviously, they aren't. I caught each of them at blockworthy acts of source misuse and source misrepresentation just the other day, as you are well aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • FPaS, misuse and misrepresentation of sources is a wilful act that is grounds for an indefinite block from this project. Surely, there is an Arbcom case with appropriate sanctions available. Or you could just use Common sense and indef them now. If they have done it once, they have likely done it in the past, and will likely do it in the future. Such wilful and evidenced abuse of one of our core policies (WP:V) is not excusable under any circumstances. Russavia (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec) Perhaps 'useful' content editors is a better way to express it. They both add a lot of content that otherwise wouldn't be here. Either way, if you think there is a long term problem with these editors, you should look for consensus to get them banned. Using single blocks is not the way to go about that. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is not preventative if one knows that some friendly admin will unblock early. DS's block log has gotten long enough that unblocks should NEVER be an option (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventative not punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I do think you're acting neutrally RegentsPark, you may want to let someone else handle unblock requests, especially if other unblock requests are being denied and you find yourself ready to unblock. Having Darkness Shines unblocked three times from a two week block certainly makes it seem like you're involved. While blocks aren't designed to be punitive, if you find yourself being the only administrator willing to unblock this one individual, that could be an issue. Considering how many administrators there are, you could certainly bring it before the community and see if another agrees before doing it yourself. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Moe. These are good points and worth a thought. Particularly the one about being the only admin willing to unblock. I don't completely agree with the having unblocked three times thing, we don't ask admins to stop blocking if they have blocked someone often and the same ought to apply to unblocks. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, I would also ask an administrator to not be the only one willing to enforce blocks of a single contentious editor as well, FWIW. A single admin doesn't have to be the only one to perform blocks and/or unblocks of the same person (outside of obvious cases like vandalism), so that kind of "double standard", if you will, shouldn't exist. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block log surely looks lengthy. As far I know DS does have good edit history but at the same time an annoyingly disruptive behavior which ends up with him being blocked. I am not sure if DS is being volatile in certain sections or topics? May be he needs a topic ban? As per my Opinion (which is of a semi-newbie in WP)- Some sort of neutrality should be shown by the admin here. RP needs to keep away from unblocking him, irrespective of how much ever a great editor DS be. Even if it is done in good faith, it does bring RP's neutrality to question. Also to RP's comment that he will block DS if necessary - DS was blocked by other admins when it was necessary and you unblocked him from these necessary blocks - Are you saying that the other admins are being to irrational in blocking him? Amit (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Amit, an editor can be blocked for a good reason and then unblocked when they are willing to acknowledge their mistake and move forward. In this particular case, Spartaz was right in blocking DS and my unblocking doesn't mean that I disagree with the initial block. Since DS addressed the reason for the block, and blocks are not meant to be punitive, it made sense to me to unblock. If there are longer term issues of the sort that FPAS is bringing up, then these should not be the province of single admins but rather should be discussed by the community. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand and agree (as I mentioned consider me a semi-newbie). But I tend to agree with other editors here that repetitive blocks do point to long term issues and hopefully this discussion will take care of it. Amit (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would only point out that Regentspark has also unblocked the user who brought this complaint - in fact just five days ago - [164] - so regardless of the right or wrongs of this unblock, a claim that he is not impartial is probably not going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Black Kite, I kindly disagree, the user MrT was blocked for 72 hours(3 days) on 9-jun 14:14 and unblocked on 12-jun 06:44. Hardly a untimely unblock here - i think it was a normal unblock after the time of 3 days got over. Please correct me if i am mistaken in my understanding here? Amit (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's still 8 hours before the end of the block (which should have expired at 14:14 on the 12th). Not on the scale of this unblock admittedly, but still an early unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not yet convinced that Regentspark is an involved party here. I'm beginning to understand his/her motivation, that good content generation forgives a multitude of sins. But in the case we have here, there is an editor with a long history of disruption and a number of other admins who object to these unblocks. In this case, I sense we may have a germ of a consensus forming to ask Regentspark to refrain from unblocking DS in the future without seeking community consensus here, and perhaps also extend that to other potentially contentious unblocks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as one of the admins who denied one unblock request: I declined to unblock because at the time I didn't see an agreement to not repeat the actions that led to the block. But if such a commitment was present in a later unblock, then I'm happy to accept Regentspark's judgment of that - and if the block was meant to be preventative, then unblocking once it has had the desired effect seems fine. If there are bigger and more long-term problems, they should be dealt with separately - an existing edit-warring block is not the way to deal with bigger issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's time for sanctions to be proposed. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took it upon myself to revert your decision to take it upon yourself to prematurely close a reasonable discussion. I fail to see the impending clouds of drama forming and I feel that was an unfair characterization of this discussion and the editors involved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion is noted but you are mistaken. I see people talking about sanctions when they have failed to identify a policy violation. That is a recipe for witch burning drama. The entire thread was started simply because one editor wanted to have a bitch session, which is outside of the purpose of ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong (sorry, had to use the restroom). I am claiming that Darkness Shines has gamed (and continues to game) the system. With such a lengthy block log, it's obvious that a slap on the wrist won't help the situation. The user obviously doesn't get it, or doesn't care. Either way, it has become a serious problem. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A long term policy violator being repeatedly unblocked is certainly a valid matter to address, and your characterization of it as a "bitch session" is both unfair to the complaining editor (not to mention those of us attempting to look into the matter) and the sort of attitude which discourages editors from seeking assistance. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to debate with you or get in a revert war, you are simply wrong here. Still now, you have not identified or even claimed any policy violation or abuse of tools but you want to turn this into a discussion for sanctions against regentspark, per your own revert summary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I personally have advocated thus far is having Regentspark refrain from unblocking DS without consensus here on this page. A dramatic and onerous sanction indeed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, indeed. The only one I see who is causing the drama is Dennis himself. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that advice was given in the close. If you want to impose official sanctions against an admin, you don't do it at ANI, you do it at WP:AN, and you don't do it in the middle of a different report. Any sanction against an admin is a serious thing, since trust is paramount to the bit. If it is important enough that you need an official sanction, then do it proper. Otherwise, if only an unofficial note was needed, that was already provided very clearly and bluntly in the close that you reverted, which I am confident he would have taken to heart. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me add one more point. I agree that regentspark should exercise greater care in contentious unblocks in the future. I said as much in the close. What I don't agree with is ad hoc official sanctions done this way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why Darkness Shines continues to be an abrasive trouble maker. It's called enabling poor behavior. And it's not the first time I've seen Regent Parks step up as chief enabler. I would suggest that he withdraw himself from those kinds of decisions in the future where that editor is concerned. Crtew (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When an editor violates a rule, he or she should be blocked. When an editor is no longer being disruptive and there is no preventive reason for being blocked, he or she should be unblocked. Fairly simple and policy driven. Moe's argument that it is worth a second thought when you're the only one willing to unblock is a good one, and something worth thinking about but I'm not sure I agree with the rest of this "two strikes and you're out reasoning" on unblocks. That way we'll have no admins left to deal with darkness given his tendency to get blocked! Personally, I have nothing to gain from an unblocked DS (and nothing to lose from a blocked one)- we're often enough on opposite sides of issues, so the idea that I'm doing this for some sort of personal gain doesn't hold water. At best, the only thing you can charge me with is a preference to see editors (any editors) in an unblocked rather than in a blocked state. Nothing wrong with that or 'are we here to stop editors from editing or to help them contribute to the project? --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    When an editor shows no sign of learning from his blocks, there's no reason to unblock him, and generally no reason to mess around with two-week blocks, either. Can you explain what signs you see that Darkness Shines understands the reasons behind his blocks and shows both the willingness to and capability of avoiding the behaviour that led to his blocks?—Kww(talk) 23:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Learned what? He was blocked for edit warring in the midst of a contentious bit of editing where all the editors got blocked. Are we going to throw him out of Wikipedia for that? If that's your opinion, then you should seek a community ban or a topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that it's reasonable to unblock an editor when you have no reason to believe that he won't repeat the behaviour that lead to the block? Editors that don't learn to avoid the behaviour that led to them being blocked are typically given long or indefinite blocks, not unblocked the moment that the particular individual dispute blows over.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, did you even bother to read this thread? regentpark's very first comment was "DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period." That seems to me to be "a reason to believe" and the answer to your question before you even asked it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The frequency of DarknessShines' blocks and the short space in between them have given us a reason to believe that regentpark's faith in DarknessShines' professed reformation may be unfounded, and that gives us a reason to believe that perhaps other administrators should be dealing with DarknessShines from now on instead of regentpark. Gamaliel (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Dennis, I read it. My question is what reason regentspark had to believe it. Most blocked editors are happy to make assurances that they won't repeat the problem. Part of our job is to assess the credibility of these assurances.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is simple: If you think that regentspark needs official sanction, take it to Arb or AN. If you want to just discuss, then go discuss in a clean discussion. The editors here keep mixing up the two different issues, which is hardly a fair discussion to either Darkness or regentspark, and fairness is more important that any single unblock, period. My close was reverted before I could even finish writing a message to regentspark and start a discussion on his talk page, something I typically do when I close a discussion like this (see above, for that matter). This is not fair process, plain and simple. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a reasonable conclusion of this discussion that regentspark made a truly ill-considered unblock and to reblock Darkness Shines. Nothing unfair about that at all.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is so clear. Blocking based on this jumbled discussion would be out of process, to say the least. Assuming that from this discussion would be an improper read of consensus since it wasn't even an option on the table. That proposal could have started at WP:AN after I closed this mess, for that matter. This is why process matters. I have no love for bureaucracy, but there is a reason we have established methods and a degree of bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying we are at that point right now, just that the discussion could reasonably conclude that way. I see your preference for separate discussions at AN as a preference, not something mandated or recommended by policy.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But this whole discussion is not done with a consensus kind of format of support/neutral/against. How would any one form/figure out a consensus in this non-formatted section? It would be best to wrap this discussion - and may be in a new discussion we can make consensus based points for the so called biased admin intervention. Amit (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are arguing that consensus can't be reached unless there are people using bold words like support or oppose at the beginning of each statement. If so, I suggest you read WP:NOTAVOTE. —Kww(talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am not mistaken you are saying voting doesn't replace discussion - I totally agree with you about it as a general point? But in this case the discussion has become so multi-pronged, (See below too). What is the end of it all? This seems just muddied water to me. No conclusion?. Amit (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why hasn't he received a topic ban? Let him contribute to TOP 40 POP articles. Crtew (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard. Describing the discussion as a "bitch session" is simply ignoring the issue (at best). On a side note, I continue to be flabbergasted by the tolerance of disruptive editors to "avoid the drama" of dealing with their disruptive behaviour. user:j (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he is not the only guy. See this. Spinningspark blocked Lihaas for two weeks, the very next day Lihaas was unblocked. Guess who unblocked Lihaas? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, are we looking at two different things? It looks like RegentsPark unblocked Lihaas because they were blocked for a mistake they made, and indeed they haven't been blocked or in trouble since. That's an example of RegentsPark doing admin right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too find it disturbing that Regentspark is unblocking eds he is involved with. RegentsPark, DarknessShines and MrT3366 all edit and hang around India related articles. See talk:Narendra Modi for one example. I have long suspected that RegentsPark might be using unblocks as a way of buying support/influence during content disputes + as a way of buying votes during the next arb elections ... as a way of buying votes from eds who might otherwise vote against them. RegentsPark had run for a seat in the present arb, and missed narrowly, and is likely to run in the next elections. So, one can see why they might want to curry favor with folks who might vote against them. Whatever. I certainly don't think it is respectable for an admin to block/unblock users he is involved with/ users who edit around the same articles that the admin is editing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that is quite serious of an allegation (You are so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here), If every one connects dots across such a wide area you would end up bringing another 10 admins in this whole loop. I would suggest keeping this topic for Darkness Shines alone. and starting a new AN for the questionable admin interventions. Amit (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not quite see how I am "...so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here". My impression is that this thread is about regentspark's actions rather than about DarknessShines's behavior and I my comment is in keeping with that vein.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake - I did not mean all involved admins - but read it as "mentioned editors" because you just mentioned that you suspect that RP is doing this to buy support/influence during disputes+ for ARB etc... Any such solicitation or way of influencing is WP:MEAT which is defined as - "Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. A "meat puppet" is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus. It is a violation of this policy either to solicit meat puppets or to be a meat puppet for someone else." Amit (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is somewhat different from meatpuppetry. AFAIK Meatpuppetry is when new accounts are created simply to support one person. I do not see that being done here.What I see here is an admin using admin tools to extend patronage/project power among involved eds and probably hoping to gain influence/support. Admin tools being used for personal gains/politics rather than for the benefit of the project. Maybe it is right to use admin tools in this manner, but it don't look right to me at least.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage all people reading these bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations to review the past interactions between Regentspark and OrangesRyellow. (Specifically, I refer to his red-linked userpage.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please revive faith in wikipedia processes. I had no idea a person could be blocked that many times and keep on editing. At least a topic ban if he get's crazy on one issue... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What exactly is at loss if RegentsPark is asked to stop from interacting with Darkness Shines as an admin? Let them interact as editors but RP can keep his broom away from DS, for both blocking and unblocking purposes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Close

    Re-apply block as per original block on Darkness shines and apply an extended block for Darkness Shines for a minimum period of 6 months for any future incident. Also Restrict Regentspark from unblocking Darkness shines at any time in future. Other incidents related to Regentspark to be handled in a new discussion. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, I changed the proposed close above. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean extend a topic ban for six months? Crtew (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was a certain topic, i would have proposed an indefinite block, but that doesn't seem the case here. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We ought to step aside and let the admins decide as to the proper course of action. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose reblocking Darkness Shines because it would be blatantly punitive to do so now. Darkness Shines should be reblocked only if he/she does something which could be seen as harmful to the project. It is Regentspark who has shown a lack of good judgement while using admin tools and I think they should be desysopped. From what I can see, Regentspark fully intends to continue using admin tools among involved eds if not desysopped.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is nothing has changed in his attitude as well as behavior and he hasn't shown that he learnt from his mistakes. He still firmly refuses to accept the issues regarding the Category and article about Anti-Muslim pogroms in India which were raised and explained to him by Multiple Administrators. See this and this. He still impenitently defends all this among many other things. He didn't even bother to clarify any accusation. There is not a vestige of contrition in his behavior. What do you call it if not "recidivism"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblocking of Darkness Shines. I do not support the setting of a 6 month block in advance of knowing the circumstances of any future offence. I do not support restricting RegentsPark from any future unblocks. The accusation of being involved and canvassing levelled at RegentsPark are unsubstatiated. RegentsPark should instead be censured for the unblock. After approaching the blocking admin and not getting support for an unblock from them the correct course of action would have been to open an ANI thread to seek community approval for an unblock. SpinningSpark 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose... I too oppose applying restrictions on RegentsPark. No comment on Darkness Shines. --Tito☸Dutta 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - a reblock for an edit war that is over, when the original block would have expired now anyway, is just nonsense. If there's a bigger issue with DS's behaviour (and I agree there is), then start an RfC/U with diffs supporting long-term problems and let the community evaluate the evidence and decide on any appropriate action - don't do it as a knee-jerk reaction to a minor unblock for a minor bit of edit-warring. Dennis's close was entirely correct, and what were seeing here is a continuation of the pro/anti India/Pakistan/Muslim/Hindu POV wars that have been blighting this site for years - with a notable number of the protagonists turning up here to join in the fight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This says RfC/U CANNOT impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures. We are talking about a potential re-block or ban. Could you suggest a venue for this purpose? Enough is enough. This is not the first time where Darkness Shines has been publicly censured for his behavior and editing pattern. I firmly he needs a topic ban otherwise others will needless be blocked along with him. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, an RfC/U cannot impose sanctions, but it can present evidence and generate a consensus which can then be used at WP:AN to request sanctions. And if you want a topic ban, complaining about the unblocking of an edit-warring block once the edit-warring has stopped and after the block would have expired anyway is not the way to do go about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblocking Darkness Shines. It seems strange to put a restriction on Regentspark that only involves one other editor, but if it prevents this happening again, I'll support that too, though I think it would make more sense to do a general restriction on Regentspark not unblocking anyone without both community consensus and agreement of the blocking admin. It's worse than just enabling here, the whole thing has the stink of Nixon-style backroom cronyism, and that's just about the last thing we need on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boing!. This is why I closed this discussion earlier, and reverting it was poor judgement. It has turned into cries of "burn the witch!" with no substance and lots of opinion and conjecture. What could have been a peaceful discussion on regentspark's talk page has instead become this incomprehensible and tangled mess with no real consensus and certainly no clarity. Sanctioning regentspark without demonstrating abuse or policy violation is a non-starter. Even here, the two topics are tangled improperly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automatic oppose on random sanctions on admins for unblocking. The last thing we need is still fewer admins willing to extend the hand of peace and offer an unblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the reblocking of Darkness Shines. No other comment on other proposals. — Richard BB 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Boing and Dennis as the supports and opposes above are all varied in topic. Having said that, if DS is blocked in the future, any early unblocking should probably be done via the community rather than by any individual admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support re-blocking Darkness Shines and subsequent monitoring. Although against a formal sanction, I would expect RP to exercise some voluntary constraints before unblocking Darkness Shines ever again, esp. when that block is reaffirming a pattern of recidivism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Honestly, y'all kinda blew it with the hasty unblocks and haggling, so a reblock now would look rather petty and punitive. Handle it better next time, so if this user steps out of line you can do something with conviction and make it stick. This is like a wiki-version of Ryan Braun and the mishandled drug sample. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support action regarding un-blocking admin, Oppose reblocking as that would be punitive. (Same reasons as OrangesRyellow) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you please point to the policy that was violated, in order to justify your request for sanctions? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all sanctions. Given the level of blind, unthinking partisanship here (on both sides, quite likely), this is a dispute that either needs to die quickly and quietly or go to (dun-dun-DUN!) Arbcom. Having quasi-votes like this, where everyone just toes the party line, is not going to actually resolve anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose...most DS should never have been unblocked early. But there's never going to be enough proper consensus in this forum for a re-block. Yes, it appears that the unblocking admin sure as hell had some past history and should not have unblocked for both that AND other reasons. DS is known to act like a jerk to many other editors. DS is known to push his POV. DS is known to push the envelope across this entire project - that's all RFC/U purview first, then ArbCom (based on the topics he covers). So, we admonish DS for his behaviour but cannot reblock ATM; plus we admonish Regents for performing a controversial unblock that they should never have touched to begin with. If you want sanctions on Regents, there's RFC/ADMIN. Now let's all move on and address all of our future behaviours, but remember that DS is on a very very very short leash (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole discussion is almost as stupid as the unblock was. The issue of RP's judgement and DS's behaviour have become conflated and no good ever comes of that. I tend to agree with BWilkins - indeed my comment on RP's talk kinda says the same thing. I'm mostly concerned that not two hours earlier RP had been told by me that I opposed the unblock and then he used the most ridiculous pretext I have ever seen to unblock when I already invited him to seek a consensus here if he disagreed. He seems to have a history of putting his judgement ahead of other admins' judgement and his commentary here suggests that this will happen again because he shows no evidence of taking on board the feedback from those who disagree. Frankly I can't see this ending anywhere except RFCU/A if there isn't some movement. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close without action per arguments and closing remarks by Dennis Brown above. If you want to sanction an admin (or anyone else), do this properly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a fundamental divide in the community as to what actions are necessary for incorrigible editors who still contribute some useful content. One view is escalating sanctions. The other is repeated short sanctions. I've seen this divergence regarding civility and now edit warring. I don't think there are any easy answers because the community is so divided that no general standard is going to be adopted. If it's any consolation, the divergence exists in real-life justice systems across the world too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NewWorriedLad and Talk:Ruggero Santilli

    Dealt with. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could some uninvolved (and preferably not Jewish) admin look at this diff and take appropriate action. I think, at the least, an indefinite block, and a sockpuppet check is needed. Probably, it would be a good idea to remove his edits and my replies from that talk page, but, again, I would rather not do that myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked indefinitely for hate speech. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    And I've blanked the obnoxious stuff from the talkpage. I very much enjoyed doing both things, but admin-deleting the edits seems overly squeamish to me. It's good if any user who wonders about the block can see the edits in the history, IMO. If any admin disagrees, or if I'm reverted on the talkpage, feel free to delete the relevant revisions. But to request a sockpuppet check I think we need more info, Arthur. Checkuser needs two accounts/IPs, to compare, they can't do much with one. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Whatever the context (and I haven't yet checked the diff above), I strongly object to the suggestion that a Jewish admin should not take action here. The implication that, by virtue of ethnic or religious background, an editor may be automatically biased, is one I find offensive in the extreme. I hope that I never see such a request again. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Arthur Rubin is himself Jewish (as he says on his user page), so he clearly did not intend any anti-Jewish sentiment. I'm sure all he meant is that, as it was an anti-Jewish screed, it would avoid any hint of involvement or bias if a non-Jewish admin were to deal with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, although Boing! said most of what I wanted to say.) NewWorriedLad is an avowed anti-Semite; it would play into his hands for a Jew to "persecute" him. It doesn't fall (yes, I said fall) to the level of WP:COI or WP:INVOLVED, but there's no need to encourage his belief that he is being persecuted by Jews, by, well, a justified persecution which happens to be by Jews. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was shocked for a moment when I saw the request, but then I realised what Arthur meant, and didn't see any need to be PC about it. It gave me the sweet pleasure of being the one to block, too. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    This is getting close to an off-topic political conversation; but I must say that I disagree with the views above. I really don't think that the pernicious views of an antisemite should constrain any Jewish admin from acting as any other admin would do under the circumstances. I would be extremely uncomfortable if we started to create areas in which Jewish (or Muslim, gay, female or whatever) editors were recommended not to take action. RolandR (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't there a situation some time ago where an editor requested that a non-Jewish admin deal with it, as he didn't think a Jewish admin could be impartial? As I recall, that request was (rightfully) denied. I do understand Arthur's desire not to "play into the hands" of an anti-Semite, but we're not here to solve the problems of the world, or even of one extremely misguided editor, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and to protect that project from disruption. If a Jewish admin dealt with the situation, and the editor then created disruption about it, the editor can be indef blocked or banned, and the project goes on. I appreciate Arthur's concern, but think that RolandR is correct that we do not want to set up a situation where editors can specify what variety of admin they want to be helped by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be realistic. If a Jewish admin had blocked him, he next day he would be posting in his website new "proof" of how the Zionist cabal also controls wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.214.71 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong, but reading this editor's comments, it would appear that s/he identifies as a Jew. That is the only sense I can make of their repeated use of the word "us": "the price to be paid by all of us for our evident discrimination of non-Jewish scientists... a international waves of attacks against us,... our control of science... our control of the Nobel Foundation... the growing attacks against us for our 30 years of obstructions and discriminations you cannot dub “anti-Semitic” because fully justified... The consequences of the hatred we created against us by all Germans for our abuses of their country are sadly known" and more. This is not to deny that the remarks are offensive (they remind me of the position of Gilad Atzmon); but suggests that the situation here is more complicated than at first appears, and to my mind certainly invalidates a plea for Jewish admins to stay away. RolandR (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the race thing really matter for this anymore? I say no. Let's move on and not fret over unknowns or provoke more discussion on topics that should be avoided by friends, family and colleagues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism

    Less than perfect but workable, practical and temporary solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User "N1of2" is repeatedly reverting edits made to the page "Wayne Hoffman." They are removing information that is justified through reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.204.248 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Hoffman&action=history[reply]

    N1of2's edits aren't vandalism. The article appears to be poorly written and extremely POV. They've tightened the lede and removed WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact, such as:


    Really? This guy can read people's minds and predict the color of MMs? N1of2 seems to be improving the article, although they might be a little too aggressive in what they are deleting.
    In any case, I've notified N1of2 of this discussion.[170] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks A Quest For Knowledge (talk) for bringing this thread to my attention. The article Wayne Hoffman was started by Waynemagic (talk) in 2009 who on the face of it appears directly related to the topic. The article contained extensive self-promotional unreferenced material in January 2013 when I started editing it; I tried to clean up the extreme POV and promotional language and bring it up to wikipedia standards. Over the past 6 months several IP editors (including 98.208.204.248 (talk) who started this thread above) repeatedly reverted to virtually the same original (promotional) version time and again (at times adding small edits in addition to the reversion), strongly suggesting sock puppetry. The promotional POV, original research, usage of primary sources, obscure citations and sparse reliable sources, lack of any discussion on those editors' part in the article's talk page, and the fact that some of those editors contribute exclusively to this article, reek of conflict of interest issues.
    I suggest the admins to consider placing the article under some type of moderation (maybe [semi]-protect to only allow authenticated editors?). Since the topic is of particular interest to its subject (and / or other apparently related or interested editors) but is otherwise rarely of interest to others, the article tends to degrade rapidly to its slanted, POV, promotional version without close monitoring (as it was evident between 2009 and early 2013). I would also welcome any other alternative suggestions for ongoing maintenance / monitoring of the article. N1of2 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified Waynemagic of this discussion. [171] N1of2 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what difference it'll make: he hasn't edited in almost four years. — Richard BB 08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, the edit history of this article is a mess. There's been a very clear back-and-forth of adding and deleting the same content for five months. Requesting immediate temporary semi-protection of article (even full protection wouldn't go amiss, though might be a bit extreme) in order to put an end to this debacle. — Richard BB 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As the dispute is between a registered editor and an IP editor (I have not looked to see who is right or wrong), a semi-protection would be favouring one side, so is not a valid solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has since been semi-protected. However, I disagree that it's not a valid solution: it would force the IP to create an account, which means that the edit warring would be much harder to perpetuate (provided both parties are equally warned for it as it happens, which has not been the case so far). — Richard BB 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, yes, I guess that's one approach - but I do have to say I personally don't like solutions that treat IP editors as second-class citizens. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure it does. They're still able to debate on the talk page and would be able to edit if they created an account; this is preventative, not punitive. — Richard BB 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Before going on with hypothetical situations you should first check out the extreme promotional POV edits that this (these?) particular IP editor(s?) engaged in. In any event I am pleased with the contributions of the new editors that are now involved in the article and I am particularly thrilled that more people will keep this article on their watchlist :) N1of2 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor EyeTruth: tendenitious editing in Battle of Kursk page

    A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. He has been reverting edits and is not waiting for a consensus of opinion from other editors. Some of the reverts include this: [172] and this: [173]. His tone on the talk page strikes me as condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Indeed, one or more admins/mods should look into this. Yes, I've reverted edits based on original research when the editor failed to discuss it in the talkpage. This editor is fond of inserting original material into cited passages or deleting cited passages based on his original research. And I've cleaned up many of such edits without even complaining. And no, my tone was never intended to be condescending. And yes, my tone has been dismissive towards this editor until he supports his opinion with sources, which he has almost always failed to do. And yes, I've been cautioned by others for being superfluous with my writing and wiki-linking, and I've conceded on that. Granted, I did question the reasoning behind their suggestions, but since it harboured even a modicum of sense and was also in accordance with MOS I conceded, before my scrutiny is misunderstood as lack of cooperation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the edit that EyeTruth believed consititued original research on my part: [174]
    The key porition was:
    It was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive.[1] Even so, Hitler and several senior officers expressed doubts and concern.
    which I reduced to:
    It was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive.[1]
    The phrase "most impressive fleet" was exchanged for the phrase "largest assemblage". Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But it was not correct, yet you fiercely defended it. And that is just one instance among others. You are fully aware of this. Besides, why do you keep attaching that extra sentence as if it's part of my edit? Why are you trying so hard to distort the issue? Why?!! You're aware any admin that is going to attend to this report will most likely read the relevant talkpages, right? So why?!!! EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin observation So I searched around for the source in question and found it here [175]. The exact wording in the source is "Thus, the Germans amassed the most impressive armored armada yet assembled for a single attack." So the source does not say "largest assemblage." However, it seems to me that "most impressive fleet" may just be Glantz's opinion, and I would say that unless a source can be found for "largest," the sentence should be removed altogether. There's probably more to the dispute than the one sentence, but I just thought I'd share my two cents. Howicus (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence had already been removed by Gunbirddriver. But as you suspected, the dispute is more than that. Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do. EyeTruth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    confusion on everything

    Answered. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear Wikipedia very confused - set up user page and tried to do a wikipedia page - to post online .. can't find the answers i need on how to post online, does it need approval, how do i set up the references .. how can it be public ..??

    username: najwa najjar

    thank you Najwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa najjar (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Try Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But also read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do inline references. Take a look at some existing Wikipedia:Good articles to see how articles should be laid out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Almost continuous tirade of abuse and accusations

    Both IPs blocked for 1 month for disruptive editing and continued personal attacks using multiple IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    174.118.142.187 has engaged in an almost unbroken tirade of abuse and allegation. There has been considerable past incidents at which at least one admin has expressed concern, but it has reached unacceptable proportions in the last week or so. In response to an observation at Talk:Power factor that there was suspected sockpuppet activity ([176]), I myself had a similar suspicion and consequently opened an SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski - currently open). Since two further users have voiced their opinion that there is suspicious activity, this has reinforced my belief that it was correct to do so.

    There follows, immediately abusive comments to the SPI ([177]) where in the first two paragraphs there are unfounded allegations and abuse (These same allegations have been going on for some time and are largely repeating allegations that he made at an SPI case - which was not upheld). They were certainly laid out at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 - deleted by an admin as WP:ATTACK. Some other comments in the SPI accused myself of 'slander' and myself and fellow editor of being 'hoodlums'.

    Almost immediately, a tit-for tat ANI case is opened by 174.118.142.187. The case is nothing short of a continuance of the attacks and allegations, on not only myself but other users ([178]). The IP users concerned appear to be users of the same (very large) supplier of internet access in the UK. There appears to be a good number of them who edit on a wide variety of subjects. 174.118.142.187 seems to be unaware of how IP addresses are allocated here - he attempted to demonstrate dynamic allocation by temporarily hopping IP address. Unfortunately, he spoilt it when he was able to hop back to the original IP address, something that you cannot do with dynamic IP address allocation. You get what you are given.

    His allegations involve myself, User:I B Wright and a large number of IP address users. I believe that he is picking these users because we have been particular targets of Wtshymanski (his Sandbox2 list of enemies made that perfectly clear) and consequently Wtshymanski attracts our interest. 174.118.142.187 seems to hold Wtshymanski in some kind of awe. He keeps claiming that we always agree (usually citing but one example if at all), but totally ignores those many occasions where we don't completely agree (of which there is no shortage). We largely do agree over Wtshymanski, but then there is plenty to agree about.

    I did attempt to engage in discussion 174.118.142.187's talk page. I do not believe that I was abusive ain any way, but nevertheless, my remark was deleted with an abusive edit summary and more unwarranted accusations ([179]). Further he then responds to my own talk page (but from a different IP address that geolocates to exactly the same place) with the now trademark allegations an the last sentence ([180]).

    The latest tirade was made to an admin's talk page ([181]). This admin responded to the tit-for-tat an ANI complaint that 174.118.142.187 made directly as a tit for tat response to the SPI.

    Neither myself nor any user of Wikipedia should have to put up with this level of abuse and malicious allegations.

    Housekeeping note: I B Wright and 174.118.142.187 notified of this ANI, but not the other IP addresses. The list has been erased, but I am not convinced any of them will see the notification anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the contribution history there is no way this is a dynamic IP as the edit topics are always the same, and the IP has been editing their same incorrectly created sandbox (off a talk page rather than user page) since the 2nd of May. It's blatantly a static IP and always the same editor. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Whatismyipaddress.com thing says it's static, too. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I would block this IP for a year. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And any accounts from the IP address as well, and account creation. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the caveat that I cannot comment on revision deleted material, I don't see 174.118.142.187 as being particularly disruptive. I just looked at his last 50 or so edits, and I just don't see it. He did have a SPI opened against him, with the result of "probably not connected", and he opened a SPI against another user, again with a result of "probably not connected". In the middle of this some harsh words were traded, but in my view someone who feels like he is being falsely accused and that an unfamiliar forum is being used against him can become understandably upset and should be given a lot of leeway. He also removed one talk page comment, and did not repeat that behavior once he was told that it is not allowed. I did far worse without being blocked in my first six months as an IP editor (this was almost seven years ago - does Wikipedia have a statute of limitations?). 174.118.142.187 does hold some fringe theories and has a bad case of "I didn't hear that" when anyone brings up the utter lack of sources supporting his theories, but so far this is nothing that cannot be handled with talk page discussion. I think everyone should just back off, they should ignore any final venting that 174.118.142.187 might do, and see if the situation will calm down and deescalate. I certainly don't see any need for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you did not look back far enough. This tirade of abuse and accusation has not started recently, but has been going on almost unbroken since December 2012, just 2 months after 174.118.142.187 started editing for the first time. It was at this time that 174.118.142.187 started his list of Wtshymanski's enemies, but it was on his own talk page at that time. I had not included the earlier examples of abuse because I considered that the later examples were adequate without boring the pants off the admins. If you want more let me know. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And the abuse continues unabated. This latest example from my talk page ([182]) yesterday despite the hint posted (presumably by an admin) on his own talk page ([183]). It is posted from the alternative IP address, 174.118.156.9. It is worth a look though, if only for the admission of sockpuppetry. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-topic comment: I saw the title of this thread on my watchlist and thought "Finally! Someone is raising with the community exactly what I have had to endure for years now on this project." Community, I am of disappoint. Back to scheduled programming. Russavia (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note: I have refused to participate in the last few DieSwartzPunkt concerns raised during content disputes. It is not that I do not have a defence. This has become a regular occurrence and, again, in view of the lack of honest diffs usually provide by this editor, I have taken a lesson from another editor, to just ignore him (and I B Wright) and continue to attempt to improve WP and reduce the drama. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And when you do try to defend it is only an attempt to deceive. "Lack of honest diffs"? Do the eight (8) in this ANI count as a lack of diffs? Count 'em. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat from User:Jojhutton

    NOPE
    There may or may not be no exceptions for legal threats, but it actually has to be a legal threat for that clause to apply. Jojhutton has made it clear that it wasn't, in accordance with the rules. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jojhutton (talk · contribs) has made legal threats in this comment :"you have gone even further by making slanderous statements" and ". You cannot go around making slanderous statements on talk pages". "Slanderous" is a legal term and an implied legal threat, which I've seen other editors blocked for using. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's hardly a legal threat. Slanderous means a malicious, false or defamatory statement. It can be used without any legal context at all. Given the context he used it in, it's clearly not a breach of NLT Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said AN/I, but as I am sure you know, AN/I is not a venue for content disputes. So that's a red herring. You were clearly trying to intimidate and chill speech by using American legal terminology, and preventing that is the specific reason for the existence of WP:NLT. Further, the policy clearly covers such use of legal terms, to quote "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Yworo (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now you know that's not what they meant. Are you going to close this petition? DarthBotto talk•cont 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a simple mistake by not looking at quite enough of the article history. I'm sure not going to apologize given Hutton's edit-warring and intimidating behavior. So sue me. And no, I'm not going to close the petition, Hutton clearly meant to chill speech by using the words, and I'm happy to wait for an admin to apply the no exceptions policy. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policy is that? user:j (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nawiarigi

    BLOCKED
    Blocked by ‎Rschen7754 as a sockpuppet of User:Alorkalabahi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A new contributor, User:Nawiarigi seems to be making random misplaced edits - I suspect a language problem, at minimum. See edit history: [184] Note the copy-pasting of text from an article from Indonesian Wikipedia into a 'category' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:NLT violation

    Legal threat made by User talk:RJMI in this diff: [185] Ravenswing 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "If the references to Richard Ibranyi are not put back in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article, I will try to contact the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and have you removed as an administrator because you will then be a twice-convicted liar and thus a very un-credible person to decide who or what can be allowed in an encyclopedia. If the owner does not correct it, then he will stand accused of the same." Easily meets WP:NLT. And their User page is not really helping matters... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: Considering that this was the account's first edit we may need to check at WP:SPI in case there are more accounts... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Therefore your removing Richard Ibranyi as a former member and thus implying he was not a former member is a bold-faced black lie which makes Richard look like a liar instead of you. Hence, if he had the time, money, and desire, he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation," being the actual passage I had in mind, since the editor wound up his long tale by claiming that he was himself Ibranyi. Ravenswing 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed that part among the WP:TLDR! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the whole statement includes having time and/or money, with a big "IF" at the beginning. He's not trying to chill discussion, he's trying to promote himself ... in 3rd person too. He quite clearly does not make a legal threat because he says he cannot afford to do it! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, seems like RJMI is just trying to use WP for attention seeking and self promotion, revert his edits reasonably and if he ends up edit warring report him for 3RR. The SPI if had proper diff's might have been valid, but also the three different user-ids though pointing to the same kind of edits might have been just one of his friends or colleagues. Amit (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, nonetheless, is a violation of WP:SOCK. There are four accounts, all opening within a week of one another, all with much the same editing pattern, all discussing the same fringe personality and the same two fringe subjects. Whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, it's all the same. Ravenswing 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.68.110.16

    This IP editor's mainspace edits are relatively normal, but his conduct on talk pages and in edit summaries is quite rude (he generally called people "idiots" in one instance). It's hard to describe, so I'd rather you take a look at it yourself. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - completely ridiculous. Who does he think he is - trying to be helpful to actual users??? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to be helpful, with an attitude is a different story. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. 173.68.110.16 has been rather hostile with edit summaries such as "soulless android strikes again?", "The link is not "dead" - learn to recover it, idiots!" and "Wikipedia being worthless again? You don't say!" doing the exact opposite of helping matters... and the edits themselves are not really much better! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see the difference. As long as the readers (who are by and large not interested in wasting time on editing the articles by themselves or on article's Talk pages) will find relevant, objective, non-offensive information useful - it is irrelevant how and in which way the info appeared in an article, or what actually happened on miscellaneous pages between editors themselves. I am certainly not here to find "virtual friends" or anything like that. If you believe otherwise and more concerned about playing "morality policeman" instead of spending more time on articles themselves - well, then, that's your choice, I cannot do anything about that. That is my final reply on this page. Enjoy your another "achievement" (whatever you intended it to be).173.68.110.16 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Whether or not your edits to articles are good, you are still required to speak politely to other editors, and can be blocked for not doing so.Euchrid (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He has edit warred in Microsoft Security Essentials over a rude contribution of his, which is reverted twice, once by 108.82.12.77 and once by User:Codename Lisa. Then he has started this talk page thread, calling one of the editors a "soulless android". Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deny recognition: Hello everyone. Currently, an administrative action is not necessary, because so far, the users seems to have not been persistent in his disruptive actions. However, there is little hope in telling him to stop being rude – as evidenced by the fact that even after three people have expressed their disagreements with one of his edits, he is yet to get the point. I advise denying recognition for the time being. We will deal with any future development accordingly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temporary Block, Editor should understand that a certain amount of civility needs to be used in the edit summary too. Amit (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Llibtrof and Metrication of British Transport

    A new editor (User:Llibtrof) has taken it into his mind to make an addition to the article Metrication of British transport which I, along with four other well-established editors and have deemed to be inappropriate to the article as per policy WP:UNDUE—User:David Biddulph, User:The Rambling Man (an administrator) and I have reverted the changes. User:Steve Hosgood and User:Mcewan have given us backing on the article’s Talk page. This edit has been reverted 10 times] and the editor in question has been invited to address the WP:UNDUE matter both via his the Talk:Metrication of British transport#Road signs - height above sea level and his own talk page, but he is adopting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. Instead, an IP editor, who to date has never edited Wikipedia has reinstated the changes. I believe that the IP editor who reinstated the changes last night and this morning and the IP editor who added the changes in the first place is really User:Llibtrof.

    These actions and the use of the abbreviation "POV" by User:Llibtrof here suggests to me that User:Llibtrof might be a sockpuppet of an established editor who has been banned from Wikipedia.

    Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Like User:Rschen7754, I suspect that User:Llibtrof is a sockpuppet of DeFacto, (See below) but at the moment I cannot prove it. User:Ritchie333 might not be aware of all the details, so may I fill him in. User:DeFacto is a banned user who's sockpuppets have been popping up all the time. My initial brush with DeFacto came when he tried to make an addition to Metrication in the United Kingdom identifying one promotion campaign of one product line by one supermarket as being significant, just as User:Llibtrof is trying to make an issue surrounding one road sign that is not catalogued in the TSRGD. I objected on grounds of the policy on WP:UNDUE. I tried using WP:DRN to resolve the issue. Ritchie333 might care to look at the discussion. It spanned these six threads
    1. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
    2. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
    3. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
    4. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
    5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
    6. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys
    DeFacto was banned shortly afterwards for gross disruption to Wikipedia.
    In my overhaul of Metrication in the United Kingdom, the section on transport was threatening to become large, so I spun it off as a separate article Metrication of British Transport. Two attempts were made to kill the new article a deletion attempt and an attempt to Talk:Metrication of British transport/Archive 1#Merge discussion. The supporters of both actions were User:Pother, User:Ornaith, both sockpuppets of Defacto and one other editor.
    The episode in January this year when I was blocked for 24 hours involved me making 3 (not 4) reversions within 24 hours of changes introduced by User talk:MeasureIT who was blocked at the same time. Three days later MeasureIT was banned as yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto.
    Given the above background material, Ritchie333 might like to reconsider his posting. Martinvl (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All the above put to one side, the simple facts are that two administrators thought you were edit warring. When you get involved in a dispute, you don't repeatedly override the other editor's contributions unless you are very sure they are bad faith, such as obvious vandalism or BLP violations. If they are bad faith, somebody else will probably restore the article anyway. By all means, come here and get him kicked for socking, but "he started it" and "it's the wrong version" never let your own behaviour off the hook. Be the better man. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto

    Stemming from a conflict regarding WP:COPYPASTE at Talk:Muawiyah I, User:Flagrantedelicto has engaged in three days of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches despite having been warned for such behavior by multiple users over the past few months.

    • From the original content dispute itself:
    1. " I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again."
    2. "Don't mistake me for a non-Muslim WP editor who is unfamiliar with Islamic protocol and etiquette."
    3. "And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ?"
    4. "And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP."
    5. "Don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality"...There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that."
    6. "And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ?"
    7. "lol...You must have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1...And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor?"
    8. " you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV"
    9. "First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's."
    10. "I don't really need to know who you are, nor do I particularly care to. But I am aware of your POV"
    • Flagrantedelicto being uncivil due to my attempts at seeking conduct dispute resolution
    1. "Where do you come across with such wild accusations ?"
    2. "If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control."
    3. " I shall introduce (or perhaps re-introduce) myself as the editor who is supposedly "out of control", or so I have been labelled...lol"
    4. "And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa."
    5. "Your above semi-rhetoric of a response would even have been mildly effective had it not been for you running to a WP Admin and crying...You also falsely stated that I was "out of control" and had "outbursts"...lol"
    6. You ask me to assume good faith, but lodge a false complaint of me being "out of control" and engaging in "outbursts"...You can offer all the policy rhetoric you want, but your POV is transparent"
    • Flagrantedelicto's rejection of attempts at solving the dispute
    1. By User:Toddy1 at 01:04, 17 June 2013, flat out rejected at 01:13, 17 June 2013
    2. I asked Flagrantedelicto to cease his unprovoked mockery of me for quoting Stephen Jay Gould at 08:03, 17 June 2013, he simply denied what he was doing at 19:25, 17 June 2013
    3. Toddy1 also expressed the view that Flagrantedelicto's comment was rude at 01:59, 18 June 2013, Flagrantedelicto once again flatly rejected this at 12:29, 18 June 2013 and denies that such concerns exist at 13:34, 18 June 2013.
    • Flagrantedelicto's seeking of a third opinion even contains incivility
    1. "::@MezzoMezzo. Your Stephen Jay Gould adage to Faiz Haider certainly sounds profound. It would be nice if you applied it to yourself."
    • Flagrantedelicto's speculating about the religion of other editors
    1. "Toddy1 (who gave the impression of being a non-Muslim) titled a new section header in Johnleeds1 personal Talk Page HAZRAT MUAWIYAH--Which almost no non-Muslim WP editor would have used. This reveals a Muslim affiliation..."

    There is quite a bit more, but I'm only describing what requires urgent attention. In six years of editing, I've seen this maybe twice, and both instances ended with blocks. The longer this continues, the more bold this editor becomes, and thus I feel this requires immediate attention now. It is also worth noting that the admin I contacted, who previously warned Flagrantedelicto for incivility (he responded by saying "Before you start lecturing me, I couldn't care if you are the founder WP, please review both sides and don't cop to a double standard. If I am blocked do you think that really scares me ? LOL I don't like threats...Not from you or anyone. I also don't like your tone, either"), politely declined to mediate the dispute this morning due to other commitments. I don't see any other solution other than ANI at this point; this is a rather extreme case, at least in my experience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor seems rude which cant be helped, otherwise the only issue I see is his use of religious beliefs as a reason to question other editors capability (as noted above and also in some of his talk page contribs). WP:PERSONAL Amit (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • MezzoMezzo must learn how to handle talk page disputes himself..this is the 2nd time he has opened an ANI thread in these couple weeks..whats ironic is that there are cases of him being uncivil but he turns a blind eye on his own actions..apparently this user isnt aware that talk pages sometimes do get heated during discussion...this is another frivolous filing on Mezzo's part instead of attempting to calm things down he expects other users to do it for him. Baboon43 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last thread was regarding you, Baboon. Nobody called it frivolous; I simply chose the wrong place and was encouraged to file an RFC/U by multiple editors, with one even calling it necessary. I thank you for your advice and perhaps I have made mistakes, but given that I drafted an RFC/U about your conduct I am inclined to be somewhat reserved in accepting your constructive criticism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense threats

    Blocked. No longer a backlog at AIV. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If AIV wasn't so backed up this probably would have been settled quickly with a user block: disruptive account making nonsense threats of kidnapping and torture [186]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Add 82.12.254.91 (talk · contribs) as an affiliated account. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ladotelli123 has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. IP 82.12.254.91 is now stale so there's no need for immediate action. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:14, 19 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 just blocked Russavia indefinitely

    There is little doubt at this point that Spartaz's indefinite block of Russavia has overwhelming support. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Russavia (talk · contribs) Since his return to the project Russavia has been constantly mired in controversy and has been blocked on a number off occasions for testing the boundaries of his arbitration restrictions. This culminated in the Pricasso troll where he appears to have induced an artist who uses his penis as a brush to paint a picture of Jimbo to illustrate an article about him that is now seeking to put on the mainpage as a DYK. While I am sure that we can all see the black humour in this, Russavia ended up by being topic banned from all things Jimbo by NYB in response. How does he respond to this? By taunting NYB on his talkpage of course including the nasty little comment NYB, what an interesting can of worms you have opened for yourself here, hey? clearly reveling in the drama as well as threatening consequences for users disagreeing with him. I'm afraid this is all really too much for me and its clear that Russavia is incapable of editing here without causing unacceptable levels of disruptive drama. I have therefore removed his editing rights. I'm placing the block up here for discussion as I am sure that this will end up here anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoo, boy, drama bomb incoming. Probably for the best, though for the record, I wouldn't consider the "can of worms" comment particularly nasty or taunting. Reveling in drama, perhaps, but since when has that been a blockable offense? If it were, half of us would be blocked, and the other half would be out of a job. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its blockable when your behaviour is so disruptive it drags in too many other users away from doing something productive. I'm of the opinion that we are at the point the reveling is certainly a factor in deciding how much further rope an editor is entitled too. Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    More accurately, Russavia seems to be reveling in creating drama, which falls on the wrong side of WP:POINT and WP:DE. Russavia is a good content creator, and my interactions with him, limited as they are, have been good. But I have no doubt Russavia knew exactly what he was doing in commissioning this Pricasso person to create a painting of Jimbo, particularly since they have rarely seen eye to eye, and he has a history of creating images using Jimbo's likeness when he wants to make a point. He could have had the guy paint anyone else, and there would have been little drama. But where's the fun in that, I suppose. Resolute 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [187] I rest my case about the reveling and I have to agree that he seems to be deliberately engendering the drama around him. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what does posting an unblock request and then deciding to remove said request have to do with "reveling in drama"? --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Being generally snarky isn't usually grounds for an indefinite block (and, really, a Wikipedia ban)—but I think that Spartaz is somewhat understating the size and nature of Russavia's conduct issues. We're really more into suicide-by-WP:POINT territory, here. On June 15, Newyorkbrad imposed a topic ban on Russavia under the provisions for special enforcement of the BLP policy. While Newyorkbrad's topic ban specified that Russavia is
    ..."indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Jimmy Wales",
    NYB took unusual pains to restrict the applicability of the ban to BLP-problematic content issues, while still permitting Russavia broad freedom to comment on Wikipedia governance and administration.
    "This restriction prohibits edits concerning Jimmy Wales as a public figure, as well as posting or discussion of images related to him. The restriction does not prohibit your commenting in a civil fashion in userspace or Wikipedia space on actions that Jimmy Wales may take in his capacities on Wikipedia."
    In blunt terms, NYB bent over backwards to preserve Russavia's ability (I won't say 'right') to be an obnoxious gadfly on project pages, while taking the minimum step necessary to discourage Russavia from screwing around by trying to drag his petty disputes into the encyclopedia itself.
    Since then, Russavia moved an article from his userspace to mainspace, which contained a link to a category on Commons containing the image of Jimmy Wales that (in part) led to Russavia's topic ban. When another editor removed the link to Commons and pointed out the topic ban violation, Russavia restored it twice [191], [192]. He subesequently self-reverted that last edit (when called on it in a report on NYB's talk page), and issued an open invitation in the edit summary for anyone else to restore it for him: "OK I will revert this, and only because then I can say I only reverted once -- but obviously another editor is welcome to reinsert the commonscat link".
    So, heartily endorse block. We're better off without this kind of game-playing. Newyorkbrad gave Russavia plenty of rope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've discussed this matter twice with Russavia over IRC and his attitude has been that he's just been doing his thing to improve the encyclopedia and others have been importing drama onto Commons with their reaction. This strikes me as disingenuous. Russavia claims that he has no dispute with Jimbo, but that's clearly not the case. (The interaction between JW and Russavia around April 28th, regarding an image of a woman flashing her breasts at Mardi Gras strikes me as particularly heated [193].) Russavia's attitude to the whole Pricasso situation struck me as gleeful. I'll let administrators decide what actions are appropriate, but I think that at the very least Russavia needs to acknowledge that this type of disruption is not acceptable. GabrielF (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - per Ironholds, Malik and Deskana. Right now this is probably best for all involved--Cailil talk 14:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block for a number of reasons, including those mentioned above. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing devil's advocate here, and admitting that I know nothing of Russavia's history on WP or the origins of the apparent spat with Jimmy Wales, are we in danger of failing to WP:AGF in this case? The "positive spin" interpretation of the facts would be:
      • Russavia decides to write an article on Pricasso, and the general consensus appears to be that Pricasso meets WP:GNG so that's fine.
      • Russavia also happens to know Pricasso personally, and decides to ask him to paint a piece specifically for inclusion in the article, to be released under a creative commons licence or whatever.
      • In choosing a subject for this Wikipedia centred artwork, the image of Jimmy Wales, the face of the foundation is chosen. In itself this does not seem unreasonable.
      • Pricasso paints the image and uploads it to Commons.
        If Pricasso were a regular artist, or perhaps painted with his foot, I don't think anyone would have any issue with the above. I have no opnion one way or the other on whether the block is vaild, but this is just a thought anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does the saying go? AGF is not a suicide pact. So yes, if the context of the article's creation were a different one, it would be a different situation. But it's not, and the situation we do have is pretty obvious, and it's clear that the article was used to attack Jimbo Wales. --Conti|✉ 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My logic has pointed out that each one of these cases are not a problem itself; it was the ban about Jimmy Wales topics which the addition is portrayed to be trolling and/or an attack. In all fairness; if it was a different way of production it would probably be fine unless the artist had devil horns or some other trait that could be seen as malicious. I suppose its the whole "he painted Jimmy Wales with his dick at the request of Russavia to further an anti-Jimmy agenda by proxy" is the real issue. If it was any other user who did this I am sure the image itself would be up for deletion and the person would likely be blocked for defamation or PA because the nature of the art's painting is unusual and offensive to some, but Russavia was on thin ice already. That's why he was indeffed; but I don't have an opinion on whether or not it was valid... I'm really outside of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • “decides to ask him to paint a piece specifically for inclusion in the article”. Not so much commenting on the block or the user here, but instinctively I would be very skeptical generally about including an “artwork” specifically made for Wikipedia and not exhibited or published (or similar) other well-known places. Just like Wikipedia shouldn’t be the first place to publish new scientific research etc, Wikipedia shouldn’t be the first to publish an artwork. Of course, if the artwork is controversial, it will tend to make this more obvious, but as I see it, it is part of a general rule about avoiding original research and material. And with art specifically, we will be in the danger of becoming part of a "performance art" stunt if we accept original artwork, where Wikipedians’ reaction to and handling of the artwork becomes part of the art (and maybe publicity). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Pricasso is notable (haven't read the article yet, so no comment there), then asking the guy to demonstrate his technique is fair game. We actually allow a high degree of "original research" with media. The problem for me, and where AGF falls down, is in the fact that Russavia is very, very aware of Jimbo's disdain for the amount of nudity/sexuality on Commons, and Jimbo has caused some pretty big drama in the past trying to clean it up. Russavia had to be aware that uploading a video of some guy painting Jimbo's likeness with his penis as the paint brush was going to be taken poorly and as Russavia's comments - to NYB especially - show, he's trying to frame this deliberately as a notcensored argument. And I would have agreed with him entirely on that, if not for the fact that Russavia is trolling Jimbo by making him the subject of the video. Russavia could have had Pricasso do a generic painting, and he would have been fine. But he went for maximum drama with his choice, knowing exactly how Jimbo would react. It is tantamount to harassment. Resolute 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not written on contemporary art and artists, so I am not familiar with the specific rules there, but if the rules or practice really are as you say, I belive they are deeply flawed. Say, we were to have an article on a political caricaturist. Some Wikipedian knows him, and gets him to draw a caricature specifically for Wikipedia. Would that be ok? Say further, that the caricature turns out to be very controversial for some reasons (maybe for some domestic reasons in a country few of us know much about) and generates a lot of publicity. Pressure groups say the caricature is deeply insulting to some person(s) or groups and demand that Wikipedia withdraws it and apologizes. Isn’ t this exactly a situation that Wikipedia tries to avoid by relying on secondary sources ?
    • Good faith editing by Russavia would've been in the form of avoiding areas that could be construed as disruptive. He dived into the deep end, not on accident, not unintentionally, no unknowing. He dived head first. There is no need to assume anything.--v/r - TP 15:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's good to know that our admin corps regards criticism of a block they make as "defending the indefensible." I suppose the logical next step is to label anyone who does so as a "troll" and "disruptive," and deserving of a block themselves. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. Unfortunately, because I recall Russavia as a very able and skilled contributor. But the actions here are clearly an example of harrassment, and Newyorkbrad's attempt at resolving it was a very lenient approach. The responses here are unacceptable, so I have no choice but to agree with the analysis of Spartaz and TenOfAllTrades on this issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Noting my statements on UT:Jimbo thereon, and the apparent destructive nature of those editors involved. Collect (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Russavia should have been blocked days ago for violating the topic ban NYB imposed by repeatedly posting self-evidently uncivil comments regarding Jimbo Wales (eg, "another 'editor' who has basically lied to the community"; "he will only end up embarrassing himself further if he continues to lash out wildly against me"; etc, as well as his plain efforts to evade NLT limits by making comments like "I would also have a civil case for the outrageous and totally libellous accusations of sexual harassment being levelled against me", but ingenuously claiming they aren't legal threats while posting generally threatening language on the commons talk page of at least one editor involved in these disputes. The best that can be said for him is that he has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in disruptive behavior in order to gain advantages in ongoing disputes, and his accusations elsewhere, especially commons, make any assumption of good faith utterly implausible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - Unfortunately. I quite often agreed with him on Commons (although I now think Commons is getting excessive). But right now he is basically trolling. Garion96 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse – I'd like to think that Russavia is at heart a decent person, and I certainly have often had pleasant and cordial interactions with him. But he's been dancing right up to the line and sticking his tongue (or possibly something else short, red and moist) out at the community. I don't think anyone can take much more of it. His schtick is amusing the first fifty times, but at a certain point we need to call it to a halt. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Because he is just trying to bend the rules to justify his actions and trolling, at the end of the day his actions and explanations are not reasonable enough. WP:REASON RULE Amit (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. As others have written, his editing both in discussions and in the latest article he created[194] had become far too disruptive and intentionally provocative (this is usually called trolling). Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, pretty much for all the reasons above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. Russavia's behaviour was trolling, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. Per just about everything said here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block - judging from the block log, sheesh that's long but I've seen longer, this is the third time they've been indefinitely blocked. I don't think there should be any coming back from that as they obviously cannot abide by any editing restrictions as has been proved on multiple occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block Every society needs a gadfly to question and challenge the status quo when necessary. Russavia has crossed the line from questioning those who have perceived power to actually creating drama and purposeful disruption in an attempt to mock and shame. It's unacceptable.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block for NLT and NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NFCR discussions in need of closure

    All of the above are discussions which have exceeded the discussion period and need closed so that it can be resolved. Werieth (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to discuss matter related to Algeria, leading to impasse

    Understanding achieved. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear AN/I,

    I had held discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algeria and Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard about whether or not to insert the French name of Algeria into the article about the country. I had conducted research into the matter and compiled it in the Languages of Algeria article. Based on what was said in the NPOV noticeboard after a discussion in a thread at the Algeria WikiProject I concluded the NPOV solution was to include French.

    User:TonyStarks removed the French, and when I reverted him citing the previous discussions, he reverted back.

    In response started a new NPOV noticeboard at this place where I wanted to get Tony Starks to explain his point of view, asking him to reconcile his belief that French should be excluded with what was said on the NPOV noticeboard. So far no editors have responded there. I asked him to clarify his response on his talk page but he said on my talk page User_talk:WhisperToMe#French language and Algeria "I just don't have time for bureaucratic nonsense and discussions."

    The result of the Dispute resolution noticeboard entry at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#Algeria was "No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. You've made a good attempt to get him to respond. At this point I would recommend either filing a request for comments on the point in question or report him to administrator's noticeboard/incidents for tendentious failure to discuss."

    In light of this, I gave TonyStarks 24 hours to either participate in discussions or announce that he will not challenge edits that restore French. There has been no response. The 24 hours have expired.

    Would someone please ask him to participate in discussions, or that if he does not wish to do so, to please not make edits in that area? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It looks like you have made every effort to establish a consensus and he has refused to participate and no one else has disputed your claims. He has refused to engage in any way, in spite of at least a dozen attempts by you, except to revert. In my opinion, him reverting your changes out are disruptive as now the burden has shifted on him. I would consider this a notice that he may be blocked if he continues to revert without first entering into a dialog on the subject. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dennis Brown: You're absolutely wrong. Please revisit the timeline of events before making such bold accusations about me. I have not edited the article in question at all since the original NPOV post, so to say that I'm being disruptive is a complete lie. I've chosen not to participate in the discussions, but in no way am I being disruptive and talk of a block is complete nonsense. TonyStarks (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WhisperToMe: "Would someone please ask him to participate in discussions, or that if he does not wish to do so, to please not make edits in that area?" What are you talking about?? Why are you making a huge deal to make it seem like I'm editing the article continually and refusing to engage in discussion when in reality I have not edited the article since the NPOV notice went up. It's my right not to engage in discussion as long as I'm not editing the article in question, which is actually the case. So please move on and stop trying to make a problem out of nothing, this issue is closed for me. TonyStarks (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you chose to not participate when you've had ample notice, you pretty much give up your right to revert. Assuming you don't go back and revert, then there is no problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tony: If it's closed for you, that's fine. The thing is: I didn't know how to take silence on the matter because you had reverted two previous times. If you do not wish to participate, all you need to say is "Okay, I will not revert any edits" - At 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I said "So, I will wait 24 hours for you to respond in the NPOV noticeboard thread or to declare that you are not interested in challenging the insertion of French. If there no response, I'll have to either file an RFC on the subject, or AN/I about your conduct." - I added the emphasis. I don't know what to make of a silence. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    1. ^ a b Glantz 2013, p. 184.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=560657367"