Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion

Hi,

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nominating endless aircraft templates for deletion; here, here and here at least. They have been asked to stop while the matter is discussed, primarily here on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, and specifically warned here about their behaviour. Now the nominations have restarted - see diff. This is creating a mass of work for those involved, while the Project discussion remains ongoing. This editor is clearly not prepared to wait for consensus. Can someone take a look and review their behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).

I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:

1. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
3. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
5. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
6. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26

And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).

The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being disingenuous in his invocation of WP:REDNOT although "red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes", "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.", which is the case with these navboxes. He is also being disingenuous when he says that his acceptance of a barnstar for these nominations was followed by a backlash: the backlash is clearly caused by the way he accepts, which very much looks like this is a personal issue for him. Generally, this editor is much too free with accusations that other people are making personal attacks when all that is being done is questioning his reasons for these mass deletion nominations and expressing disagreement.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:POLICY. The Aviation project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes the use of the template series as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than simply navigation templates. There's no violation of WP:CONLIMITED here since the WikiProject Aviation's Consensus (which is a policy) is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, since WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rudeness doesn't bother me (although it might bother others). Your stubbornness on the other hand... I believe that you were originally acting in good faith, however, you seem to be digging your heels in (and digging yourself a deeper hole), despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken. Mojoworker (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The Banner clearly has no intention of listening to consensus. Is there any good reason why he should not be banned from nominating any further templates for deletion under pain of an indefinite block? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you repeatedly illustrate that you cannot accept consensus. You're one of the most stubborn individuals I've ever encountered on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as a minimum [updated 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)]. This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Wikipedia policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
  • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.

I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing. (See below)

I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?

A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Wikipedia, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Wikipedia is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [Update] Except, contrary to the suggestion of good conduct made by DieSwartzPunkt you have a history of losing your cool and getting banned - see my later comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Wikipedia could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support That The Banner is even still allowed to edit wikipedia is because of the incompetence of the admins in dealing with his repeated problematic behaviour. He was allowed to return by HJ Mitchell on condition that he meets certain terms, and as far as I can see he's violated every one of them. Any editor who can't respect consensus should not be permitted to edit wikipedia, and Banner repeatedly illustrates he cannot accept consensus. In fact I'd say that the ban proposal should be extended to nominating articles for deletion as he repeatedly illustrates incompetence in nominations too and nominating notable articles which just need cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It has been said above somewhere that The Banner's edit record has generally been good. Let me refer you to their block log and to this archive of their user talk page, in which the most recent indef blocks are discussed. Nobody can hold that The Banner is innocent in all this aggressive PoV-pushing, deafness to argument and personal antagonism. It has quite evidently been their personal style for a long time. The current proposal may well not go far enough in dealing with such a chronically aggressive editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC) [Updated 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed troubling. I see that his allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland were conspiring against him three months ago seems very similar to his interaction with WikiProject Aviation now. A disturbing pattern. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt, I am willing to accept that Banner has stepped on a bunch of toes, and that he can be abrasive. I could accept a lot more, maybe. But what I will not accept is someone saying that NOTHERE applies to Banner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his record and his block log speaks for itself. He is consistently disruptive and ignores consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And when I responded on your many bad faith accusations, block fishing and personal attacks, your block log would also grow quickly. Please use arguments in this dispute, do not get personal. The Banner talk 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was me. It was very remiss of me not to check the block log or to see if there was a talk page archive. In the light of these revelations, I have struck parts of my posts above. Also, it is now apparent that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE. I have also changed my !vote to an unqualifie 'support'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Banner cites NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. It looks like (from the RfC linked below) that NENAN is thrown out as a rationale for deletion nominations. Ergo, Banner will no longer cite NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. If he does, he's courting a block.

  No need for anything more drastic: this is not a discussion on his general behavior, but on the narrow one of his deletion nominations for templates--the most drastic measure I'll agree with is a limit on the number of deletion nominations, in general or specifically for these templates. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always said that I will honour the outcome of the RfD. No matter what the outcome is. The Banner talk 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to let that RfC run to conclusion, which it will soon do, but I agree right now the consensus there is that WP:NENAN is of no value at deletion discussions. The only editor who seems to be still defending it there and opposing the WikiProject consensus on the matter is User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? That consensus reached on WikiProject Aircraft that according to the closing administrator of quite a lot of the nominated templates is NOT a convincing argument? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have already been challenged to explain how you come to that non-logical conclusion but have failed to explain it, as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you fail to understand/accept what the closing administrator did. But I am willing to repeat that over and over again for you: Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is wrong about this discussion. The narrow issue over the templates is being discussed at TfD. I specifically brought The Banner's behaviour here to ANI. It has now emerged as part of a wider and longer-term pattern of destructive behaviour and it needs dealing with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute, so you try to get me blocked. The Banner talk 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter at RfC has been firmly decided by yet another consensus against you. What we are discussing here is your record of intentional disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. As I have said before your record speaks for itself, you have been blocked multiple times in the past for the same thing. There is no need for you to keep pretending this is a content dispute when it isn't. Your response above shows clearly that you don't "get it" and aren't willing to change your behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, mr. Hunt, stop this harassing and personal attacks. Just accept the facts. Indeed, except for miracles WP:NENAN will be shot down as argument for a deletion nomination. But you fail to accept that the closing administrator also shot down your local consensus as argument for an outright keep. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You can stop trying to deflect the discussion here. It is your behavior that is being discussed here, not mine and your response is to accuse other people of "harassing and personal attacks" without any evidence. I have provided diffs above that support all complaints about your behaviour, as have other editors. Your attempts at deflections here provide only vague accusations and continue to show that you "just don't get it", aren't willing to admit that your editing is a problem and aren't willing to change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Deleting templates while they are under discussion and refusal to accept the consensus of the community mean that this user shouldn't be allowed to continue this behavior. I don't know why we keep putting up with these editors who continue to try our patience. This editor has had the repercussions of their behavior explained to them and now it is time to take away their ability to continue disrupting the project. We all have better things to do than swat flies.--Adam in MO Talk 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, provisionally. I think there are some problems, but we see the same type of problem on AN/I many times. An editor or editors interested in some broad policy/technical area (templates, MOS things, cats, etc.) stirs up a hornets nest when their attempts to stretch content over the procrustean bed of standardization offends some parochial interest (usually a medium sized wikiproject). Bringing the outside editor here and asking us to impose a topic ban should be a last resort. I may revisit this later after looking at the links more, but I'd bet there's a less severe remedy available. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support What is the point of anyone trying to make this a usable encyclopedia in the face of this. Op47 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: RfC

As nobody started anything: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN.

And yes, I know not everybody is happy with this and I will get some flak and maybe a ban, but it has to be done.

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the current discussion, which is about you. Posting about it here looks like just another of your attempts to deflect attention from your violation of your previous promises, as discussed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is related, and a notice here is appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I just wanted people to be aware that "related" and "relevant" are not the same thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It just got WP:SNOWBALL-ed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The original behavior in question was the mass nominations, which I agree was done poorly due to limitations of automated tools. This behavior, alone, is not enough for a ban. The resulting discussion has been sufficiently heated, that the occasionally snarky responses from TheBanner could easily be argued to be provoked. He has even conceded that he will respect the templates for discussion outcome. The request for comment on WP:NENAN at templates for discussion would seem to be a good faith attempt to reach a wiki-wide consensus, but it too is ensnared in the current controversy. I have been bitten by the TheBanner's snark, and may have bitten back to. I recommend WP:CONCEDE and move on. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me why I brought this here. The wikiproject is big enough to take a bit of template foolery, no way is that an issue I would bring here. The original behaviour in question was the manner in which consensus was ignored, civility was flouted and all the rest. This has turned out to be part of a long-term pattern of abuse. The mass nominations just happened to be the pawn in play at the time. Last time it was a different wikiproject got this treatment. So - please deal with the issue at hand and not with the Banner's skilful smokescreen. FYI I was not involved in the template game save at the end when one of my colleagues in particluar was suffering badly from The Banner's personalising of their constant attacks in the face of consensus. I know it was a long way back up the thread, but please do follow the links I have been providing before you make such uninformed judgements about my motives. Look, if you want to bring the template discussion itself to ANI, will you please start a separate topic and not divert mine? Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you brought the case here; TheBanner is a jerk has been acting as like jerk. That being said, I don't know what is left to be done. The deletion nominations were doomed to fail. Turning it into a brewhaha was unnecessary. A link to the manual of style for the Wikiproject and a request that all the templates be considered together were all that were necessary. Engaging each and every snarking response TheBanner made just provoked more; this is what I am posting about. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you. It was not obvious to the wikiproject that the nominations would be bound to fail. Stranger things have been sanctioned and this project does have an awful lot of templates. But of course, we are drifting away from the root issue here - the disruptive community behaviour surrounding those nominations. Think of my topic title as "Persistently [doing contentious things] during discussion: [and not for the first time]", as I restate below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restatement

This discussion is about The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their behaviour. Check out their block log and talk page archives for more about why this is important. I am the OP, I know why I posted here. Please do not fall for their skilful distractions on the matter of a few templates. I would not waste your time over a few templates. Please stay on course here, thank you. I will come back and clarify recent events/discoveries as I can but at the moment am too busy off-wiki to go round collecting the links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted here because this user was "Persistently [doing contentious things] during discussion."

The Banner's block log (see link in the above para) reveals a history of sanctions for destructive behaviour. The account has been blocked 8 times since July 1911. Reasons repeatedly given include edit warring, personal attacks and general disruption. In the present dispute, we see all these in spades. Rather that show any repentance, the Banner has detemonedly argued to justify their actions. In the last of those older incidents, The Banner undertook four promises. Here again is the snapshot of the discussion that I already posted. The most relevant discussion is near the bottom, where The Banner unconditionally accepted four conditions:

1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;

2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;

3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;

4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

Conditions 2. and 3. have been very blatantly broken, not only with a self-confessed crusade against another wikiproject but also an equally open personal vendetta against one particular project member, even taking it to their talk page. I too have received passive-aggressive harrassment on my own talk page, here and here.

So, I would now ask that Admin attention be directed at this user's apparent flouting of unconditionally accepted terms of behaviour previously laid on them by an Admin, and their apparent total unrepentance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute (neither do I, to be true) so you try to get me blocked. Cool. But be aware of boomerangs. The Banner talk 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Template:1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship. The Banner talk 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is "only 2 links, red links are to subject titles unlikely to prove sufficiently notable in their own right to require a fork to an individual article user:Fenix down. This would be a sufficient to propose deletion even if WP:NENAN were not mentioned at all. Other posters agree, but it is still subject to consensus. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd call that unrepentant. Talk about digging yourself a deeper hole. LOL, indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just call that asking for a block out of revenge. Not to serve the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction

  I would like admin assistance regarding a section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction (the one that starts with "NOTICE:") that I feel violates the Talkpage guidelines in that it addresses me directly and in a non-neutral manner (as well as misstating a comment of mine), and is part of a pattern that constitutes WP:harassment.

  The offending section was added 14 May by User:Elvey, with an additional comment from 64.134.48.248 (a persistent editor using various IP addresses from Wichita). After a month with no discussion I archived it, which was immediately restored from 64.134.150.40 with the edit summary "Useful information that doesn't need to be archived so quickly." After another month of no discussion I removed it again on 17 July, which User:Joe Bodacious reverted with the comment "We don't need to archive every two months, and in this case, it looks self-serving"; another deletion/reversion followed on 18 and 19 July.

  All this stems from various content disputes which these editors took to ANI in a failed attempt to have me topic banned, and constitutes a pattern of repeated behavior intentionally targeting me, having no purpose other than to annoy and harass me, either directly, or by trolling for others to do so.

  The relief I seek is to have an admin remove this section from Talk:Earthquake prediction and its archive, and editors Elvey, Joe Bodacious, and the one from Wichita (various IP addresses) admonished for harassment and uncivil behavior. I do not ask that the page history be suppressed (in order to preserve the record of these editors' pattern of edits), but perhaps the edit summaries could be revised to simply "NOTICE: ...". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Elvey has been notified, and notices placed at User_talk:64.134.48.248 and User_talk:64.134.150.40. User:Joe Bodacious has been notified, but might not be able to respond immediately as he has been blocked as a sock puppet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a good section heading but the criteria for using rev/del don't cover this (nor can we actually change edit summaries, although of course we can hide them). Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:TALKNEW pretty clear? Under "Keep headings neutral" (emphasis in the original) it plainly says: "Don't address other users in a heading". Also, "Never use headings to attack other users", which is deemed not simply "not good", but "especially egregious". (I have detailed all this at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE".)

  Deletion from the active talk pages would ordinarily follow archival. Joe's view seems to be that this attack should be permanently memorialized. Shouldn't this sockpuppet's reversions also be "struck out"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

TLDR: SRSLY? This is about an edit I made months ago! My comment echoes the views of other editors regarding edits by the user that have lead to similar criticisms of JJ by many other editors on many occasions before and since. JJ WP:NOTHERE? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome constructive feedback, particularly in the form of an edit to the edit I made that this ANI section dredges up and characterizes as harassment and trolling; the guideline WP:TALKNEW says "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." The heading is currently, "NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson's commitment to not revert" to make it demands much admin action that seems all about a tempest in an old teapot. While JJ claimed that "no admin was interested in a topic ban", and that may or may not be true (neither of us has ESP...), what is true is that User:BrownHairedGirl is an admin, and did say at that archived ANI discussion, "... I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone." --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• J. Johnson (JJ) was lucky to escape a topic ban in respect of earthquakes. The discussion in April included a proposal to topic-ban JJ which was supported by 4 editors and opposed by only one. If there had been a little more participation, the topic ban would probably have been imposed.
  As Elvey noted in the posting to the talk page, one factor in the lack of a topic ban was J. Johnson's assertion that it was Not necessary. I disavow any ownership, am resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly have no desire to do any reversions."
  It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that this commitment should be noted on the talk page of the article in question. Note that in March 2013, there had been a discussion at WP:AN about J. Johnson's conduct, at which no action was taken, so this was clearly a long-running dispute.
  JJ's bringing of a complaint to ANI about JJ's attempts to remove the record of that commitment cast doubt on the good faith of the commitment made in April. A revision history search shows that J. Johnson continues to edit the article, and continues to edit the talk page.
  That does not appear to me to be the conduct of an editor who is "resigned to whatever happens to the article". I urge J. Johnson to read WP:BOOMERANG, because it seems to me that the main effect of JJ's complaint here is to draw attention to JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The fact that J. Johnson probably would have received a topic ban was brought up on my page last night by User:Robert McClenon - his ownership problems put other editors off. Including me. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if all of the foregoing is granted, does that set at naught the plain statement of WP:TALKNEW to "keep headings neutral", and specifically to not address other users in a heading? It is not at all (as BHG alleges) an attempt to "remove a record" (the record is still there); I am asking if the supposed rules give Elvey an exemption to hound me from a section heading. Alternately, why not also "NOTICE" that Elvey has been blocked for disruptive editing and "general and persistent combative attitude", and was warned just this month to not harass other editors? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That wording in the talkpage guideline, about not referring to other users' names in headings, is pretty nonsensical and has never reflected actual practice. It used to say a different thing, up to c.2011 or so, which was actually about not addressing other editors, in the sense of talking to them rather than about them (i.e. discouraging headings of the type "Hey, XYZ, why did you revert me?"). Then some people misunderstood "address somebody" as if it meant "refer to somebody", and people started silently fiddling with the wording until it said something totally different.

What it all boils down to is: headers in talk pages may be about whatever is a legitimate topic of discussion on that page. It is true that normally discussions on article pages should be as little personalized as possible, but if in a given situation an individual's behaviour has been a particular matter of concern, and discussion on the article has had to focus substantially on how to deal with the disruption caused by that individual, then it is only natural that section headings may end up reflecting that, just as they tend to reflect whatever else gets discussed on such pages. If such has been the case here and you've been causing long-term problems on that page, then you'll probably have to live with the idea that other editors will refer to you while trying to clean up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that explication. I think the essence is that WP:TALKNEW is not as starkly simple as it could be taken, and the plain (naive?) reading of "Don't address other users in a heading", etc., is effectively inoperative, and not an "egregious" offense. Which is fine, I can accept that, as long as we're all playing by the same rules, and on that basis I will withdraw my request. I am greatly disappointed that when I try to have a serious discussion about content certain editors go into attack mode and make this all about me, but I think rebuttal of that is off-topic for this thread. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's two administrative admonitions, above. The ownership problems have already come up at ANI on multiple occasions, and on the talk page on umpteen occasions, with JJ and umpteen frustrated other editors. We have no admin action, beyond administrative admonitions. We have "JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment". Could the self-imposed commitments be made admin-imposed restrictions? JJ now says that he still (!) thinks the problem is "editors go into attack mode and make this all about me"; it is not. Enough. A lot of good, thoughtful advice has been given to JJ by a lot of editors. Now what? Just revert to the 2011 language? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The serious discussion I was trying to have here was whether TALKNEW was applicable to your hounding me from a section heading. Fut.Perf. has offered an explication about TALKNEW which could be taken as a basis for resolution. But this is not good enough (harsh enough?) for you, you just have to keep trying to make this discussion yet another WP:BATTLEGROUND. As I was said: I try to have a serious discussion, and you go into attack mode. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Insult and threat by TheAirplaneGuy

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

---

Please see [1]

• TheAirplaneGuy reverted 6 edits by me in Malaysia Airlines. I would like to point out that at least two of my edits which he reverted (the removal of the incidents from the fleet table) do reflect the consensus on the talk page. He never tried to discuss the contents of these edits with me.
• I was and am willing to enter a discussion whether or where the information like when the first A380 of the airline went into the assembly phase should be (IMHO definitely not in the destinations section) with any person who starts a discussion with me regarding that, and I do accept when the consensus is against me.
• If another editor would point out in a civilized way that he thinks I should have sought consensus first for any of my edits, I would also be willing to consider and discuss that.
• TheAirplaneGuy insulted me on my talk page as having vandalized Wikipedia.
• TheAirplaneGuy gave me an only warning threatening I may be blocked from editing without further notice if I do such edits again. Is it approved by Wikipedia policy that TheAirplaneGuy gives me such an only warning without ever attempting to discuss the issue with me in a civilized way first?
• Unless this revert+insult+threat behaviour is accepted in Wikipedia, I do expect administrative sanctions against TheAirplaneGuy that make it clear to him that such behaviour is not accepted.

Thanks for your consideration CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: I see that the "A380 milestones" section TheAirplaneGuy re-added with their reversion has no sources at all. Apart from that, I cannot find the insult you refer to.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Only warning: Vandalism on Malaysia Airlines. in the edit log and similar text on my talk page. Is calling another person a vandal not considered insulting? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is anyway that he tries to enforce his revert through threatening with me getting blocked instead of starting a discussion. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: S(he) has not openly insulted you, but I'm afraid WP:ATWV applies and {{Uw-vandalism4im}} has been used inappropriately.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see zero attempts to try and discuss this "incident" with TheAirplaneGuy before coming here to ANI. Templates are "warnings" not "threats", calling something vandalism that isn't is uncivil...and those two things belong in the realm of user-to-user discussion as neither are blockable. Yes, I agree that 4im was improperly used in this case, but that's guidance and education not administrative blocks the panda ₯’ 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Out of the void reverting of 6 edits and improperly threatening to get me blocked is not a punishable offence? I really have to scale down on the civility I've learned in real life - in the "user-to-user discussion" you want me to have with this guy I might not be much more friendly to him then he is to me (history has proven that Appeasement does not work). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• What the Panda says. No discussion--and, on the other hand, the warning was inappropriate. The edits themselves are a content matter that should be discussed on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Maybe the behaviour does not warrant admin action, but it is not the first time TheAirplaneGuy mislabelled edits as vandalism. See User talk:John.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've already noted that ... Airplane hasn't edited since this was filed ... I look forward to their reply the panda ₯’ 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he is embarassed by his mistake and has registered another account to continue working discreetly while this blows over? Coming to WP:ANI can be intimidating especially when you realise you have accidentally done something to annoy someone else. I agree though the mature editorial thing to do would be to apologize and refrain from making such edits in the future without proper consideration. Alicb (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow what a welcome back! I legit thought he was a vandal, so Alicb just myob TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete that much without consensus proves that you are not telling the truth. Since the amount of deletion (not the contents) was the only thing you criticized when you attacked me and you even considered it possible that I could get consensus for them, it is clear that you were never thinking I was an actual vandal. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Very funny mate, but why the hell did you wait a few hours to tell me when I was busy? And I legit thought you were a vadal because of the sheer scale of dead bits TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what he is referring to with his first sentence. I would like to hear from an admin whether reverting 6 edits, insulting another editor as vandal and only warning threatening he may be blocked from editing without further notice without even looking at the reverted edits is accepted (non-punishable) behaviour in Wikipedia, or whether that is a punishable offence. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

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

---

At a nearly settle 3RR discussion between Eric Corbett and Bloodofox, admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric. The edit warring had ended a couple hours before, so there was no immediate issue when Scotty begins tailing Eric's comments, trying to provoke a response. Please note that Scotty has indef blocked Eric before [2] and this indef block was soon reverted to one month by another admin.

Scotty continued to add to the discussion, knowing full well that he was antagonizing a situation that was already under control, fortunately no one really took the bait. In this exchange, Scotty taunted Cassianto as being a new "pawn" of Eric's. He also made a personal attack against me with the comment "The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness." although I was there merely as a commenter. It is easier to just read the report. [3] I requested that he retract it. [4] and he declined. [5]

It is fine to disagree about facts, but when an admin comes to an admin board WP:AN3, begins antagonizing the parties, then antagonizes the observers and personally attacks one (me), this admin needs to be stopped. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, perhaps you need to start taking some of your own advice. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and I said as much at AN3 before this section was started. Throwing out personal attacks against other editors purely due to ancient grudges is absolutely not acceptable from any editor, let alone an administrator; I am even more disturbed that Scottywong appears from his responses to Dennis at AN3 and his talk page to believe that this behaviour is completely acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I will accept any punishment that the community decides is necessary for the unimaginable atrocities I have committed today. I would like to point out, however, that Dennis was actually the first to inject personal attacks into the discussion. He kindly let me know that my lack of empathy is alarming to him, and I appreciated his honesty so much that I thought I would return the favor and let him know my honest thoughts about him. I considered his empathy comments deeply offensive, and since he didn't document them with diffs (which is apparently the rule now), I ask that any punishment applied to me also be applied to Dennis equally. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "block anyone that crosses 3RR without regard to why", that does lack empathy. The problem is you pushing Eric around like a bully, as you have the admin bit (and have blocked him before), trying to get him to go off on you so you could block again. You have ZERO interest in that case, you came to cause problems only. Then making personal attacks against someone who called you on it, questioning my character, when you were the one bullying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately that makes no sense. If I blocked Eric for anything, I would be immediately hauled off to Arbcom by 3 dozen editors for taking administrative action in violation of WP:INVOLVED. And Eric is well aware of that. So, your claims that I'm trying to be a bully, and I'm trying to bait Eric into doing something so that I can block him are completely farcical. And I don't believe that strict enforcement of clearly-defined rules equates to a lack of empathy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as what is more empathetic or not is perfectly fine for a separate discussion, there is logic on both sides, but that isn't the big issue. It is at last arguable that blind block is unempathetic, even if you say you can present evidence to the contrary. As for "if you blocked Eric", I'll be honest Scotty, I don't know if you would block him, or ask someone else to block him, or just wait for it to happen, but you knew (or should have known) that pushing his buttons could have caused more disruption and caused him to tell you to piss off, etc. Look at your own comments Scotty, it looks exactly like you came in looking for a fight with Eric. NO good could ever come of you talking to him when it isn't needed. Yes, it looked like bullying because YOU have the power of the admin bit and buddies on IRC, and he has nothing except a reputation that makes him easy to block.

As for questioning my character, that is a separate issue. I didn't close the AN3, I haven't hid the fact that Eric and I get along on articles, I suggested closing by saying that neither had edited in two hours, and anyone that knows me knows I don't like to block two editors for EW if they aren't editing, that seems punitive. Eric or not. I'm NOT known to block on 4RR, I'm the guy that usually full protects the article. So yes, calling my character corrupt was way over the line. The fact that Eric and I get along is exactly why I WOULDN'T HAVE closed that discussion, even though WP:INVOLVED only covers negative interaction, not positive. It was an attack, and not the same as a merely blunt assessment. Regardless, your activity towards Eric was so massively over the line, it makes ALL admin look bad. THAT is a problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Buddies on IRC? You are making one assumption of bad faith after another. I had no intention of blocking Eric, asking someone else to block him, or logging in to IRC (which I never use) to start a conspiracy against Eric. I was merely commenting that I thought this 3RR offense should result in a block, just as you were commenting that you thought it shouldn't result in a block. All the rest of your assumptions about me and my intentions should have been checked at the door, and they were probably a result of your aforementioned positive INVOLVEments with Eric. You really get overly emotional when it comes to defending him; perhaps you should refrain from commenting on complaint threads about him. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's okay because the other party shot first? Two wrongs don't make a right (although three rights do make a left). Calling another editor corrupt is pretty uncool no matter what the circumstances are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My empathy comment was directly in response to his, there was no diff. This is a weak attempt to deflect attention from everything he said on the page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you re-read the discussion, you'd see that your first comment to me was to characterize my (rather civil and level-headed) comments as soapboxing and drama-mongering. You then go on to tell me that my lack of empathy is alarming to me. Only then did I decide to return the favor by giving you some honest criticism. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The easiest thing is to close this, close the EW page, hat them and move on. Discussion is ongoing on the kelpie talk page and folks can just ignore the ad hominems and move on. I'd hat both these myself right now but have been peripherally involved at editing the kelpie page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some wisdom in that Casliber, but this is pretty far over the line, and ignoring sends the message that it is ok for an admin to torment editors you've blocked before, and then insult someone who stands up to them. This isn't exactly the first time we've seen this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this straight. There is an editor who you perceive to be uncivil, who is casting insults and attacks, being inflammatory and argumentative, and you see this as a long term pattern of behavior. Hmm. Who else can you think of who fits that bill, and why are you so enraged by one instance of this behavior and so forgiving of another? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time we've seen admin torment editors. We can't just do nothing every time we see it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, I'm sorry for "tormenting" Eric about reverting the same page 4 times in a day. I'll be sure to ignore such trivial policies in the future. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok you 2, what the feck is going on here. Two Wikipedia editors that I appreciate suddenly squaring off on ANI...fan-fricking-tastic. Scotty, considering your history with Eric, you had no fricking business on the AN3 report - you were simply inflaming something that would have been better off being cooled off. Well-fricking-done - THAT was the part that was really conduct unbecoming. The job of an admin is NOT to pour gasoline on a freicking fire. Dennis was indeed right to call you on it. That never should have HAD TO EVER HAPPEN. What the feck were you thinking? the panda ₯’ 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Panda, I believe I have a right to express my opinion at AN3. My intention wasn't to inflame anything, it was to express my opinion that clear violations of 3RR should result in a block. It was not until my opinion was derided as "soapboxing" and "drama-mongering" by Dennis, and it was not until I was told I have an alarming lack of empathy by Dennis that I decided to let Dennis know what I thought of his comments. I am fully aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Eric in just about everything, and had no intention of acting as an administrator with respect to this AN3 complaint. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, other than the fact that we have no "rights" to speak of, we always have to temper whatever right we have with common sense. You personally know that your post there would take on a life of it's own ... and look, it did. You know better than that for crying out loud. This is absolutely disappointing and disgraceful the panda ₯’ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Then if you know you are INVOLVED, why bother to speak out there at all, except to get in a few shots against Eric? You couldn't have actioned it according to your own methodology, right? Was it just to opine how all editors that break 4RR should be blocked? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, actually, all I was doing was putting forth my opinion as an editor. I don't believe being INVOLVED with an editor prohibits you from expressing your opinion of how a complaint about their behavior should be handled, does it? Just because I've had arguments with Eric in the past (and who hasn't?) doesn't mean that my comments are automatically soapboxing or drama-mongering, and I do not appreciate your comments at the AN3 thread to that effect. In fact, I believe it was your comments that inflamed the discussion in the first place. If you had put away your assumptions of bad faith and treated my comments respectfully, we wouldn't be here right now. Perhaps you should refrain from vehemently defending Eric to prevent him from being blocked, if you can't do it without immediately deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Bullshit. Your first comment was "I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous." and you could plainly see that Eric didn't make any such complaint. You went directly after Eric, like a laser beam. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that you misunderstood my first comment, which was actually directed at the editors that were saying Eric shouldn't be blocked because he wasn't properly warned, not at Eric himself (which I made clear in subsequent comments). ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That stretches credibility Scotty, particularly since that last half of that post included " Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined)" . They are all there, I can keep using your own words to show you were focused on harassing Eric, but it seems pretty obvious why you were there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see any evidence of harassment. I believe that everything I said in that statement is arguably accurate. And honestly, that statement is less directed at Eric than it is at the editors, yourself included, who enable Eric's behavior. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
              • And the fact that you don't see any problem with how you acted, how you treated others is exactly why we are here. It is conduct unbecoming of an admin. It is harassment and personal attacks. The community has the choice of either saying this is acceptable behavior, or saying it is not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Well, I believe that your conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And if you think the community gives a shit about your whinging here, you are mistaken. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly both Scotty and Dennis come off sounding like children in this discussion. Why not just move on and stop sniping at each other? Chillum 01:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Forget the attack against me, you think badgering an editor he had previously blocked was ok? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see an admin commenting on policy, I see prior admin involvement. Previously blocking a user does not make you an "involved admin" so if there is something else I am missing point it out. Your immediate response to his presence on the noticeboard was really rather confrontational.

It has mostly been you two going back and forth at each other not the initial incident that is being disruptive. Chillum 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I probably was a little defensive after his first comment, which was a snide remark that started the badgering. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by a user that couldn't give a flaming toss, but just happened to stumble across this - I would like to ask what you all hope to achieve with this? Drama like this (in my experience at least) has two possible outcomes: You keep arguing on and on until words are said that causes users to rage quit the site or see most users involved in such a dispute face some sort of consequence, usually both sides of the debate. The second outcome involves apologizing to each other (even if you think you are in the right) and moving on. Walking away from this, you can't change anything that happened. All you are doing is bringing up stuff that has already happened and trying to gain some sort of moral highground, which is a pretty lame tactic in my opinion. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oh FFS- Dennis, there is nothing wrong with saying an editor breaking 3RR should be blocked for it. Scotty, you are becoming ultra-defensive and belligerent. Both of you, knock it off and go edit the encyclopedia. This is too stupid for words. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How is it Panda and Blackkite see it so differently? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably because anything involving Eric gets all kinds of opinions on both sides. I think I'm practically unique in that I am a 9 year veteran with lots of edits, who nevertheless has had nothing much to do with Eric at all, and I have no opinion regarding this particular 3RR dispute. But I do recognize that Scotty can legitimately think someone should be blocked for breaking 3RR, even when that person is Eric. Reyk _YO! 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I completely agree that is a valid point of view. That isn't the issue. It was calling other editors pawn, the attack, claims, etc. Given their history, `it looks a lot like badgering to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop. You are acting no better. This matter seems resolved, I don't think any 3RR block is coming. The problem that remains is one of sniping at each other and the solution is to stop. Chillum 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with closing this thread immediately. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Of course you are, you badgered an editor in what looks like an attempt to set him off, you made personal attacks, and a few are willing to sweep it under the rug. You should be giddy. The community is none the richer from it. I guess it is ok to badger the editor if they are unpopular, because that is what it looks like. A few have already spoken out against you here, but their voices are drowned out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, in summary, this drama thread predictably failed to produce any results, and now you're angry about it. You've become somewhat megalomaniacal, Dennis, and the power of adminship seems to have gone to your head. You think you can come to a discussion and casually deride my comments as soapboxing and drama-mongering, and comment on my lack of empathy, etc.? Other editors might take that kind of shit from you, but I certainly won't. Remember that you're no better than anyone else on WP, admin or not. Your judgment is no less flawed than anyone else. Next time you find yourself typing out a negative opinion of my personality (or anyone else's, for that matter), I'd advise thinking twice before posting it, and ensuring that your opinion is not based on any assumptions of bad faith, as your opinions throughout this thread have been rife with them. I'm still in favor of closing this thread, and would suggest that Dennis and I strive to avoid each other in the near future. I will certainly make an attempt to be more civil in future conversations with Dennis, as long as he doesn't come out swinging with insults and disrespect like he did in this case. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for Scottywong - You made a reference to what you perceive as "Eric's privileged status on this site" and this may be the root cause of the dispute. Are you able to substantiate your claim with strong evidence and concrete examples? -A1candidate (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it would not be even remotely worth the time and effort required to do so. So, I decline your request. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "yes", it's "no", but understandably so in your case. Eric Corbett 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The question was whether I am able to substantiate my claims, and the answer to that question is yes. The answer to the question of whether I will substantiate my claims is no. Anyone with any knowledge of your history would not argue that you frequently push the boundaries of the rules (to be generous), and that you are simultaneously the recipient of immunity from consequences from some and hypersensitivity to your transgressions from others. Both of these polarizing effects are natural reactions to each other; asking which one came first is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. But, it is undeniable that both of these extremes exist as reactions to your behavior, and providing evidence of either would not be difficult. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. While I'm not taking sides, I do think that the close should -- even if no action is taken (which seems likely from the above) -- touch on the issues of: a) was there a violation of wp:admin here in terms of a personal attack, and b) does the fact that a sysop has blocked an editor mean that he should not comment at AN3 in the manner we see here. The one point that I will make is that it would appear that an apology would have prevented this entire drama. But apparently the thought is that the asserted violations of wp:admin are baseless, so no apology is in order, and if that is (or is not) the case I guess we should clarify it. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett blocked for personal attack

It may or may not be relevant to this discussion that I have just blocked Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for an apparently unrelated personal attack via edit summary [6]. The substantive comment made was uncivil, but the edit summary was a direct personal attack.

The length of the block reflects the number of previous blocks which Eric has received for similar misconduct (see block log). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is going to go smoothly. Anyone for popcorn? Doc talk 11:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm popcorn. I think I may have seen this show before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-admin unclose) You can't just close this at "Eric blocked, nothing more allowed to be said" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Does an edit summary of "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" justify a 72-hour block? Let the mob decide, and let the games begin... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For my part, the question and answer were...

• Q: " So, it's your contention that in the course of a conversation, which includes a female, that the deliberate use of the word cunt is not a personal attack because it was not really directed at her?" - @Saffron Blaze:
• A: "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?" - @Eric Corbett:

Anyone see anything other than a stupid question and a bleedin-obvious answer there? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Larks' tongues. Otters' noses. Ocelot spleens." Doc talk 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Albatross" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Down in front, Bignose! I can't hear a thing!" Doc talk 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Got any nuts?"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to apologise for that NAC screw up, I left the edit window open for too long and when I completed the edit, it somehow didn't edit conflict with all the intervening edits and saved around the whole discussion after BHG's block. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see a slight problem as BHG seems to have been WP:INVOLVED having started the conversation at UT:Jimbo. I am also struggling to see any sort of warning towards Eric. I would encourage any uninvolved admin to reverse this block and I encourage User:BrownHairedGirl to explain her actions here, and to consider handing in her admin permissions if she is unable to use them properly, as seems on first glance to be the case. --John (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I did not start the conversation. If you are unwilling to take a second glace before you falsely accuse another admin, then your admin permissions are the ones which should go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I take no position as to the propriety of the block itself and whether an administrator should reverse it as being placed outside the boundaries of administrator discretion or community consensus. With that said, I do not believe that BHG has violated the Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins policy in this situation. NW (Talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Clarify at 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC): The reason I believe this is that BHG's statements on that talk page were all a reflection of how she believed that Wikipedia's code of conduct should be enforced, which I believe falls into the emphasized portion of the policy highlighted: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." NW (Talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, NW. For the record, I am not aware of having had any prior involvement with Eric Corbett. nor any prior involvement in the disagreement between those editors. The sole grounds for John's accusation appear to be that I had posted on the same page[7] to advocate foundation-level involvement in upholding policy.
      I hope that John will take time to either withdraw his allegation, or to clarify why he thinks that a post to a discussion about policy disqualifies an admin from upholding that policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • User NW, thank you for that. User BHG, you were in a heated argument with another user and you then blocked them without a warning. True, or false? --John (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • False, John. As previously requested, please look at the page history rather than making false allegations on the basis of a first glance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• And none of this has anything to do with the fact that this started with Scotty stumbling into AN3, looking to piss off Eric and set him off, the purpose of this filing. The clear lesson here is that it is ok for an admin to badger an editor as long as that editor is unpopular. And sorry, BHG, but I also disagree with the block as I see nothing incivil in his comment, just an obvious answer, and granted, a rude summary. We shouldn't block for singular instances like that. So far, all the discussion about sexism at Wikipedia has done has divided us, even though we all agree in principle that sexism is a bad thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, Dennis, it's all my fault, I think we should unblock Eric and block me instead. So, just to clarify: me telling you that I believe your character has become corrupted is a personal attack of the highest order, necessitating an ANI thread and my immediate desysopping. Then, a few hours later, Eric asks someone if they were hiding behind the door when God gave out brains, and that's just salty old Eric up to his old games again, no harm no foul, right? As an admin, I believe that you need to strive to be fairer in your judgments of peoples' actions, regardless of whether or not you happen to like or dislike the person whose actions you are judging. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dennis, are you really sure that you see nothing uncivil about a complaint relating to misogynist language getting a response which gratuitously challenges an editor's rationality, even when accompanied by an extraordinarily abusive edit summary which makes it unambiguously clear that it was intended as a pure personal attack on that editor?
    Even when that editor has a long record of blocks and warnings for personal attacks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You're still arguing from your opinion that any use of the word is misogynist, something that you've just accused me of on Jimbo's talk page, and now you're conflating that issue with Eric's somewhat rude edit summary in an attempt to justify your block. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Black Kite, I did not Eric block because of the misogynist language. I blocked Eric because his response to a complaint about it it consisted of an accusation of irrationality, reinforced by a blatant the personal attack in the edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I see him say "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?". Are we assuming that since he was replying to a woman, it was meant differently than if he were saying it to a male? He seems to be saying that it matters exactly the same, male or female. I'm lost, is "rational editor" an insult to a woman but not a man? I think you are reading too much into it. Eric has lots of history with rudeness, but none with sexism. He is an equal opportunity offender, so I don't see any lines to read between here. I don't doubt you meant well, but I do think the block was a knee jerk reaction. There is a lot of tension right now about sexism floating about, but Eric probably has more collaboration with women than any other editor I know. I personally think you misread him. I'm not going to go revert myself, but I wish you would reflect on this and consider it. The summery was rude, but I've done worse, I bet you have, too. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • He's also driven away more women than any other editor I know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Name them. --John (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dennnis on all counts - any admin got the courage to unblock (as I would, and have done in the past)? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: There is no such thing as misogynist language outside of context and intent, and if you, BHG, think there is, then you should not be the one to administer admin sanctions on such issues. You have acted based on your own subjective response, and I would say that's a bad admin action - I would reject calls for your recall, but I think you should revert your block and wait for community consensus — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • PPS: Considering BHG's expressed personal feelings, she is absolutely not the right person to be issuing a block here - but there is time to put things right before a request for admin sanctions is needed. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No it hasn't got anything to do with the AN3 thread. Cuntgate kicked off quite separately from threads at AN (and multiple other venues) about sexism, harrassment etc. BHG tacked this thread on to an existing one about EC, but actually no connection, other than EC being the common factor. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• (non involved opinion) This is a great example of the problem we have here over the past few years. An editor that has an obvious history with maturity and basic respect problems is blocked and admins fight over it on a technicality. What has happened is Admins have lost their ability to preform minor blocks to even the worst kind of editor because of backlashes that may happen. The community at large should be the focus - not saving ones ass from scrutiny because an editor like this is clearly a detriment to the project. Our admin system is failing the average editor. -- Moxy (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to be blocking Scottywong for his behavior also? I found that sort of baiting/badgering to be more offensive than anything I've ever seen Eric do ... (and for the record, I don't subscribe to the "worst kind of editor" description for Eric ... nor do I believe he's "clearly a detriment to the project". I'd call those PAs but... I'm not an admin so I guess I'm not allowed to say things like that about others) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scottywong has a history of low-level passive-aggressive incivility, and one of my biggest regrets is that I supported his RfA — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And you know he is laughing his ass off over all this distraction, and has already moved on. Eric seems to the be the shiny thing that distracts the community as a whole. Meanwhile, this kind of admin aggression will continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And people wonder why confidence in admins is low and why there are so many calls for reform. Pathetic. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Full support for the block. A clear personal attack from a user with a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Stupid block, misuse of admin tools to advance a personal campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• A "personal campaign"? Could you elaborate? Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Have you been on Jimbo's talkpage recently?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is BULLSHIT. As there is no god. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Stupid block! - IMHO Eric's known for being outspoken but at the end of the day he's a great editor and unless he's is wound up -He usually hushes up and gets on with it, I don't condone his language but IMHO Eric's never going to change and we either lose him or put up with it and I'm certainly with the latter! ... You wonder why we lose so many great editors here.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it backwards - we loose way more editors over all because of people like this. Best we loose editors like this over loosing many many other editors that can edit just as well. We loos ediotrs becaus so many are not willing to follow basic conduct expectations - not the other way around. -- Moxy (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010: So writing content means people can be as rude as they like and get away with it? In that case, I'll go write a few articles and then drop some well chosen insults wherever I please. What price the n-word? </sarcasm>

But seriously, if a user contributes to an atmosphere of incivility, that drives other productive editors away. In any case, it's stupid to excuse any editor from the requirement of decency. BethNaught (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there's pros and cons to my statement, I don't believe anyone should be rude simply because they're a great editor, But as I said Eric won't change and blocking him achieves nothing IMHO –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So the community should do nothing because he wont change. Again all backwards if he not willing to follow basic conduct norms that are found in normal society then the community should step up..not let him run wild because he wont change. If his not willing to conform to normal everyday social norms then its time he goes. -- Moxy (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What it achieves is to demonstrate that incivility is unacceptable and to remove a cause of an unpleasant atmosphere here. By your argument people can exempt themselves from all need for respectable behaviour by being sufficiently obstinate. BethNaught (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• In as much as his enablers like to point out the difference between UK and US slang as a defence, I have very little doubt that Eric so frequently chooses to refer to people as "cunts" (directly or in general) specifically because it pisses people off. He's basically trolling, and got all the drama he desired. Resolute 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No more than all the others have got the drama they desire, by allowing themselves to get riled up by it. It's a choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Did he call someone a cunt recently? I found 13 hits for "cunt" on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, but none of these occurrences were posted by Eric. If I understood correctly, he was blocked for writing "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" in an edit summary. Maybe I missed something, in which case I'd like to see a diff. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The entire thread on Jimbo's talk page centres around Eric's continuing usage of the term to bait people, and the comment he was blocked for was meant to act in defence of this. Resolute 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, the entire thread is about a singular recent use that was aimed at no one. And the block was because he said usage that isn't directed at someone isn't a personal attack, and left a rude summary in the mix. That is the nut of it. All the hubbub is more disruptive than the singular use of a very ugly word. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, and Eric does not have an extremely long history of incivility and personal attacks, and we should not consider that history whatsoever when looking at this single, isolated incident. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Jimbo has intervened at Panda's talk page, which renders the closing of this section inappropriate — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh - I'm no fan of Eric's, or incivility in general, but a block for this edit summary is way over-the-top! GiantSnowman 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• The block was within discretion - the comment appears to be a personal attack - and appears to be consistent with prior used manner of personally focused commenting. The admin was uninvolved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

See I would see this post as BHG taking a position on this. Had I made a statement and taken a position like that, I would not have blocked an editor involved in the debate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not an involved position on NPA and "you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, bad unblock - BHG has it right, and I agree with everything she has said and her action taken. The unblock is deeply flawed and deserves community scrutiny. As for the subject of this latest drama-festival, he will continue his offensive insults until the community shows him the door. The only question is how much longer that will take. Jusdafax 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock BHG is right. The block should NOT have been reversed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock - The discussion was closed prematurely and there was no consensus to unblock. Blocks are supposed to deter undesirable conduct, but how can they if they are undone so quickly? The fact that this type of conduct from Eric Corbett has occurred so many times before would seem to support harsher sanctions, not this recurrent "catch and release" program.- MrX 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, bad unblock Dennis is normally pretty level headed, but seems to have a blind-spot when it comes to EC's constant and repeated disruptive conduct. Given the fact that Dennis has repeated defended EC's conduct, he should be seen as WP:INVOLVED and should not have made the unblock. Dennis, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis did not make the unblock. Please do at least minimal homework before posting here. --John (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock This has nothing to do with Dennis. I think Eric deserved this 3RR block. I saw it pop up, I looked and the report was valid. Eric is about the last editor to be "roped into a revert" he knew very well what he was doing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock Eric violated 3RR. Block is deserved. That Eric refuses to alter his behavior, as obliquely noted by Jimbo Wales, makes an indef the best option. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, given they are neither prepared to nor have demonstrated the ability to act in the best interest of the community where Eric is concerned, allowing him and his apologists to create a hostile environment for other editors, and to create a sexually hostile for women in particular. I don't care how much content Eric, Giano and their cronies create. It comes at too high a cost to other editors. --Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line between incivility and personal insults?

Disclosure: I have no personal interactions with any of the involved parties prior to this incident.

On 29 July, 2014, User:Eric Corbett posted a series of extremely uncivil edit summaries and comments that were clearly meant to intimidate and provoke a response:

• First, he threatened to throw verbal abuse on Drmies' talk page, but didn't get blocked.

• Next, he directly resorted to name-calling on Drmies' talk page, but didn't get blocked.

• Finally, he misused the edit summary to insult an editor's intelligence on Jimmy Wales's talk apge and he still remains unblocked as of now.

I am shocked, appalled, and absolutely disgusted by the majority of administrators on Wikipedia who failed to take action and even condoned such a blatant attempt to provoke and intimidate. I strongly recommend the following actions to be taken:

1. Reversal of DangerousPanda's unblocking of Eric Corbett

I disagree with DangerousPanda's loose interpretation of WP:NPA. The misuse of an edit summary to insult someone's intelligence is not just a direct personal attack, but also an attempt to threaten, intimidate and provoke a response. This is not a one-off comment but a series progressively blatant insults.

2. Review of Dennis Brown's comments

After Scottywong responded to the 3RR report, which is what I expect administrators to do, DB responded with vulgarities such as "we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log". After failing to provoke a reaction, DB continued to harass SW by going to his talk page and telling him to "put up or shut up. This sort of conduct is extremely unbecoming of an administrator and it is certainly not what I expect of any editor, including those without administrator privileges.

Although I have never had any personal interactions with DB, I've always held him in high regard, but I think he may have simply lost the plot here.

3. Re-consider the establishement of a cvility board

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Where_and_how_to_request_a_Civility_board, but the proposal was knocked down by some of the same admins and editors involved in this ANI report.

I want to emphasize again that I have no personal interactions with any of them prior to this discussion. The only reason why I'm posting it here is that I edit controversial articles regularly and I have been subjected to the same sort of personal attacks and accusations that I see here. Althought the attacks came from a different group of editors, the tone was similar to that used by Eric Corbett to provocate and intimidate.

Either we enforce WP:NPA strictly, or we remove the guideline altogether. Maintaining the status quo, however, is the worst option and it will only exacerbate the current situation.

-A1candidate (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone reblocked Eric now, they would be wheel warring and almost certainly loose their admin tools. I think the whole case needs to go to Arbcom, both the civility / NPA disagreement which has been well documented elsewhere, and the disagreement over enforcement of WP:3RR which also seems to have arisen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, and with most of what A1candidate wrote. This does need to go to ArbCom. One editor and a few enabling admins should not be permitted to cause this much disruption, so many times.- MrX 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alas, Arbcom has already and repeatedly chosen to bury its head in the sand. There will be no solution coming from the body ostensibly designated to solve such problems. Resolute 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I am not posting to the above proposals but rather just talking down here. I think that our policies are very clear on what is a personal attack and when they need a block. The block in this case was valid.

The unblock shows either a lack of understanding of WP:WPA or simply an opinion that it should not be enforced. Well my position is that if a policy enjoys concsensus then admins should not be reversing actions taken by that policy.

The community widely agrees that personal attacks have no place here. Yet I have seen many cases where an established editor is protected from enforcment by admins who will simply unblock.

The block should be reintated. Dennis' actions certainly do need examination. Most importantly blocking and unblocking based on WP:NPA should only be handled by admins that understamd amd accept that consensus.

Don't think someone should be blocked for personal attack? Fine nobody is making you block anyone. But reversing a valid action taken by an admin following consensus based policy because you don't agree is not admin behavior. Chillum 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As one of those tangentially mentioned above, I had to guffaw when I saw EC post the following, "You are quite obviously entirely bereft of any insight into your own behaviour, a not uncommon condition here."[8] I assumed it was meant ironically, but now I'm not sure. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't want to join the circus show here but how on earth is that a personal attack???♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld - It is a childish and immature case of name calling ("sunshine"). -A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sunshine" is a term of racial abuse. I declined to be offended, even if it was meant as such. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't in any way whatsoever in England. I'm guessing you're both American. It's pretty common in speech from older guys in England when speaking to younger ones, particularly in the north to use "sunshine" or "sunny Jim" when addressing somebody, usually a younger person in a slightly heated way. Scottish Fat Bastard used it in Austin Powers, "Look 'ere sunny Jim, I ate a baby". It's as mild as mild can be. If that's a personal attack then everything could be interpreted as a personal attack. That Eric would have even thought about racially abusing somebody is preposterous. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a patronising put-down but it's got nothing to do with racial abuse. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd always assumed they were embellishments of "son", along with "sonny" and "sonny boy" and as you say, used by older guys speaking to younger ones. NebY (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• He explicitly insulted an editor's intelligence when he asked "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains". I'm sure that is understood to be a degrading personal insult in most parts of the world. -A1candidate (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We might seek clarification from EC on what exactly he meant. I doubt it was positive. As I say, I took no offence. It is part of a pattern of behaviour we see far too often. Disagree with someone and instead of addressing the substance, attack the person: by abusing them, demeaning them, threatening them, whaever it takes to get them out of the way. And then deny what is quite obvious to their targets, Is a lack of self knowledge a requirement to be a productive editor on every other subject? It sometimes seems that way. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The personal attack is here[9]. The other diffs show that this was not an isolated incident but was part of a pattern of incivility. Chillum 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The premise of this "proposal" is completely faulty. The diffs to my talk page are not evidence of anything--they are responses to a. someone I blocked before who came by to troll and b. some other one I blocked before who, in my opinion, was stirring the shit pot and, I see, still is. Mr.X--"enablers"? That's something I've heard before: it's a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So it's okay to throw personal attacks at blocked editors? And it's okay to respond to trolls by trolling them back? -A1candidate (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Being intentionally offensive is a violation of WP:NPA and is disruptive. I doubt I'm alone in preferring Wikipedia be a more polite place than it is now. When we see editors persistently abuse others, they should be directed towards a more community-minded attitude. Saying "Oh, he's always been like that! It's just his way." just makes it worse. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Really Drmies? Who exactly was I personally attacking? Perhaps the reason that you've heard it before is because there are several editors who believe it to be true.- MrX 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The premises of A1candidate's second point "After Scottywong responded to the 3RR report, which is what I expect administrators to do, DB responded with vulgarities by telling SW that "we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log"" are respectively misguided and a serious misreading or misrepresentation. First, we do not expect all the 602 active admins to respond to a 3RR report and four had already responded when SW joined in. Second, DB did not tell SW "we are going to fucking spank you"; he wrote "When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log. No thanks."[10] A1candidate, please could you strike your statement and reconsider the arguments and proposals you have based on it? NebY (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because there is no rule that prohibits an admin from responding to a 3RR report, but WP:VULGAR and WP:NPA do prohibit provocative comments (even if not directed at SW explicitly) such as "we are going to fucking spank you", regardless of whether DB is an average editor or an all-powerful administrator. -A1candidate (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realise DB was saying to SW that "we are going to fucking spank you" is not a constructive attitude? NebY (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and how is that not a violation of WP:VULGAR? The expletive and "spanking" did not come from SW, but DB. He could have made his point nicely without resorting to uncivil language. -A1candidate (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes more than avoiding words like "fuck" or "spank" to make one's point nicely - otherwise "I am shocked, appalled, and absolutely disgusted", "I strongly recommend the following actions to be taken: ... Review of Dennis Brown's comments" and "I think he may have simply lost the plot" would seem persuasive, not aggressive and punitive. NebY (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think A1candidate's point is that Dennis didn't have to make his point in such a crass manner. The "we are going to fucking spank you" in quotes is a kind of impersonation of me (or, at least, of Dennis' perception of me). In other words, Dennis is saying that he believes that I derive happiness from punishing users for various things. He imagines that I troll around Wikipedia looking for people who are doing something wrong, and threatening that "I'm going to fucking spank you" and add them to my "spank list", like a big game hunter hanging animal heads on his wall as trophies. I could care less about the vulgarity; the comment itself is insulting enough. Especially coming from someone who has blocked 1,730 users (compared to my 109 blocks, despite Dennis and I becoming admins at practically the same time). ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to re-post what I said on my talkpage moments ago: Wow, the absolute ironic part of this discussion is that I'm supposedly well-known across the interweb for having one of the strictest interpretation of WP:NPA and for making supposedly atrocious civility-based blocks. I'm most certainly not considered to be a "fan" of Eric, nor he of me ... and I believe my name is in his block log at least once prior to this. Nevertheless, this unblock is based on NOTHING related to my personal disdain for incivility - it's based on consensus on the discussion, and nothing else. So, put your emotions and past dealings with the editor in question away, and think to yourself "if the asshole who blocks people for civility issues actually unblocked in this case...what the hell am I missing?" With the risk of sounding sexist, put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it the panda ₯’ 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you assumed there was consensus, but there was none. -A1candidate (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There was none. Was BHG consulted, as is required? (And now you mention it, it does sound sexist.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reverse the unblock. Block Dennis Brown. Create an RfC/U on DangerousPanda. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reverse the unblock. Leave Dennis alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reverse the unblock. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, as unable or unwilling to follow WP:ADMIN or face desysopping. They are fostering a climate hostile to editors in general, and to women in particular. --Drmargi (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo

Jimbo has personally intervened at User talk:DangerousPanda#Unfortunate (which seems like a personally intimidating approach to me when he could have commented here and taken part in the actual community discussion), and that makes this discussion very much not closed. Should Jimbo be pressuring admins to reverse their actions? Should be be using his status to sway things? Open to discussion... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not those questions, in the first instance, be directed to the god-king in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view Jimbo is absolutely within bounds to comment, and to request a reblock, on Dangerous Panda's talk page. And wow, I think that Wehwalt's characterization of him is way out of line in this discussion, and ramps up the drama needlessly. This is an admin page, for crying out loud! I call on an admin to use the powers granted to them by the community and take preventive action. At some point this vituperation needs to be stopped. And if not now, when? Jusdafax 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's a common phrase used around here with reference to him, and he's made reference to that or similar appellations in his paid speeches. And your comments do nothing to diminish any drama. It sounds like you're about to break into "first they came for the rollbackers ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy has as much say as anyone else here. In my experience when he says something was a mistake, it is most often the case. Chillum 19:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling it "personally intimidating" is silly. He is jusy saying the unblock was mistaken and that he hopes it will be reversed. No intimidation there. Jimbo should pressure admins to reverse bad decisions, so should admins and regular editors. Chillum 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that User:Jimbo_Wales must be allowed to voice his opinion to the exact same degree as everyone else, and that voice should be heard by the merits and strength of its reason alone. I personally disagree with his opinion here, but I don't see his expressing it as intimidation, and I hope Dangerous Panda doesn't either. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who precisely is User:Jimbo_Wales? I don't believe I'm familiar with his work on Wikipedia; whereas Eric Corbett's work seems to be scattered over thousands of content pages. It really is distracting when these newbies jump in with their uniformed opinions. Giano (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're not joking about not knowing who he is, he credits himself to be one of the founders of Wikipedia. (Though it's a complicated thing, go read his article at Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia to better understand the conflict of only 'one of the founders') . Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Giano is asking how his work on content compares with Eric's.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Giano knows exactly who Jimbo is. He's just trolling. Resolute 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? Oh wait, it can't be. No naughty words. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Resolute's insult towards User:Giano is every bit as bad as the comment leading to the block that is being discussed. Does anyone think he/she should be blocked? --John (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, yes, I do think he should be blocked. Eric Corbett 21:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, ffs, and consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative, or the hobgoblin of little minds, and so forth. It is bad for the encyclopedia, in my opinion, to block regular content contributors such as Eric, or Giano, or Resolute (and, Resolute, it is also unimaginative and bad for the encyclopedia to call them trolls or a net negative). Just about every work environment I've experienced had its share of unkindness, profanity, and mean spirits. There are other ways to smooth the waves and reconciliate. The block-button is a stupid way. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If he has a recent history of throwing verbal abuse, then yes he should be blocked per WP:Civility. -A1candidate (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was pretty rude too. --John (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I am a "prolific content contributor". The only suggestion could be made in this case as it relates to "the sake of consistency" is no action whatsoever. Resolute 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now we have "sophistry" to go with "troll" and "enabler". Resolute, do you like being an admin on this site? --John (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I add "histrionics" too? Because unless you are prepared to begin blocking Eric and Giano for civility violations as mild as those I have allegedly made, I would appreciate it if you would spare me them. Also, prolific content contributor immunity. Sorry. Resolute 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Prolific content contributor" applies only to Eric, not anyone else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you guys (Resolute and Hawkeye) believe you are examples of the civility to which you claim the rest of the community should aspire, I counsel you to take a long hard look at yourselves. --John (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything by User:Jimbo Wales which rises to the level of actionable abuse. He just stated his opinion, as is his right, he didn't wheel-war. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware that Jimbo Wales has just acknowledged on his talk page that "progress involves working on some real issues with enforcement of civility", so I would like to hear what he has to say. -A1candidate (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I suggest you go there and listen to it then. An overpowering preoccupation with civility shows a lack of intellect and genuine interests in one's life. Giano (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sluzzelin Please do not compare Resolute to Giano or Eric Corbett.Giano and Eric Corbett has repeatedly been blocked, most commonly for edit warring ,Personal attacks and incivility over a prolonged period.There is a diverse opinion on how far a lot of article creation by an editor should be allowed to influence decisions on other matters concerning that editor. There are many who come close to thinking that a "good content creator" should never be excluded, no matter how grossly he has abused their position in other respects. At the other end of the spectrum there are Many who think that it should make no difference at all: a given offence should be treated exactly the same, no matter who committed it.

Giano and Eric Corbett have already repeatedly had allowances made because they are substantial content creator. Ignoring a blocks and unblocking again and again is evidently a mistake which seems to tell the community that they are above Wikipedia or a Carte blance to admin friends and they always got unblocked without even posting an unblock request.Please do not compare Resolute who has never even been blocked.Please note how much of time has been wasted in Arbcom cases due to these 2 editors.It is net negative to the Project.205.178.136.76 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

More!

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

---

Yet another example where an active discussion about this matter is closed in the midst of discussion. Now editors will disperse to various venues having achieved no consensus and whatever underlying issue is at hand will explode again in several months time. Perhaps instead we will have multiple discussions all over the place involving the same users but lacking the centrality. I challenge premature termination of the discussion (only 2 days after it had started) as it influences the ability of the community to come to a rationale decision, and we cannot solve whatever issue is causing this without a fully-fledged discussion, which is currently ongoing. Please reopen the discussion. 101.116.91.82 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - Highly dubious close of an active discussion, and it should be noted that six consecutive editors !voted Good block, bad unblock in just a few hours at the time of the closure, which gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to stifle an emerging consensus, as well as an active discussion on Jimmy Wales' commentary on Dangerous Panda's talk page. This ANI closure itself becomes a further part of this snarled mess, and the admin responsible deserves scrutiny by the admin and editing community. Deeply wrong action. Jusdafax 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - I would like to add myself to the group of six editors who voted Good block, bad unblock, because personal attacks such as "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" cannot be tolerated. Make that seven consecutive votes. -A1candidate (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seven who think that "you're stupid" is some intolerable insult? Damn! Well, I'm nobody, and I've heard far worse in this very discussion. What do you think of "you're a corrupt admin"? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's an insult, and it becomes an intolerable insult when hurled repeatedly at various individuals, after multiple warning and blocks, and scores of pages of discussion. "You're a corrupt admin" is also an intolerable insult, unless of course there is evidence that the admin is actually corrupt.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Make that eight. I'm not seeing consensus here for any one course of action. This is something that needs to be resolved or we are going to be doing the same thing over and over. WP:3RR works fine - why cannot we find some similar mechanism that works? We're not stupid. We can do this. We've solved harder problems. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (I got blocked for saying someone was of average intelligence, once. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC))
• Reopen. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By "dramamongers" are you including those who persistently misread a comment and then forum shop until they get what they feel is an appropriate measure of satisfaction in that matter, failing to abide by consensus that what they thought they heard is not what was actually said? Or is that a description of a reasonable discussant? It has all been said 300 times by both sides anyway... Carrite (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've opened a formal close review near the bottom of this page, for anyone interested.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - Bad block, bad unblock. Nothing to see here, move along. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed on ANI but move to new venue and reopen. Perhaps the Gender Gap project talk page would be a good place. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed. A lot of questionable decisions were made but I don't see anything actionable at the moment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think "drama mongers" describes perfectly some of the behaviour here. Gender gap? More like a civility gap. Guys, you cannot make the world "civil" by shouting, screeching, poking or threatening. It is best done by showing an example, not something the civility drama brigade are terribly adept at. I will make no further comment on this dreadful episode, unless BHG's tools are up for review. --John (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are places within the wider community where civil behaviour is mandated. Temple, law courts, news broadcasts, parliament. We cannot stop editors from having differences of opinion, but we can at least send a message that incivil behaviour and personal attacks are not tolerated. What I'm seeing from some quarters here is support for the exact opposite: that editors can do whatever they want. So long has they have a pet admin backing them up. Well, I say that the sort of encyclopaedia produced by the sort of people who think that attacking other people is good sport is going to end up being something that isn't as useful or savoury or neutral as it might be. It's not a matter of fighting for peace. It is a matter of setting a good example and not tolerating those who do not. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  So when do you plan to start setting a good example? Eric Corbett 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed Nothing to be gained by further discussion, the unblocking admin will not be overruled by consensus so why spin the wheels?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - With all respect it's gone on for long enough - Reopening won't solve anything. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. There is nothing to be gained from furthering this dispute at this time. TParis is certainly correct that ANI will not provide a resolution. Not now, not the next time and not the time after that. Resolute 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. It was never a "fully-fledged discussion." It was an incomplete Frankenchicken, a mashup of vampire arguments and zombie animosities, capable only of destroying hope before drifting into the frozen archives still bitterly seeking closure. NebY (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - This is a conversation that needs input and consensus. We can't keep on saying it's okay to attack other editors and get away with it, because we think it's too hard to find a solution. The gender imbalance thing is something that concerns me greatly. Are we becoming a monstrous community where women are not welcome unless they fart and curse along with the lads? A bit of scuffle and stoush is fine so long as we keep on cranking out articles on obscure border wars and loud cars and porn stars? --Pete (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you're in any way shape or form referring to me then I suggest you check your facts. Eric Corbett 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - Civility is a policy. Good block, bad unblock. An admin took action. Her action was dismissed. Is "you're stupid" an intolerable insult? In an isolated instance, no. As part of a pattern of behavior. Most definitely. Message to community? Civility is not a policy. Lightbreather (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. A lot of the people crying out for civility wouldn't recognize real incivility if they fell headfirst into a bucket of it — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Let it happen If something keeps getting re-opened by several people then it is no longer appropriate to close it. If closing 4 times does not work then it is time to talk about it. Clearly there has been some very poor behavior and admin action may be called for. Also, Good block, bad unblock. These constant closing are sweeping under the rug that many people think that an admin made a bad move, we need to talk this out. Chillum 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, but at this point wouldn't it make sense to use another venue and focus the discussion either on Eric Corbett's conduct, or admin accountability per WP:RAAA, WP:INVOLVED and WP:CON? There is no way the block will be reinstated now, especially with DP on a wikibreak. It would seem that either RFC/U or (more likely) ArbCom would be the best next step.- MrX 16:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• [11].--v/r - TP 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Somehow a squabble about 3RR, a naughty word, a bad unblock have all gotten mixed up into a sticky mess. I would like to see a serious discussion on the appropriateness of admins preventing the enforcement of the NPA policy which enjoys consensus. The above discussion is a shit storm of multiple topics and confused votes. There is a serious issue and frankly I think the actions of several people need to be reviewed in an organized fashion. Chillum 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• For that to happen would need to be arbcom, and we've been there before.Blethering Scot 18:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I remember Malleus/Eric having issues with civility years ago when I edited as an IP. I can't believe that this drama llama is still going strong! Sure, he's a good content editor, but so what? Is he a good user? Do the self-serving contributions that he's made to some exceedingly obscure topics really justify the extraordinary amount of effort he has required of others for years on end? Maybe, if Eric refuses to be civil and appropriate with others, he should rescind any expectations that others will be civil to him. Think about it. If his grand stance for justice is nothing more than fighting for the right to swear and hurl insults like a drunken teenager – his maturity is, at best that level – then that's what he deserves in return. I say he's a whiny little bitch that regularly disrupts the project for no other reason than he is an attention whore. There, I said it, so if the great Malleus is to be respected, he would want me to be able to say that to him. This cult of personality has long out-lived its usefulness to Wikipedia, and Malleus/Eric is easily the biggest waste of resources that the project has ever had. He is no longer a net positive, and he hasn't been for quite some time. We need to start focusing on protecting the project, not individual editors who build-up a following of sycophants. MaximumEdison (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Striking the comment of a now-blocked sock. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - a morass of walls of text is impossible to gain true consensus of. structured debate somewhere will be more helpful. Any further sanctions on past actions at this point are punitive.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Various epithets

Does this fall under the category of "demeaning fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression" and as a result considered to be "offensive and damaging to the editing environment". User:H-E-Double Toothpicks in a Bucket has declined to remove it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Get a sense of humour. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not constructive and it's not sensetive to the gender gap. There are better ways for Hell in a Bucket to explain his viewpoint.--v/r - TP 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely it was an ill advised comment. We could argue over whether it violates NPA, or justifies some type of sanction on civility grounds. But Sitush is right about the question asked. The comment does not violate that particular principle in that case. There is no indication that the comment was made based on any of the protected characteristics. Monty₈₄₅ 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. I see as many "gutter" words about men as women in that message. Take you social consciences elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that an edit made by an actual contributor to this project? Dear me. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes for almost 4.5 years, the ironic part is the part about AN and ANI and here we are. I'd also like to show [[12]] and [[13]]. I'm glad someone actually caught on I was liberal about the targets because no one is totally blamesless here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Wikipediot" OK? Or is that the One Banned Word? --NE2 00:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when an editor talks like a low-life, it does no harm to you, it only reveals the character of the one saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking userpage desecration! And Baseball bugs if a person is that superficial and surface oriented it's better to not have that person around, you will never get to below the surface because all they can see is the surface. what a sad place to be stuck on the surface always knowing more is there but never able to get there...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot wiped out your entry in an edit conflict. Just as well, since your comment really doesn't make sense. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

iF YOU CAN'T SEE BELOW THE SURFACE THEN YES IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER BUT IF YOU LOOK BEYOND JUST THE SURFACE YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH IS THERE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that ugliness is only skin-deep? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If I base my answer on your sweeping generalization above sure does. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Foul mouth = foul mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to comment about being unable to see past the surface, reread then let sink in and then reread again just so it sticks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to foul mouth = foul mind and then reread again just so it sticks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Big feet = big meat. Wait, what was that about womenfolk? --NE2 02:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since there has been some question about what was actually said, I will post it here in its entirety:

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. (Emphasis mine. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

And BTW, he is also mocking this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Have a nice day. —Neotarf (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be worse. There are several entries on George Carlin's word list that the editor forgot to include in that funny rant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf. You are quoting improperly by adding emphasis (bolding) where it does not exist in the original. This is a form of exaggeration. If you quote and add emphasis, make sure you note "(emphasis added)." Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tim. Quite correct, and I have made the necessary adjustments, although it looks like a missed a few; that's what happens when you have 6 tabs open. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf highlighted what he sees as the real message. He is quite right to highlight it. It is not its poster's place to lecture others on how they "should" read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that I was mocking you replying to your thinly veiled attempt at an insult. I like how you are pretending to be a victim and trying to twist it though, keep trying something might stick. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you can dish out insults, but can't take them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No but when they are petty i reserve the right to mock you, care to give it a try Bugs? I'm not complaining at all, notice I didn't start the thread, I haven't misrepresented what happened, I think this is a whole big WP:COATRACK thread. If yuo want to see the whole picture look, if you can't well that's up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, your vulgarity-laden rant, highlighted above, definitely qualifies as "petty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your vastly enlightening surface analysis, I'm sure we are all enriched having been privileged with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, George. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha I knew you weren't acting in bad faith you just seem to have confused me with someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

COATRACK is about article content. This discussion is about TPOC, WIAPA, and RPA. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The words are being referenced, not used. So no. Though said in an aggressive tone, his usage of these epithets is akin to every usage on the article Nigger. He could learn to calm down though, and speak in a manner that doesn't come across as uncivil, but him littering his comment with profanities is just hurting his own characterization. There are better places to use profanities, other than a debate about an obviously sensitive topic. I (fruitlessly I bet) advise (to HiaB) removing it out of common decency. moluɐɯ 04:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 14:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fruitlessly, indeed. —Neotarf (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

... and I've reverted the refactor again.. I would ask that you abide by the policies on refactoring other's comments, just because you couldn't manipulate it to suit your needs within the arbcom case doesn't mean you can just remove it. Thank you and by all means have a great day. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no place in this project, Jimbo's page or otherwise, that is suitable for your puerile nonsense. Grow up, please, and learn to present your point without being WP:POINTY. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That comments attacks no one or any groups. It reflects the futility on focusing on a word rather then the message behind. An, ANI and Jimbo's page isn't solving the problem or improving the encyclopedia. The whole point behind that is take the drive you have and move it elsewhere to something productive. Even the emphasis added comment above cherry picks what is said to present that persons view. There's lots of comments I don't like on wikipedia but I don't remove them just because they are coached in language I disagree with. At some point a person has to be able to look past whats on the surface, that's the whole point of the above. If you judge a book just on the cover you may miss the message or opportunity inside. I'm sorry if you can't or won't accept that but honestly that is your limitations not mine and I've not broken any policies, attacked anyone or otherwise opined other then that there could be a different avenue of using your energy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If the cover of that book reads like the way a low-life talks, why should anyone bother opening it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are missing out on some good books. Chillum 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Name a few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a page turner. Chillum 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny, attention-getting cover, and unlikely to tell me anything I don't already know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is still open, right? What HiaB's remark was - was a personal attack. And WP:RPA says: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." It was an obvious personal attack. And if it wasn't directed against Neotarf (I think it was), the policy doesn't say "ONLY where such text is directed against you." Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that so many actual personal attacks are ignored but this is an issue(non-issue)? There are some naughty language and the only insults are to a hypothetical person. We do encounter moron's on Wikipedia, we can say that. We just can't call them a moron once we finally meet them.

Personal attacks have both an attack and a person. As far as I can tell nobody specific is being attacked, rather it is a call for sanity. It is not how I would have expressed myself but it is not an issue for administrative action. Chillum 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed myself more above. I mocked Neotarf after some passive aggressive behaviors but that comment was not to anyone but an opinion on the situation and overall futility of those avenues for issues such as this and many others raised there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to read about "Fighting words". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article especially that bit about the Jehovah's Witness bit but the relevance to this still doesn't quite ring right. Are you insinuating that the mere mention of those words is enough to be fighting words even when not directed at anyone? How would this apply to our policies we have set here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone talks like a low-life, they should have no expectation of respect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is a woman with a low cut shirt or a mini skirt should have no expectations to not be raped? Yes I am aware that's hyperbole but so is the above comment and that's why I am highlighting the ridiculousness of the comment with another. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

HIAB, any position sounds ridiculous when taken to ridiculous extremes. This is a straw man argument and a tacky one at that. Your are better than engaging in the logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum. Chillum 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually... (PS: fuck the popo, and the admins too) --NE2 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks have an attack and a person (target) or persons, per WIAPA bullet 1: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." (emphasis mine) And how does that section end? "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." HiaB's rant had a target: every WP contributor who is complaining about civility. Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

They ignore the comments about the moron with a dangler who thinks he's superior and a couple others because it doesn't suit their preferred course of action. It's gradually changed over the course of the original complaint til now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way the edit warring on Jimbo's page needs to stop now. That is a great way to get blocked. Jimbo can remove it if he wants. Chillum 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask them to stop removing a legitimate comment. I don't know what else to do it's not actionable but if I have three people grouped on me like that not sure how to proceed because I do not plan on removing it. Honestly at this point I am in a pretty combative mood over it too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that what this "trolling" is about [14]? And most above also disagree that it is legitimate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what they called trolling, templates are easier and I have twinkle so it is easy to let it do the talking and throw a link in there. I am aware there is a strong opinion on templating the regulars or not. I think they are made for a reason and doesn't bother me too much. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Templating the regulars (in this case, one who's been here for 6 years) is a highly patronizing, contemptuous thing to do. But that kind of thing is consistent with what you insist is only "surface" behavior: vulgarisms, patronization, contempt. When will you start revealing that inner beauty that you claim to possess? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you open your eyes Bugs, I guess it is up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No matter what point you might try to make, when you lace it with obscenities, the obscenities become the message. Until you open your own eyes and see that, you'll be stuck where you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't see the message because of naughty words then you are exhibiting selective blindness. While the whole point could have been made without "bad words" the presence of them does not make the point unclear. If the obscenities become the message for you then that is something happening on your end. Chillum 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. It is not your place to lecture others on how they "should" read a message. The message is however it's perceived. Obscenities are used for shock value and aggression, and they obscure whatever the alleged "real" message is. When someone talks like a low-life, they have no reasonable expectation of being regarded and treated as anything else. If you remove the "naughty words", as you childishly call it, there's almost nothing there. So, the obscenities are, in fact, the real message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok Bugs I can only show you the water it's your choice whether you drink or not. Cheers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your core complaint seems to be that it's up to your target to read your message the way you supposedly intend it, rather than the way it comes across. That mindset falls into the "patronizing, contempt" category, just as templating a regular does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only Carrite's talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And you've been here over 2 1/2 years. However the user tries to justify his behavior, there's a goodly amount of consistency to it: Vulgar, patronizing, contemptuous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4.5 yrs actually and I actually agree with this essay User:DESiegel/Template the regulars but hey when either gets to policy status then I'll worry about which one to do until then I'll guide my templating by that essay. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? It's clear nothing good will come of discussing it further and at this point Bugs is just adding needless heat to the discussion. 91.232.124.147 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When LC starts sticking his ugly mug into it, it probably is a good idea to close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I might have some sympathy for "use-mention" distinction, there is no doubt this posting was going to offend a significant number of people. The same point could easily have been made without doing that. Therefore the post is gratuitously offensive and the poster should reflect that this is not acceptable. I have no idea if this is a pattern of behaviour, if not lets all move along. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Brought to ArbCom

LT910001 has opened up an ArbCom case based on all of the drama started by Eric Corbett's use of the word that shall not be used again and has included everyone who's commented here and Jimbo's talk page, particularly those who have reacted negatively in some fashion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Ryulong. To be clear, this relates to HIAB and the comment made at the beginning of this thread, and this case at AN/I, which has not received administrator attention, in part because the burden of proof for what constitutes incivility is unclear. I make no mention of Eric Corbett in my request for arbitration. I haven't posted an ArbCom request before, but I think I need to show members of the community on each side to prove that it is a dispute. I am sorry to have caused you distress by stating you are an involved party. I hope a clerk will clarify this situate. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is the reason that this week of drama mongering on both sides has taken place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In fairness he hasn't mentioned everyone who has commented. I don't think this is productive, though, and I will make my thoughts clear there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

But I commented all but once in this thread (prior to this arbcom mention) and 3 times in the thread where this shitfest started. I'm far from involved and I do not want to be part of something where I'm just expressing amazement that people are still mad over one person's actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That was the whole point. He said the word CUNT, people were going batshit crazy. Words only have the power you give them. You can fuck or you can make love, does the word fuck make that action any more or less dirty? The answer is no. You can say feces or shit, does it make it smell any better? Yes I'm aware I'm not perfect and yes I'm sure a more level headed person could have phrased it differently but I'm not now nor ever will I be an administrator so I will have to deal with being a "low life" with no expectation of respect and be true to who I am and let the people here who want to live in fantasy castles in the cloud where everything is perfect fix the world on wikipedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it ironic that, by the standards of those pursuing some sort of action against HiaB anyway, Bugs has repeatedly called HiaB a low life yet none of those same people have called for action against Bugs for the "incivility" of his remarks in this thread. Capeo (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho

I am asking for an administrator to please review the following, and take remedial action against User:Serialjoepsycho for violating policy, including WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I closely reviewed the aforementioned policies before bringing these incidents to ANI, a decision I made with some reluctance, but I am concerned the taunting and other policy violations will not stop without administrator intervention. I apologize for the length of my report, but I had no choice considering the time involved and number of violations.

Serialjoepsycho has clearly exhibited several of the named incivility behaviors Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. The following diffs demonstrate his taunting, false allegations of me being racist, attempts to malign me in Talk page discussions, and repeated incivility despite my asking him to please stop, even after I refrained from responding directly to him, and tried to ignore him. [15] [16]

This issue has been on-going since March 2014, beginning with our differences over the inclusion of the Islamophobia template in the Investigative Project on Terrorism stub which was little more than a WP:Coatrack for the template when I first began my attempt to expand it into an article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Serialjoepsycho continues to bring up our past disagreements from Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism to other discussions, and has repeatedly misrepresented my position in a taunting manner over an extended period of time - see following May 2014 diff for more taunting, and another false and misleading allegation of me having a "systemic bias". [17]. In the latter discussion, I even tried to make peace with him by apologizing for my out of character comments, but to no avail. I have tried to ignore his taunting but his behavior is so disruptive it has become a distraction to three different projects I've been editing in good faith, including User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and the ongoing discussion at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar.

Not only is Serialjoepsycho violating WP:Civility policy, he has violated WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I am not the only editor who has seen some of the problems with the IPT article as evidenced in the following diffs, one dating back to March 2014, [18], and another more recent: [19].

A recent ANRFC review by User:Sunrise regarding my merge-delete proposal is here [20], but it did not resolve the ongoing issues of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The reviewer kindly suggested the following: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues. Diffs: [21]. After he archived the opinion of the reviewer a few days later, he continued with his disruptive behavior toward me. [22].

The WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR are evident throughout the IPT article, but are most evident in the grossly inaccurate infobox Serialjoepsycho edited in the sidebar. To date, the only information good faith editor's have been able to confirm about IPT using what some may consider reliable sources is that the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation was organized by Steven Emerson in 2006, and is controlled by Steven Emerson who is the Executive Director. See [23], [24], [25]. Atsme☯^Consult 22:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. Try trimming this down a bit. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe the OP could summarize the issue in 25 words or less. And what's this stuff about how Islamophobia doesn't exist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Trimmed it down as suggested. Hope it's trimmed enough. Atsme☯^Consult 22:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• This ANI is not about the Islamophobia template, or whether or not Islamophobia exists - it does exist, no question about it - the ANI is about the violations stated in the subject header which cover nearly a 5 month period. I again apologize for the lengthy report, and trimmed it as requested. Atsme☯^Consult 22:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like a dispute over content and the meaning of words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The original post could use a signature just so we are clear who this is from and where the original post ends.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It got trimmed. The OP needs to un-trim that line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Baseball Bugs - Sig replaced. Trying to accommodate the requests without compromising the important issues in the original report which are very important considering the violations involved. Atsme☯^Consult 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Good. Now, what you could have done was to leave the original intact and present a 25-words-or-less summary of the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Response by Serialjoepsycho I haven't really read that wall of text but it seems alot like the same thing Atsme opened up against me a couple of weeks ago. Here it is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm also unaware of any false allegations that I've made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, the admins don't need all the policy alphabet soup, it just gets in the way and bloats up your post. They're familiar with those policies. They need diffs. I don't see any violations in the few diffs you do give. Serialjoepsycho wasn't editing in a good-tempered way, certainly, but I can easily see how his/her patience was being tried in those contexts. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Atsme's SHORTENED VERSION: It is very disruptive when a fellow editor who doesn't even know you keeps labeling you, and implying that you are a racist and a bigot, and taunts you repeatedly for months. His behavior has been extremely disruptive to the projects, and to my ability to edit or participate in discussions. He has singled me out in discussions for the sole purpose of belittling me, and trying to make others believe I am a racist and a bigot in an attempt to destroy my credibility. Furthermore, what he is doing is blatant bad faith editing, and should not be taken lightly because he has repeatedly violated WP:Civility. Following is a short list of a few of his offending comments with accompanying diffs, but the list only addresses the WP:Civility violations, not WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup which also need to be addressed.

1. "Thank you for your irrelevant comments here. My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [26]
2. "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [27]
3. "You literally have grasp at straws to have anything to say. You know little of Wikimedian philosophy." [28]
4. "But by all means report me please. Let's play this game. Do it." [29]
5. "What you fail to understand {{ping:Atsme}} is that your opinion is irrelevant." [30]
6. "Your mention of the little kidnapped girls and much of the rest of it amounts to systemic bias." [31]
7. "She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire." [32]
8. "It seems to fit in with her borderline racist claim that muslim terrorism is proof that Islamophobia doesn't exist." [33]
9. "Or hell just watch as she circles thru arguments and schemes to get rid of the Islamophobia template." [34]
10. "Maybe you can explain to them how there actually are Muslim Terrorists out there and that proves that Islamophobia does not exist. You know, like you did here, Atsme." [35]
11. "If you do not want editors agitating you on the talk page by commenting on your comments then don't comment on a talk page." [36]
12. "I strongly suggest you do not make any changes in Islamophobia related articles to pursue the goal you have outlined above about your desire to Push POV." [37]
13. "But if you start that article I'll happily bring over the Islamophobia template before I start a AFD." [38]
14. "On a side note this looks like another episode of Atsme gaming the system. WP:STONEWALL logic. [39]
15. "Bad faith negotiating is what it is called. But I really can't "well say color me surprised." [40]

I again apologize to the admins and other editors who have already reviewed my incident for the bloated beginning, and respectfully request remedial action so that I may return to my work as an editor without taunting, and uncivil disruption by Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

These diffs all seem to be from talk pages. Can you provide some diffs of where the editor in question has reverted or altered your edits or comments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffs you requested - [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] - I stopped editing the IPT article June 30th because I felt that with the reverts, violations, and taunting, my efforts would be wasted, so I started a correctly titled article for IPTF on July 2nd. A quick review of Serialjoepsycho's edit contributions will show that he participates far more on Talk pages than he does editing main articles which is why you see more diffs originating on Talk pages. I took my BLP concern to the BLP noticeboard which produced partial results, and then to ANI which produced no results. The taunting and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH violations are what provoked this ANI. The only action that resulted to date came from an ANRFC review about the proposed merge - [47]. Atsme☯^Consult 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

While I did revert this I have to point to the next edit here In the first I say I'm going to move it to another section and then I do. This removal she justified with cherry picked sources. Note she also removed the Islamophobia template which was her original reason for being there even though there was a consensus to keep it. These others went from irrelevant statements to BLP violations. I and another user saw them as relevant. It was then taken to BLPN and the previous ANI I linked above. It's interesting that she says she created her This on July 2 second because on June 27 she went to have it merged and deleted. On July 2 she comments, "A new article should be created with the proper title, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, complete with an accurate infobox, and any information that is relevant to the foundation."[48] It's interesting that her sandbox was made for the reason she claims above when it seems like an attempt to remove the Islamophobia template without getting consensus. Some of the "new text" seems to be ripped from the original article. Previous editors wouldn't be attributed for their work.I actually called her comments racist. I haven't to the best of my knowledge called her racist yet. Her assertion that because Muslim Terrorists exist that there can not be Islamophobia is racist. Since there are Jewish Terrorists can we then claim there is no Antisemitism? She is tendentious editor breaking her back to get around the consensus. Look again at her ending response. She acts like this ANI new and all of a sudden when its a continuation of the previous one from 2 weeks or so ago. There aren't even any new claims. I'm also not sure what my contribution history will show? Have I been mostly on talk pages? Is that even remotely relevant? I do alot of RFC's. Am I getting accused of Metapedianism?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Baseball Bugs noticed the majority of diffs originated from talk pages which is why it was mentioned. Rest assured, no one is accusing you of Metapedianism, so your narcissistic smoke screen was unnecessary. Metapedians contribute to projects in positive ways, unlike what you've been doing. They do not single out one editor to taunt, or troll a particular article in an effort to win some game they're playing as evidenced by your statement above: "But by all means report me please. Let's play this game. Do it.". Blatant taunting. My editing goals are, and always have been to create and improve articles, and my user contribution stats prove it. My intentions are not and never have been what you have falsely portrayed. You stated your purpose and intent for me, are following through on it, and have demonstrated repeatedly that you are willing to violate policy, and create disruptions in order to achieve your goals. See the diff above: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. You developed your own preconceived notions, all of which are unsubstantiated, but I suppose such claims are useful strategies in your pursuit to win whatever game you think you're playing. Why on earth would any good faith editor think a correctly named, properly sourced article with accurate information prohibit the use of the Islamophobia template if its placement in an article is relevant, and serves a useful purpose? Why have you been taunting me because of it, and disrupting the project from being improved as you did with your WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations? There is no doubt the current Investigative Project on Terrorism article has major issues, and you've made it worse with your talk page disruptions, reverts, threats, and the redirects you recently created including a potentially serious Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups violation as a result of your WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations. I am not the only editor who is aware of the problems with that article. Perhaps a topic ban against you is necessary, especially in light of your continued belittling and false allegations against me. I remain optimistic that the admins will recognize the seriousness of your violations, and will take some form of remedial action against you to correct them. If they don't, I'm concerned your behavior will only worsen. Atsme☯^Consult 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This post is not worth responding to. You attack my credibility with my editing history but then when it comes to the question of how that's relevant you go on an irrational tangent. Which claim do you want substantiated? If they aren't already substantiated here then they have likely been Here. I've made no false allegations against you that I'm aware of. There is no denying the IPT article has problems. It is like many articles in that respect. I'm sure it will be fixed by it's deadline. Eventually is the deadline.The articles been on BLPN and this is the second time you have brought it to ANI. All by you. I mention the article is brought here because that's what this seems all about. You moved to merge and delete the article while planning to recreate it in your own image. [49] [50] [51] I linked the evidence of your canvassing in the original ANI. Hell there really is no point in responding. Everything has been said and verified and multiple times.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You attack my credibility with my editing history... - if you believe your credibility was attacked by your own edit history, you might want to reconsider your purpose on WP. This ANI is about your policy violations, bad faith editing, disruptions, and taunting. My attempts to correct your WP:BLP violation at the BLPN are not justification for you to continue your disruptive behavior, and neither is my prior ANI report. You refuse to stop, and have forced me to again ask an administrator for help. Atsme☯^Consult 06:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh so you weren't attacking my credibility by mentioning my editing history? Do tell what your multiple mentions of it in multiple places are meant to do? I'm unaware of any policy violations I've made, but surely ANI will mention something. There are your accusations but then all of this seems to be tied to your desire to remove a template from an article page without achieving consensus. Perhaps I've breached the civility guidelines but if so I'd hardly be the first editor to do that in the face of a persistent and tendentious editor like yourself. I suppose "my BLP violation" forced you to canvass for editors when you opened your merge proposal and everything else previously mentioned in the other ANI. Can someone close this BS or topic ban her and then close this BS?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What I did was report your disruptive behavior, and policy violations. What you are doing is continuing to be disruptive by making groundless, contradictory claims, and showing complete disrespect for the purpose of this ANI. The violations I reported here are what needs to be addressed, not your groundless allegations. You stated: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. That statement alone substantiates my claims and your motivations. You not only admitted your intent and single purpose for me, you acted on it, and by doing so, you violated policy. Your preconceived notions about "my goals" are not only ludicrous, they are downright lies, and totally unjustifiable. You know full well that I was not POV pushing the same way you knew a consensus had not been reached about the template, yet you lied and said it had. When lies are repeated often enough they become the truth, and it is my intention to protect my credibility as a good faith editor. My edit contributions speak for me. Your bad faith edits, racist claims, and other violations are what require the topic ban, and possibly even a block to stop your stated intent and purpose, which is based on false allegations as proven by the diffs I've provided, and your own contradictory statements in this ANI. A topic ban and block against you will give good faith editors an opportunity to fix the problems you've created without your disruptive edits, or concern over you trolling their edits and making other WP:Civility violations on talk pages as you've been doing to me. Atsme☯^Consult 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here here to kiss the ass of a tendentious editor. At best you're painting yourself to be a Civil POV Pusher but honestly I don't see it that way. My intent and purpose has been clear before that when it became clear that you were a pov pushing tendentious editor. Your position that Islamophobia doesn't exist because there are Islamic terrorists is racist, bigoted, highly biased, or insert the politically correct term of your choice term is from the AP stylebook. That position was linked on the previous ANI and it's on that wikiproject on discrimination page. Your actions and your editing history speak volumes. The one clear thing you've consistently attempted to do is remove that template. That is what you were doing before in March. That is one of the things you did coming back in June and you did it repeatedly. You moved to have the article deleted while planning on creating it again in your own image. Also The IPT talk page will see you make similar accusations against Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. This is a BS waste if time. I wonder where they laid the boomerang?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism RfC

A recent RfC on whether to include a specific, well sourced, sentence in the lead about the relationship with Anarchism proper was closed with the conclusion that it should be there. Prior to this, there had been persistent edit-warring over the content, with two bouts of page protection. Since the RfC was closed and the material included, three different editors – the three who opposed its inclusion in the RfC but failed to carry the discussion – have continued to repeatedly take it out. User:Netoholic has now done that three times in the past two days: here, here and here. User:Knight of BAAWA has done it twice – here and here – and User:JLMadrigal once, here.
I'm bringing this to ANI rather than say the EW board, first, because none are technically in breach of 3RR (and of course their deletions have themselves been reverted by others) and, secondly, because this is about abuse of the RfC process as much as it is about edit-warring. Editors can't simply ignore the result of an RfC because they disagree with it or because they think the agreed text happens to be "redundant" or that they suddenly have a better idea for the text. If they really want to contest the conclusion, there are review options. Knight of BAAWA was blocked previously for actions on the page. Netoholic was involved in similar behaviour recently on a related page – ignoring or trying to work around an RfC result. I tried to head off having to come here on the talk page but there has been no substantive engagement or response there, while the edit-warring and deletions continue. N-HH talk/edits 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is appropriate as N-HH is rightly pointing to three editors. However, the discussion could also have been taken to the edit-warring noticeboard because of the obstruction of these three editors to implementation of this RfC close which determined that there was a consensus of "weak yes" to include the sentence. The three named editors are pushing back because the RfC result was "weak", even though it was also "yes". These three editors appear to be adherents of anarcho-capitalism, which makes them very interested in having the topic be presented in a positive rather than neutral light. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected for three weeks. Somebody else can judge the consensus. If someone wants to unprotect then feel free. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we protect it in the version that accords with the RfC? I know WRONGVERSION and all that, but we had the RfC and consensus has been determined – we've basically rewarded edit-warriors who felt free to ignore an RfC conclusion that they disagreed with. N-HH talk/edits 17:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I'm endorsing CambridgeBayWeather's protection. And no, N-HH, we cannot protect the right version. The OP misstates the dispute. The RFC was on including a sentence to distinguish the subject from anarchists - that has been accomplished. This is over adding a second sentence expanding on that matter which the RFC didn't come to a consensus on. Protection, and not blocking, is appropriate here.--v/r - TP 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but my original post states the position correctly, with links. The RfC was precisely about the exact text in question. This is very clearly not about any "second" sentence. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #7.--v/r - TP 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point? N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

TP states the situation very well. The 3 editors the OP calls out here have each offered variations of the wording of the point, and worked to incorporate it in a meaningful and more widely acceptable way. The OP and others insist on a particular exact phrase. Frankly, if something isn't working out, you are supposed to come up with a new solution, not just drag the same dead horse through the muck each and every time. Generally speaking, those that try to compromise and try new solutions are coming from a stronger position than those that just rehash the same points. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you have tried to insert different wording about a different point, nor has that proposal been through the same level of discussion as the wording discussed in the RfC or garnered the same level of support. Anyway, there are more fuckwits on WP than I thought and nothing anyone can do about it. I've wasted probably two hours overall on this issue on the page itself and now on various boards only to end up with the page protected in its flawed form again. TP accuses me of misrepresenting the situation and then gets all sarky and pithy when I try to point out that actually he's the one who hasn't quite got it. Fuck that. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #16.--v/r - TP 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection, but is there more that can be done? The page has been protected a couple of times and, once removed, the edit war resumes. I believe there is a deeper, POV issue at hand that needs resolution, but the NPOV noticeboard has a backlog. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since OP has left the building, and the page has been protected and endorsed, I think we're now better off just continuing this on the article talk page. I've opened a new section there which hopefully can get to the root of this continuing problem. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, after this firm admin action, this is how it has continued on the talk page, on top of the usual wikilawyering and "I, an anonymous internet user, know better than what academic and other real-world sources say". We can only wait until this third bout of page protection is lifted and then we shall also no doubt see real improvements to the page itself along these lines. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental problem

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't belong under parent Anarchism. It's a species of Libertarianism. — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from RFC Closer

I closed the RFC as No Consensus on statement A and a Weak Support of statement B. It is my understanding that an RFC establishes consensus (if weak consensus) and that ignoring the RFC is editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing. If any editor thinks that my closure was incorrect, they can request closure review, and I agree that my closure was a judgment call that can be reviewed. However (although I may be considered WP:INVOLVED after the fact by having closed the RFC), I think that ignoring the closure, rather than requesting closure review or opening a new RFC, is disruptive and tendentious editing. That is my opinion. If my closure was wrong, criticize it, or move on with a new RFC, rather than ignoring it. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff (which shows the changes from the start of the RfC to today) demonstrates that the lead indeed now does have a brief summary which satisfies Statement B of the RfC (but without the accompanying problems. What is happening post-RfC is that the RfC opener still wants his exact line "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism..." in the lead, and doesn't accept the new section which incorporates the basic idea "Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from... anti-capitalist anarchists...". The RfC and Statement B in particular was not about any specific wording, and the "weak support" result you noted is a strong hint that the OPs exact wording is not the route to go to solve the issue. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A formulation which says "anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from [other types of] anarchists" does not reflect, and cannot be a replacement or alternative for, the RfC-approved observation that "anarcho-capitalists are often not considered to be anarchists [at all]". This has been pointed out on the talk page, and there is no consensus whatsoever that such phrasing tallies with the RfC conclusion. Anyone who understands English can see that, even if such people are in short supply on Wikipedia. Your spanning diff is also misleading as it omits to make clear that the statement about minarchism and other distinctions etc is included in the post-RfC version. And regardless of what you and TP seem to have taken away from all this, as pointed out, the RfC was very much about a specific form of wording, and how to reflect that; again, as anyone who can read and understand English can see. Maybe there's another way of doing that in terms of exact wording, but this is not it. And as noted, if you think the viewpoint I have argued for is wrong, or that the RfC closure was wrong, there are other avenues for addressing that. Edit-warring against the conclusion is out of order and it is ridiculous that subsequent admin action has in effect given such actions a seal of approval. I don't mind time-consuming bureaucratic process as long as it gets somewhere sensible in the end. When you have it and you still end up with nonsense – and this is not the first occasion for that – there is no point. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content on template documentation page

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

---

There was a RfC concerning a possible removal of the manufacturer parameter on Template talk:Infobox automobile#RfC: Should the manufacturer field be removed?. The decision was to keep it. Since then, I have asked for sources concerning the parameter’s documentation on the subpage a bunch of times ([52], [53], [54]), but nothing has happened. So I have removed the documentation, according to WP:UNSOURCED: “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without […] a reliable source.” This is constantly being reverted by several users ([55], [56]), stating that I may not remove anything because RfC decision was to keep the parameter. I have tried to explain that this technical term must be properly sourced nevertheless ([57], [58]), but some users don’t seem to understand one of the core content policies and keep saying that there must be a consensus to remove it (if they say anything at all, that is; User:OSX neither answers on the discussion page nor gives an edit summary when using Twinkle). How can this be solved? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The requirement of reliable sources applies to encyclopedic content, not to Wikipedia-internal discussion, guideline or instruction material. Unless the documentation in question was proposing a non-trivial and potentially contentious claim of encyclopedic fact, I don't see how "sourcing" for it could be an issue. What's contentious here? The idea that cars have manufacturers? I may be missing something here, but that seems utterly bizarre to me. Who else would build a car if not a manufacturer? What's the deal? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that no source is given for the Toyota XYZ being manufactured by Toyota. Someone searching the Goog for "Toyota XYZ" will end up at Template:Infobox automobile/sandbox, which transcludes the documentation. If someone were to write an article at Toyota XYZ with a source for the manufacturer, we wouldn't have this problem. But it would be rather difficult to write such an article, since the car doesn't exist. --NE2 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the fictitious car is not the problem here (although I personally would prefer a real one, but that’s a whole different question). -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

“Who else would build a car if not a manufacturer?”: So you expect the manufacturer to be the one who builds the car? That’s contradictory to what template documentation says: “the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”…

What if the term manufacturer was non-trivial? Actually, that’s just the problem. I don’t expect anybody to read through the whole lengthy discussion; but if you did, you would notice that people think they can use the term as they want to and don’t pay any attention to the fact that it’s a technical term. Just have a quick look at Vehicle Identification Number#World manufacturer identifier.

Most comments during RfC were like: “If there is wrong data entered in some articles, just fix it.” How am I supposed to do so if template documentation is not correct? The first step must be to give an exact and sourced definition. Only then can infoboxes be filled in correctly.

Why do you think that template documentation is not encyclopaedic content? Of course it is, just look at “the one who builds the car” vs. “the one who is responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”. Parameters are not always self-explanatory; sometimes you need template documentation to understand them, at least if there is no appropriate wikilink for them. Like in this case, for example. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit the technical distinction between those different meanings of "manufacturer" escaped me on first reading through this. But anyway, the community at that RfC has decided that they want the template to continue to have a parameter under that name, and that people feel that in the majority of cases the use of the field is not problematic. What you can do now if you are still unhappy about how it's used: you can propose new or clarified guidelines on the doc page about how to deal with those (I suppose relatively rare) cases where the role of "manufacturer" is unknown, unclear, or where the company that technically "manufactures" a car is different from the one that developed and designed it. You can propose changing the display label of the field in the infobox if you think it's technically misleading in too many cases. You can go through articles and spot problematic cases and start discussions on the article talk pages about how best to deal with them. What you cannot do, now that the RfC has decided that the field will stay, is to use the documentation page for an end-run around that decision and make it appear to the reader as if the field didn't exist. That's what you appear to have been doing, and it's a rather blatant case of disruptive editing against consensus, so you really need to stop doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically, manufacture includes design (which corresponds to engineering and development here) and assembly stages/processes as well (Manufacturing engineering). It seems that the users who created/edited the template documentation in question, had tried to make a distinction between the parent company and the tier 1/2/3 suppliers or assemblers (which is rare), in case some users might not fill in that field correctly. Because parent company makes the "design" (engineering and development) in general, they might have thought that such a portrayal/characterization would be acceptable/sufficient. Logos5557 (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an admin issue, and as Fut.Perf. stated above, WP:V only applies to article space. Whether a particular template parameter should be kept or not was decided by the RfC, but WP:V cannot be apply to whether or how the parameter is documented. —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the template. You will notice that some parameters include wikilinks, such as [[Model year]]s, [[Car classification|Class]], [[Automobile layout|Layout]] or [[Automobile platform|Platform]]. There is no need to switch from main namespace to template namespace in order to see the definitions of these parameters. Do those definitions, which are all within main namespace, have to be verifiable? If so, why not those that don’t have a wikilink, but just a description on template documentation? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You must be be trolling with that comment. The template's documentation describes what each parameter is for and what information an editor should include. WP:V does not apply to that documentation whether there is a wikilink or not. —Farix (t | c) 11:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin intervention here. All that is happening here is that the discussion that has been going on in other venues is happening here. A moderated discussion might be needed here, you could ask at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. GB fan 11:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is any admin intervention needed, it is over Brakehorsepower's edit war on the template's documentation of a parameter. —Farix (t | c) 12:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Logos5557: May or may not be. The point is that users do never have the authority to interpret a technical term; that’s why I don’t really bother about the intentions they might have had, it’s nothing of importance. What matters are reliable, qualified sources.

@GB fan: DRN? Good idea – in theory. Here’s what happened: Closed as out-of scope of DRN.

@TheFarix: It would have been more serviceable to answer my questions than just to call me a troll… but maybe too difficult if someone doesn’t understand that a parameter’s definition (whether given by a wikilink in the template itself and therefore directly accessible from every article or just written down on the template’s documentation page) has an immediate impact on the accuracy of every article.

@Fut.Perf.: As some begin to think that I might want to discuss content here – which is not the case –, I’m going to answer in few words: Yes, still unhappy. No, won’t propose new guidelines; this suggestion is the exact opposite of what WP:V says: I may also remove content, I don’t have to come up with a new proposal if something is unsourced. No, won’t change the display label; RfC decision says nothing about the content, only about the label, therefore I see no possibility to change it at all. No, not enthusiastic about starting discussions on article talk pages; wouldn’t that be a clear case of WP:POINT? If you say it’s not, I may try that; but I think users won’t be keen on discussing the parameter’s description on an article talk page, because that’s what’s going to be the outcome. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

User:EEng

I consider the recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive. Here are some examples: [59] and [60], [61], plus some other ([62], [63], [64]; notice the edit summaries as well). Besides being annoying and not promoting a civil discussion, the user has changed the topic [65] of a particular discussion instead of creating a separate topic. My kind requests at the original page and the user's talk page were completely ignored. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See

• [66]
• [67]

I've got to get to bed. EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that EEng is far too enthusiastic in supporting their view of MOS. I started the discussion at MOSNUM and have watched EEng's demolition of Mikhail with distress. Many clever people inhabit MOS, but a couple of them are far too passionate about winning the battle. I don't expect anything much will come from this report, but IMHO EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet. If the issue is as obvious as they think, others will agree without the need to kneecap opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your participation. :–) As the original topic starter, do you agree that EEng's proposal should be discussed separately? (This is the main reason why I raised the issue here. My concern with EEng is only that he just goes his own way and changes other people's edits without even seeking any consensus.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the issue—the problem is that there is too much aggression at MOS. Forceful responses are needed when dealing with POV pushers and spammers, but battleground tactics should not be employed in a discussion about the correct unit for kilowatt-hour. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I've found him to be quite aggressive in my previous interactions with him in MOS discussions. He entered a discussion at a fairly late stage, accused me of being crazy, dismissed me in a patronising way and tried to shut the discussion down. Not necessarily disruptive, but unconstructive and annoying. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• EEng, I feel like I can't turn around without finding you getting into a dispute with someone else. Please take the following advice. Even if you are correct on the merits, being a wise-guy online does not play well. There are things that you and I can say to one another on our user talk pages that you should not say to editors who are disagreeing with you. Some of the edit summaries in the links above make me cringe. If you are really smart, and I think that you are, you don't need to be a show-off about it, nor to rub it in other editors' faces. There's nothing here for administrators to do, but you, EEng, need to think about what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Tryptofish's advice. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tfish, your appeals to my better nature are always appreciated and sometimes even efficacious.

John, an exhortation to civility from you is almost an honor [68]. (To find that I simply searched your contributions for fuck -- as expected there it was.) EEng (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice EEng. A bit of a tu quoque? I am not being discussed here, but you are. "If you are really smart, and I think that you are, you don't need to be a show-off about it, nor to rub it in other editors' faces." I am sure you are smart enough to do better. Please try. --John (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If the toque fits, wear it.

Only you could introduce "If you are really smart ... you don't need to be a show-off about it" with a Latin term of rhetoric. EEng (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Propose a topic ban from MoS, widely construed. This isn't helpful or proportionate to the importance of the topic. --John (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose what you like, but don't deny others the pleasure of seeing why you're doing it. [69] EEng (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent." -- Mill

• Support A topic ban would be useful to indicate to EEng that collaboration requires, well, collaborating. There is too much aggression in EEng's 30 posts at WT:MOSNUM#Kilowatt-hour. In this ANI discussion, at 03:33 and (after being reverted) again at 09:24, EEng added three images, each with a POINTy caption/message. Such a response is entirely unhelpful—this is a discussion, not a point-scoring contest. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

POINTY means pursuing, to an excessive degree, a policy or guideline you actually disagree with, with a view to making its "wrongness" obvious to other editors. It doesn't mean making a POINT in an effective way, such as with images of a black pot-and-kettle, a glass house, and a cartoon from the very article to which John himself linked a few posts back.. If you want to replace them with placeholders reading "IMAGES REPRESENTING HYPOCRISY GO HERE" that would be fine; otherwise I stand by them. EEng (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It requires self-confidence to edit war to DYK (1 + 2 + 3), but adding your three images a third time at ANI (diff) with your conditions under which they can be hidden is highly inappropriate. Perhaps you are caught up in the excitement of clashing intellects or whatever, but please think about the fact that whenever you dominate an opponent, you are also discouraging them from contributing to Wikipedia. If you have confidence in your position, state it a couple of times and let others come to their own assessment without a running commentary. The aim is to get the right outcomes and encourage other people to do good edits. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Said with sadness: given those images, I see that my advice was disregarded almost as soon as I gave it. I'm neutral about the topic ban; please interpret that as being the same thing as "no objection" to the topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - EEng's assertiveness turns to insults and bashing all too easily and EEng simply cannot relent on MOS-related matters. EEng continues to abuse the Template:shy and this talk page is evidence of more MOS-related drama from just about 2 weeks ago. EEng has also been repeatedly warned about his incivility and I made it clear that it is inappropriate to call editors "MOS Nazis" to restore 1900 characters of this. EEng's behavior on the MOS page has been needlessly combative and he lashes out uncontrollably. His history of personal attacks and gross incivility show a distinct lack of respect for others. Also this most recent comment at the MOS page is quite profane.[70] Or making inappropriate edit summaries.[71] Or rewriting the definition of WP:POINTy behavior.[72] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

EEng, unless you're Prince Harry or something, you'd better watch out where these personal attacks will land you one day. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 09:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Melenc

• Melenc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to report this user for harassment and repeated personal attacks. Their activity consists in continuous violations of guidelines, edit-warring over punctuation and even insertion of wrong information[73][74] and removal of reliably sourced text[75]. These violations led me and other editors to revert many of their edits.[76][77] Edit-warring and personal attacks (including borderline racial slurs) against me followed.[78][79][80][81][82] They keep posting gibberish on my talk-page despite the fact that I asked them to stop doing so. Their egregious attacks include the following: "can you stop to pass your all time from editing Greek articles", "People from other nationalities would be good to edit in their object", "I suppose I talk to a human be[ing]". --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ι asked a place to commumicate with this user, so I send the informations into his talk page to explain him the way he continuing be interested on the wiki-policies only for the Greek articles. For example he was edited the article Adam, but he didn't change it's WP:OVERLINK, as he actually did for Leto in Greek lang-, but upside he told me that I send him gibberishes even if he conceded shortly afterwards! So, I contact with him for some those removal information by him, that he conceded it then, later. Then I had some personal attacks on my talk page Do you actually know what you are doing? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2014. The only interest from me is to fill leftovers made by such major empathy with the Articles by the specific user and το contribute to the correctly use on wiki-pages with no abuse.--Melenc (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the personal attack is in the diff provided by Melenc right above.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How hard did you look, Jetstreamer? I can see how it would be construed that way. Makes me wonder, really, do you actually know what you are doing? (see what I did, there...?) I wouldn't see that as an attack myself, but different folks are sensitive to different things, and it could be seen as a slur on competence. I'd be less than happy to have it said to me probably. Nuances can be lost when only text exists. There's obviously a language problem, and a bit of a disagreement here, but it bears mention that I see little "egregious" in the quoted "attacks" in the OP, either. Recommend hugs, kisses, tolerance, and no fighting in the playground here, maybe Melenc is linguistically out of their depth, and needs help, or advice. Maybe their English is not good enough to really edit here effectively. Nevertheless, storm - teacup. Begoon ^talk 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a really problem with English language, I agree that may I have some problems with wiki-tactics, yes I agree, but anyway this is something that has nothing to do, with the above documentation I just gave above and the reason I wrote those lines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenc (talk • contribs)

Melenc, take it from someone who has no interest at all in the topics you edit on but who does speak English fluently: you are much less fluent in English than you believe you are. Your comments here are difficult to understand because your English is so poor. Looking back at your earlier contributions elsewhere, I see the same issue. You need to improve your English if you plan to continue to edit here. Nobody is using wiki-tactics here. --NellieBly (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

After my inform he complied. My english obviosly isn't good there, because I am busy, but what it counts is that there was the responding to my informing which was proved useful!--Melenc (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See, the thing is, Melenc, Nellie is right. The very sentences you posted above are pretty poor English, and I had to read them a couple of times to understand you. Your English is far better than my Greek , but then I only ever learnt ancient Greek at school, and I've forgotten all that. Honestly, at that conversational level, you're going to find things very difficult here, and there will be lots of misunderstandings, like we see above. I know English wikipedia is the biggest, but participation does require a higher level of English communication than you seem to be demonstrating. Sometimes it's better to edit your local wiki until you've improved your English skills a bit - otherwise it can cause the problems you've been experiencing here. Begoon ^talk 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I do not see my comment as a "slur on competence". After the repeated failure of this editor to keep up with academic and Wikipedia standards and their refusal to reply to any comment on their talk page for the past few months or to comply to Wikipedia policies, it is getting clear that somehow they have got to be informed that their editing is disruptive. On the contrary, their assumptions and attacks are quite egregious indeed. They assume that certain matters have to be edited only by people of a certain nationality and other people should keep off those matters. Telling non-policy-violating editors "how to pass their time" and how to act according to their nationality is rude. I could argue that cases of editors that are not in the right in both matters of conduct and matters of content are actionable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And I pretty much agree with everything you say, there, except "egregious attacks". Rude, certainly. As I said initially, I don't see your comment as an attack either, I am just able to see how it could be taken that way. I do feel the language barrier is the biggest, root issue, hence deep frustration, hence these problems. Hopefully Melenc is beginning to realise that. As Nellie points out, they seem to have a much higher opinion of their own English competence than is warranted, and this often leads to conflict in cases like this, where they believe their actions and communications are understood and acceptable, whereas in reality they are not, and confusion and conflict is the result of the frustration. It becomes a vicious loop. Unfortunate, but happens a lot here, due to the size and visibility of en.wikipedia as the leading search-engine result, and thus the wish to edit here, rather than a native language project. Begoon ^talk 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and Livelikemusic

I refer to [83] [84] [85] [86] Editors are unable to interact with each other without accusations of harassment, bad faith, edit warring, snide remarks and incivility etc etc. The last proposal for an interaction or topic ban did not gain any traction due to, I suspect, people being unwilling to read through the impressive walls of text when the two parties argue (I don't blame them, wading through it is about as fun as watching paint dry). There is no relevant dispute resolution process to follow as the two parties literally argue about everything to do with soap opera. —Dark 15:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember this story. Neither seemed willing to work on the content disputes that led to their disagreements. I was never really sure who was "at fault"... but yeah, if it's still going on something has to happen to cut this nonsense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to get along with that one but, he just follows me around on here. To the point where even you, Dark Falls, commented on it and told him to stop.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord, I followed your link Mendaliv, and my head hurts. What do we do when the crap generated by 2 users is too much for normal mortals to bear, or even read without their eyes bleeding? Begoon ^talk 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there's no desire from either party to solve the content issues using the normal protocols, then the only option I see left for these two is WP:IBAN. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• While I support an IBAN (preferring a limited length one, such as 3-6 months, but supporting any proposal), I'm concerned that the narrow editing area these two operate in will make a clash inevitable. I'm also always concerned with the possibility of an IBAN turning into a land rush (especially when both editors are in a small topic area like this), but I'm sure those more familiar with IBAN mechanics will inform me that there is no such worry in practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point, Mendaliv, and it crossed my mind too, when posting my IBAN link. I guess the way to look at it is this: If the children won't play nice in the park, first we ask them not to play with each other at all because it upsets everyone else. If they still spoil the park for others then we ask them not to come to the park at all. In the meantime, if they can show us they've grown up now and won't spoil everybody's day, well, then everyone can play together happily again. Begoon ^talk 19:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone is prepared to fine-tooth-comb the contribs, an IBAN seems the standard way forward. A gentler approach might be a revert-ban, and a ban on commenting on the other editor while still allowing factual comments on talk pages. Dark will have a better idea whether this is worth trying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

That is exactly what DarkFalls told Livelikemusic to do! Stop following my edits and, if he really feels that strongly about it, take it to that article's talk page! You can see so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DarkFalls#Assumptions_being_made_AGAIN Cebr1979 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

However, Livelikemusic paid that no mind, continued on as though that never happened, and has been reverting my edits ever since without ever once going to an article's talk page! I mean, while I agree that perhaps some of my responses to him are not always the most professional... I don't follow his edits, I don't revert his edits (unless it's undoing a revert he unfairly did to me), and, as DarkFalls also pointed out, I've come a long way in a short time and have stayed clear of Livelikemusic!!! If any of you were to wake up to reverts by only one user every single morning... you wouldn't eventually CAPS LOCK something back? He constantly accuses me of Wikihounding him yet... I never revert anything he does! I go to a page, make an edit, and he reverts it! He follows me around and the proof is right here on this site for all of you to see! The Summer Newman comments made by him in that conversation on DarkFalls page I linked to prove it: that page isn't even on his WatchList but he knew of my edit and had even directed other editors to go look at it!!! He told DarkFalls (again in that conversation I linked to) that he reverted an edit of mine "not even looking nor caring who made said-edit" but, he's had a conversation about THAT very edit going for WEEKS now (and had even commented on that conversation that very same day where he, himself, pointed out that no consensus had been reached but, he went and reverted the edit anyhow)! Would you people not be going bonkers if this was happening to you??? Now, I'm the one who has "come a long way" and Livelikemusic hasn't budged one bit or listened to what an admin told him to do and I'm still potentially in jeopardy of losing the topic I most enjoy editing? My God!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough:, I share similar concerns with Mendaliv regarding the narrow scope of interest of the two editors involved and its implications on IBAN. But that remedy is probably the only solution short of a topic ban that could potentially fix these communication issues. Considering the amount of bad blood between the two, anything less would be completely ineffective. —Dark 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I support an IBAN between these two users; the multiple issues they and some others create involving anything in the WP:SOAPS project have driven many good possible (and some of them new who flee the site) editors from going anywhere near the articles they deal with; even compared to the MMA fun of last year and the worst of reality articles such as the Bad Girls Club series, Cebr and LLM's interactions make it impossible to build consensus without having them get into it over some wrong they can only see. This needs to be a collegian series of articles, not two editors trying to 'win' them. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Cebr1979 and Livelikemusic are banned from interacting with one another in all namespaces for three months. Violations of this interaction ban may result in blocks of escalating length up to the expiry of this ban.

Survey

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not sure if I'm supposed to be involved in the survey or not but, for the record, I support this. However, I don't think the proposal is clear enough. I think not reverting each other's edits and not talking to or about each other in talk pages (whether directly or indirectly) need to be specifically mentioned in the proposal, not just in the conversation above. I also think that where and to whom any infractions are to be reported need to be specifically stated in the proposal. All our Ts need to be crossed and our Is need to be dotted or we're going to all be back here again (and I think it's pretty safe to say that I'm not the only one who doesn't want that to happen).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps 3 months will be enough to learn new editing and behaviour patterns with regards to each other. Worth a try. Begoon ^talk 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per my statement above. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have a question regarding this: How will it be enforced? Because that's pretty much the exact same thing DarkFalls has already told Livelikemusic (with the exception of not talking to each other in talk pages) and only Livelikemusic didn't listen. I followed the rules but, am back here once again anyways. So... if/when Livelikemusic breaks the rules again, who is going to be watching him and actually do something because noone watched or did anything last time, that's for sure! If anyone wants to see diffs as proof, let me know! Cebr1979 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocks. Someone breaks the interaction ban, they're facing a block to prevent them from continuing to break the interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And this would happen how? You are going to follow-up on this or check-in on us now and then or I have to come running to you every time he breaks a rule this time? And if I don't come running to you, to whom do I run 'cause I'm not doing this again. Lastly, what reassurance do I have that this time someone is going to do something if (when) he breaks the rules? Cebr1979 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Interaction bans (along with several other kinds of restrictions) are publicly logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. To report a violation of the interaction ban, you would post (with supporting diffs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Uninvolved admins then assess the report and administer sanctions if deemed warranted. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Cebr1979 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw reported by Msnicki

With great reluctance and apologies that this will be long, I am reporting a pattern of bullying, tendentiousness and other unhelpful behavior and a series of unwarranted personal attacks by Montanabw that I can no longer ignore.

The incidents arise in the context of the discussion of allegations by the New York Times and found to have probable cause by the US Army War College that John Walsh (U.S. politician) had plagiarized roughly two-thirds of 2007 master's thesis at the War College. Related discussion can be found at:

1. Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Plagiarism allegation
2. WP:BLPN#Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S. politician)
3. User talk:Billmckern#Montanabw's edits.

Evidence of bullying includes:

1. Reverting Presbyterian1 with the edit remark, "Drop the effing stick, Presbyterian1 before we have you blocked." 1.
2. Repeatedly asserting in ad hominem fashion that his opinions are more valid than others' by virtue of his "over 15 featured articles to my credit" 2 and demanding, "List your GA, FA and DYK articles, please, (and how many articles have YOU contributed to that have been TFA? I have nine) or else just deal with the reality that your precious prose isn't particularly precious to anyone else." 3. (Note that he appears to be taking sole credit for 15 FAs, though he later denies doing that. 4)

Evidence of tendentiousness and other unhelpful behavior includes:

1. Continuing to assert WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYNTH and that the allegations of plagiarism are a campaign issue at BLPN without responding to the substance of my arguments or anyone else's in the article talk page or at BLPN, at one point prompting Nomoskedasticity to remark in frustration, "Another assertion of "campaign issue" without any supporting argument attempting to persuade us on the point"5.
2. Stating that he could "live with" my edit to the article content re: the allegations 6, eliciting a concilliatory message from me 7 but then blindsiding me twelve minutes later with series of 3 edits in quick succession 7, 8and 9 that fairly completely gutted my contribution, all done without any attempt to discuss. (Note also that the second edit also claims plagiarism in the edit comment.)
3. Stating he had been mistakenly been looking at others' edits 10 when in fact I had posted a link to the diff for my edit 11 and clearly he did read it, evidenced by his remark 12 stating that he found it "interesting that the Army itself is takign over the investigation". This is a fact I had introduced in my edit and which had not previously appeared in the article.

Most serious are the personal attacks, which include:

1. Calling me "arrogant" and claiming that I had "cast aspersions" 13.
2. Claiming that I had plagiarized material by improper "close paraphrasing", made personal attacks and and that I "really don't "get" WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH" 14.
3. Repeating his claim I plagiarized by improper close paraphrasing and claiming that I had made "mean-spirited attacks" that he implies amount to WP:OUTING 15.

Not only are the personal attacks unwarranted, unsupported by the facts and contrary to policy, I believe the behavior is part of a pattern that has had a chilling effect on the discussion and editing of the article, contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia.

My single edit

I have made a single edit to the article adding content regarding the Times' allegations, seen in this diff 16 and announced at BLPN 17.

Each sentence states a simple claim and each is accompanied by a citation to the source(s) I relied on for that sentence. I devoted only a single sentence to a statement of the allegations and devoted most of the content in equal parts to Walsh's various responses and to the War College's preliminary review indicating they'd found probable cause. I included direct quotes from Walsh, his campaign "fact sheet" and from Lance Betros, provost of the War College. I did not mention any of the many reported (and overwhelmingly negative) reactions from anyone else. And though I personally believe the evidence is damning and that Walsh's responses are completely lame, I tried hard and I believe I was successful in disallowing my own personal views to color what I wrote.

Yes, I did not get consensus beforehand but (a) I don't think there was any real consensus to be had and (b) a corollary perhaps to the observation that it is easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission, I've observed that sometimes editors will accept an edit after it's been made and when they see it in context that they might not have not have accepted when it was presented only as a hypothetical. This worked for me in the past, e.g., when I rewrote the lede to Bash (Unix shell) a couple years ago, suddenly ending what had been a bitter debate on the talk page, and I hoped it would work here. Here, of course, it never got a chance because Montanabw only allowed it to stay there for 12 minutes, meaning almost no one ever saw it.

Having re-read of my edit several times since then (as I almost always do after writing almost anything, aware as I am that I do make mistakes), I can only find 2 things I would change.

1. In the second paragraph, I used the phrase, "Presented with multiple examples of identical passages". I gave credit to the NY Times as the source, but I think that phrase is distinctive and in hindsight, I should have either quoted it or, better still, chosen a different expression, perhaps, "Shown examples of allegedly copied material".
2. In the third paragraph, I cited <ref name=NYTimes2/> for the third and fourth sentences discussing when the War College review board would meet and how long they would take. I had been renumbering my sources and made a clerical error. That should have been <ref name=NYTimes4/>.

Of course, we'll never know now, but I think I'd have found and fixed both these errors within a day or so anyway. They certainly don't rise to anything supporting a charge of plagiarism.

Montanbw's charge of plagiarism against me

Montanabw's claim that I have engaged in plagiarism are what most upset me.

I am now semi-retired in a second career as faculty at a state university. I deal with plagiarism as part of my job. Within the academic community, plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty are extremely serious offenses. I am expected to know what plagiarism is, what it not and to recognize and report it when I see it. If I report it, I am expected to be right. This is why I took the NYTimes' charges against Walsh so seriously and why I am so upset by Montanabw's charges against me.

I find it completely inexplicable that Montanabw would resist in-depth treatment of the allegations against a public figure reported by the New York Times and numerous other reliable sources adn found to have probable cause by the US Army War College, but insist on making false charges of plagiarism against me in such a cavalier manner, even to the point of doubling down and refusing to retract them 18 after I had explained why he was wrong 19.

The essence of plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else's work. It's using their intellectual property without giving credit. But each and every sentence I added did cite a source. I did give credit. When I invited our university conduct officer to review my edit and Montanabw's charges, here is what she wrote back:

I think your section on Senator Wash’s plagiarism allegation is very well written and properly cited – no idea what the other person was referencing.

The sad thing is, those public misconceptions is part of the need for the academic integrity education crusade. So many individuals have different perceptions about the meaning of academic integrity and the consequences….even the consequences of falsely accusing. Excellent response to that individual; absolutely ridiculous!

(I think most of you can form an opinion without need for this, but if anyone does wish to see the original email or would like contact information for our conduct officer, please send me email. I will provide it on request, no questions asked, subject only to the understanding that you should not post anything that might out me here.)

I almost walked away from this

In several of my remarks at BLPN and elsewhere, I made clear that I refused to edit war. I made a single edit and if others didn't come to my defense, I expected to walk away 20 out of concern that if I did anything to revert Monatanbw's changes to what I'd written, that it could lead to an edit war, which I simply did not want. When no one did, I had determined as of two nights ago that I was done and would walk away.

I am here because Montanabw's last edit, doubling down on his claims I'd plagiarized, even though I'd done absolutely nothing wrong and had made no attempt to revert any of edits, was simply the last straw.

I believe there's a pattern here of bullying, personal attacks and other disruptive behavior that has had and will continue to have a chilling effect on discussion. It's not helpful nor is it in the best interests of Wikipedia. It needs to end. I've become satisfied that if I don't step up and report it, possibly taking my own lumps, it won't end.

Coming to ANI is absolutely the last thing I want to do. I dread that no good comes to anyone who comes here for any reason. Having made this report, I intend to say no more. If questions are directed at me, I will answer. But if anyone has criticisms of my behavior, I intend simply to take them to heart and resolve to do better next time. I've said my piece.

Sincerely, Msnicki (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I saw the BLP report and while I didn't do anything, I checked the edits and found that Montanabw was doing precisely the correct thing (Montanabw reverted UNDUE amplifications of breaking news that a politician facing election may be guilty of plagiarism). Thankfully Wikipedia now records the full details (with glowing prose such as "The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option."), and there are nine references in case the reader wants any more muck. Thanks for trying Montanabw! Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• First point: Wikipedia has very strict copyright rules, perhaps stricter than you might encounter elsewhere. Copying phrases from sources, even if properly attributed, is only permitted if the material is contained inside quotation marks. I have done some further clean-up of material copied directly from the sources. Second point: your addition changed a 45-word section on the plagiarism issue into a 402-word section. In a 1676-word article, the material then comprised 24% of the article. This gives the event undue weight. I have trimmed it further from 253 words when I arrived, down to 185 words. I am not sure it belongs there at all, per our rules on BLPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• The points made above by Johnuniq and Dianaa above, whilst correct, are content points and are not about behaviour which is what the OP claims are really about. So I went to the article talk page and the BLP thread to see who said what (or more specifically, how it was said). And what is very clear is that Msnicki's points/edit were received calmly and politely, but Msnicki soon went on the attack with allegations of bias, COI, and even abuse of admin tools - all without evidence. Msnicki's approach was confrontational and ABF from the outset. Things went down hill from there. (Just to be clear, I'm not American and have never heard of the politician who is the subject of the article so have no POV axe to grind) DeCausa (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• I have not yet reviewed all of the evidence, but I don't think there is any excuse for the edit summary by User:Montanabw. I have seen quite a number of edits by that editor, and this seems out of character, but that doesn't make it acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Like Sphilbrick, I felt that this sounded out of character, so I've looked at all of the diffs here. It looks to me like Montanabw became peeved in dealing with some content issues that I think Johnuniq and Diannaa characterize correctly, but I see this as a civility issue with enough ambiguity that it probably does not require administrative action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Late to the party, but Tryptofish, Diannaa, DeCause and Johnuniq pretty much sums it up. "Peeved" is a good word. Msnicki seems unduly offended that I reverted his/her edit, then attacked me at a third party's page when the BLP board post went nowhere. And trout me for saying "effing." The other user, Presbyterian1, had a serious stick problem, see the edit history. Meh. Glad to see folks from Canada and the UK watchlisting and watching the POV issues; ever since the issue hit the news, the Walsh article is being hit by a number or relatively new accounts, probably due to the partisan issues surrounding the 2014 election, Walsh's seat is viewed as vulnerable and a potential pickup for the Republican party, so they are going after him pretty hard. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Derogatory comments and false accussations

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

---

Recently while editing I have received much abuse from User talk:John from Idegon. Please look int the matter. I have posted several warnings and removed the offensive material to only face further abuse. He has also posted defamotory wording on the James Stacy:Talk page which I reverted due to his uncivil post.208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

John placed the following diatribe on my talk page: you are acting in extreme bad faith. i don't care what kind of a crusade you are on, even criminals have rights and we will not be adding a ref that's only purpose is to get the subject of the article's address into the article. It is coming back out. You made an edit i disagreed with. I removed it. justify it and come to a consensus with the other editors before replacing it. you have sent me a level 2 warning, dude that doesn't even have a talk page til I hit the damn save button here. I've made close to 30,000 edits. You are wayyyyy out of line. WP:AGF is not optional and Wikipedia is not the place for your crusades.

I have no idea what crusade he is claiming nor do I care how highly he thinks of himself. I placed a warning for this nonsense he posted above as being uncivil and derogatory. On the James Staccy talk page he posted this after my post:

Added current credible, verifible links

Many of the references have been updated with some new ones added. The sources are now current. Many of the links were dead, did not contain information cited or unreliable. JamesStacy.com did not contain any information it was supposedly citing and it is an unreliable source. Multiple publications and government sex registries demonstrate he is a convicted child molestor of a child under 14 (specifically an 11 year old girl). It is verifiable by many credible sources and he is convicted so it is suitable for the lede. There may be future attempts to remove his convictions by fans and those promoting child molestation. This type of vandalism must be guarded against. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No one will be entering into this discussion with you. When you start a conversation with "Do you enjoy beating your wife?", there really isn't any way for a person to dialogue with you. WP:AGF. WP:CITELEAD certainly applies. This is a short article and the lede is doing its job nicely summarizing the facts. There is no need to reference the facts there. A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data, but that is not a reliable source. Even if it was it references nothing that isn't already referenced. I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I subsequently removed his offensive diatribe and warned him agin to remain civil. He replied with an accussation of disruptive editing for removing his uncivil post. See WP:Civilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:208.54.45.227&oldid=619529222 208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you start out by calling other peoples edits "vandalism", you should not be that amazed people do not react very positively. If you subsequently remove talk page contributions calling them "uncivil, accusatory and derogatory" you might want to be wary of a few boomerangs hovering menacingly in the vicinity. Kleuske (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guy, but when you start out a discussion stating that you are going to presume anyone that disagrees with you is a promoter of child molestation, you are not going to get the kindest answers. You have sent me a total of three totally false warning templates and redacted my comment from the article talk page. If stating that you are going to assume anyone who changes the page away from your version must be promoting child molestation, then you have to expect most people will assume you are on a crusade. There has been no incivility whatsoever in my dialouge with him. It hasn't even been all that harsh. I really need to get to bed, so have fun guys. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Calling John's comments uncivil and derogatory was correct. Here are his own word's: "you are acting in extreme bad faith. i don't care what kind of a crusade you are on" and "I've made close to 30,000 edits. You are wayyyyy out of line. WP:AGF is not optional and Wikipedia is not the place for your crusades." Warning an editor to refrain from uncivil behavior is policy in WP:Civil. A close look at his own edit history also shows he has used the term vandalism frequently. Also what is the purpose of bragging about his number of edits? Is he counting them for some reason. Hasty editing can be very disruprtive.

I have remained Civil

All during this time that I have faced John's abusive comments I have remained civil and grew tired off his abuse and gaming the ssytem with his cherry picking alphabet soup policies while ignoring the five basic pillars. Assume good faith and remain civil among two of the most obvious. A thorough check of his editing history and comments may be in order as well. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here are Jon's comments on the Talk Page in Question:

No one will be entering into this discussion with you. When you start a conversation with "Do you enjoy beating your wife?", there really isn't any way for a person to dialogue with you. WP:AGF. WP:CITELEAD certainly applies. This is a short article and the lede is doing its job nicely summarizing the facts. There is no need to reference the facts there. A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data, but that is not a reliable source. Even if it was it references nothing that isn't already referenced. I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow is all I can say. "No one will talk to you" Wow that's pretty presumptive! Then John states: "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" I have no clue were he is going with this. Where did that come from??? Then he ridicules me as a tactful fella here: A unique reference was added by the tactful fella above to a commercial aggregrator of sex offender data. Why not just say you believe that one of five citations I listed is not reliable. I would of had no problem with that. Then he attacks my motives with this accussation: "I think what we have here is someone trying to backdoor in some information that is there that we should not be linking to." How did he determine all of this and why such hostility and uncivil behavior? This further directed ridicule and accussation was not something for a talk page. He was directly accussing an editors motives and was very uncivil as well. And his refusal to show any concern for my concerns about his uncivil bahavior led us here. He since posted a complaint after I notified him of this one on his talk page. 208.54.45.227 (talk)

He has also reposted the above derogatory post to the articles talk page. I would apreciate if he removed the post that ridicules another editor ad make false statements concerning another editors intentions. 208.54.45.227 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

James Stacy

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

---

Could some eyes be added to the above page and talk? Appears we have a rather "committed" editor who does not understand the process at all. Been getting templated, had my comments removed at the article talk page, etc. Will notify. Not looking for sanctions, just other voices to explain things to him. Thank you. BTW, I will be offline for a while. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional: the ip (208.54.45.227) has posted a notice of action on my talk page saying there is a discussion about this at WP:AN. At last look there wasn't. John from Idegon (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah there it is., right above here! John from Idegon (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2014

(UTC)

I am running down here to write because I can't tell where to answer anything above. He's writing in the middle of my and the other editors comments, randomly jumping back and forth from bullets to indents and throwing in random subheaders besides. I am just gonna stay here, duck and wait for the boomerangs. John from Idegon (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple quick observations:

1. Telling anyone who mayy oppose your viewpoint that you are going to consider them a vandal and pro-child molestation is about as univil as it gets.
2. telling someone that has reached that level of uncivilness that they are uncivil is not uncivil.
3. telling someone whose reactions to being told that were way out of line is not way out of line. John from Idegon (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Site-wide blanking of anything to do with Taiwan on China-related articles by User:Uaat

Refer to Special:Contributions/Uaat. This user is repeatedly removing any mention of "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" from China-related pages, including Template:History of China. I have asked this user numerous times to provide proper justification for his removals, however he has refused to do so, and is reverting my changes. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I already explained on his talk page but instead of doing substantial discussion, Benlisquare only reverts me and give me warnings.--Uaat (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• You have not explained anything on my talk page. I asked for reasoning, you gave me an opinion. What is your reason for mass removals? You cannot just make one or two posts on my talk page, and then continue mass removals.

  As for Template:History of China, it has been community WP:CONSENSUS for many years (since 2004!) that the template includes Republic of China at the bottom. This user has not made any convincing argument as to why the status quo should be changed. The same goes for the other pages involved, such as List of Chinese flags, which have included the ROC for many many years. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• The reason I removed them was because including modern Taiwan in articles about China implies that Taiwan is part of China, which violates the NPOV policy. The status quo does not mean consensus,take Template:History of China for example, there was a very long discussion about this in the archive which ended with no consensus, which is typical for discussions about related issues.--Uaat (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• How does it violate NPOV? moluɐɯ 12:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• "including modern Taiwan in articles about China implies that Taiwan is part of China" - no it doesn't, that is just your personal viewpoint. I do not share your interpretation, and so it's opinion and not fact: you cannot pass off opinion as fact. When I explain my opinions, I call them opinions not facts, and you should do the same. "China" does not equate to "PRC", otherwise Taiwan's official name would be "Republic of PRC". There is more than one definition of China, and you cannot simply state the the People's Republic of China is the only one.

  "which violates the NPOV policy" - an ironic statement, since by forcing the POV of the Pan-green coalition and ignoring the viewpoint of the Pan-blue coalition, that too is a POV problem. You cannot pretend that the Pan-Blue viewpoint does not exist, and only the Pan-Green one is correct. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not currently governed in any way by the PRC - thus any article about the PRC should make clear that it does not govern Taiwan. That is clear. The term "China" as including areas which have, in the past, been governed as being a part of China is what seems the issue here.

IMO, there is no doubt that Taiwan was historically considered a part of China irrespective of who governs Taiwan. Taiwan has also been "governed by Japan" in the past, but that does not make it "part of Japan" just for that reason with regard to how "China" is used here - which is a nation which predominantly has Chinese as the primary language. There is more doubt about Tibet, which is governed by the PRC, as being Chinese as far as many people are concerned in that sense. NPOV would be violated by asserting that Taiwan is part of the PRC, but otherwise id not the problem.

If there is perceived to be an inference of any sort that Taiwan is governed by the PRC which one objects to, then adding that statement is preferable to removing Taiwan universities etc. from being "Chinese." Collect (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Though not always, China usually refers to the PRC. I tried to avoid both POV problems by removing content about Taiwan and moving the title "xxx in China" to "xxx in PRC" at the same time if suitable(ex.List of universities in China), but someone thinks that China is the common name of PRC so he moved the pages back . Furthermore, even when not equating PRC and "China", whether Taiwan is part of China is still a controversial question. The Pan-green coalition's viewpoint is that Japan gave up Taiwan on the Treaty of San Francisco, without specifying the recipient, so the status of Taiwan is undetermined, thus the ROC is a Chinese exile government ruling outside China.--Uaat (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Another opinion - While the edit warring is a bit of a concern (I believe both users should stop reverting/removing), I believe Uaat is acting in good faith. Citing NPOV without any attached reasoning to back it up carries little weight. I think this is more of a content dispute than anything else, and I think it would do best for both users to agree not to edit any articles for now and take this to either one of their talk pages or to WP:DRN. moluɐɯ 12:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this needs a moratorium on page moves and scope changes pending dispute resolution. A very quick glance at contribution histories suggests to me that neither editor is working completely within the spirit of the outcome of Talk:China/Archive_14#Requested_move_August_2011, which implied to me that articles about contemporary China would generally be concerned with the PRC and exclude ROC/Taiwan, while articles about Chinese history and civilisation could include Taiwan. I'm sure my reading of it is arguable and and am sure that benlisquare could present strong arguments on the subject, just as at that RM discussion - but that's not for ANI. NebY (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly agree with mol here. In particular, Uaat should stop making disputed mass changes. (benlisquare should similarly not make changes to any stable article.) If that happens, there's no need for any of this to be at ANI. If necessary, the proposed changes can be discussed in the proper place, i.e. in a sufficiently advertised RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am open to the idea to starting an RfC on the issue. What would be a suitable location to have it held? It affects more than just one article, after all. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Looking through Uaat's contribs, almost all of their edits have to do with separating China and Taiwan. I'm a supporter of Taiwan as well, but their edits are clearly POV driven. I support a block per WP:NOTHERE as their only purpose on Wikipedia is to push their anti-China POV.--v/r - TP 00:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet of David Beals

I came across this today. User talk:98.221.93.96. The latest unblock request is a link that redirects to a Youtube video of a ceiling fan. I have a feeling this might be David Beals. Can someone take a look at this? The Newspaper (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

David Beals it is, and they weren't blocked (yet), but are now, with talkpage access removed and the IP hard-blocked. I assume we'll be seeing his socks this evening. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

When he feels like it, Beals can create socks at an amazingly rapid clip. It's often more effective to semi-protect any articles he frequents.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User Eleanor60 spamming all Ford Mustang-related pages with comments about Denise Halicki's copyright to the Gone in 60 Seconds franchise

User Eleanor60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been running wild over every single Mustang, Shelby, or automotive film related page spamming it with poorly-written, non-encyclopedic, non-referenced comments about Eleanor - the star car from the film Gone in 60 Seconds - or the copyright battle pertaining to the 2000 remake and its creators.

I tried speaking with this editor to no avail as follows, trying to keep things kind. Unfortunately, I discovered their way of cooperating was to put all their disruptive edits right back up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleanor60#Non-encyclopedic_edits_to_Eleanor_section

After thanking me for my concern in that dialouge, they went ahead and reverted my attempts to clean up the page and retain factual information in an encyclopedic manner.

I've supplied diffs and page revision logs below, as their edits often span more than one diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carroll_Shelby&diff=618295282&oldid=617232221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Mustang&diff=618466058&oldid=618294602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Mustang&diff=618292578&oldid=618292319

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619350706&oldid=619314809

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619353558&oldid=619353375

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619043557&oldid=619043079

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang&diff=prev&oldid=618299242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang&diff=618299764&oldid=618299242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._B._Halicki&diff=619044900&oldid=619044829

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._B._Halicki&diff=618308707&oldid=618308453

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_in_60_Seconds_%282000_film%29&diff=518904950&oldid=518824454

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_variants&diff=619486358&oldid=619383459

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_variants&diff=next&oldid=619486952

I think that sums it up.

Apologies if any of these reports are not done correctly. It is the first time I've had to use the reporting feature. Lots of things to learn.

Cudak888 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Eleanor60 has admitted a COI here. Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will do a COIN report then. Thank you.

Cudak888 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

COI can be seen here Cudak888 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User Eleanor60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists that they are right on the COI page, despite the fact that their "correct information" is never referenced and usually overrides identical information that is better written and referenced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Eleanor60_spamming_all_Ford_Mustang-related_pages.3B_admits_to_having_COI

Cudak888 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill academics-athletics scandal

Sadly I'm just having to head out the door here, or I'd look at it myself, but there's an edit war (I think) and some fairly serious BLP issues. Thanks in advance, --j⚛e decker^talk 00:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ForeNikeGolf is up to 12RR (!) and says "I will keep adding these facts as long as needed." Woodroar (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are others continuing to reinsert unsourced BLP content. Suggest that the page be locked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Most recent good version is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by Monty845, though given the scope of the edit-warring and BLP violations, an indef is warranted. I've revdeling their contributions as flagrant BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Acroterion: if you want to change it to an indef, I will defer to your judgement. Monty₈₄₅ 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I just blocked a blatant sockpuppet account. While I respect your restraint, I think the well is poisoned and strong action is required. With your concurrence, I'll change to indef. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your probably right, even the old edit from 5 years ago when the account was created was pretty unconstructive, and the sock is pretty obvious... go ahead. Monty₈₄₅ 01:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, and a note left. I've deleted a bunch of revisions by that account as well as some earlier edits by an IP. I doubt the history is clear of BLP violations, and the article itself probably needs a thorough review for other BLP issues. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anon vandalism on James Bowie article

I noticed vandalism on Bowie_knife. While I was asking Help Chat about it, it was undone. Why wait for the Anon editor to be blocked? Is there a way to see all the edits an IP has done?...I'm guessing so. This is one reason I'm starting this conversation. Thoughts? Thanks, Rick

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowie_knife&diff=619618340&oldid=619471278 IP: 50.153.128.3, Addition: The Bowie Knife is mainly used to maim your neighbors pets in their sleep. Also a good method is to use Chloroform on the Neighbor first, so he doesn't get mad first. "Trust me I've done it before!"

Hi Alrich44! You can see the editor's edits by clicking on their IP address on the page with the difference that you linked above. Clicking that takes you here, where you can see all the contributions by that IP. All their edits have been reverted, they were warned on their talk page, and they have not edited since the most recent warning.

You can also check a user's contributions by clicking on the link in the page history, in the "View History" tab at the top of the article.

Finally, in the future, routine vandalism like that is usually not worth a post here on AN/I. Revert the vandalism, warn the user, perhaps by using one of these templates, and if they continue, report them here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fake "alternative" account pretending to be me

Could someone indefinitely block the malicious account User:Cold_Season.1, who is pretending to be me. I would appreciate it if you also mention that it's an account made by someone else than me (impersonation) if you do. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

New editor who refuses to adhere to WP:OR, thinking ancestry has higher priority

Hi, I've been having some trouble with a new editor (User:Moca1810) who told me he is a descendant of Momčilo Gavrić. Basically, he refuses to understand what the Wikipedia:OR rule is about. I tried to explain that data must come from published sources, but I've been getting angrily worded emails about how I'm being disrespectful, etc.

For example, look at this (and the recent edit history of the page).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mom%C4%8Dilo_Gavri%C4%87&curid=40645940&diff=619597650&oldid=619597530

Can anyone help out here? I don't think that he is vandalizing the article on purpose, it's just that he reacts very negatively when I try to explain that a published source (in this case, the biographical dictionary) has higher validity than (original research) statements based on the story that is told in his family.

There may be a possibility that the biographical dictionary contains an error, and that his statement is correct, but he doesn't understand that he needs to provide published source material for that (I've tried suggesting scanning documents to Wikimedia Commons, if he's got any). No matter what, it's recieved like I'm insulting his honor or something. - Anonimski (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP did not notify the editor. Editor has since been notified.[87] —Farix (t | c) 14:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked Moca1810 for 36 hours for violating WP:3RR based on a report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, once more

Some weeks ago we had a big thread here about Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) and his unconstructive behaviour in certain language-related debates, including one about the Gaulish language. Kwami seemed to narrowly escape some form of sanction in this thread mainly because he happened to have just gone on vacations/wikibreak that day. Recently he came back from that break and added a response to the thread (in the archives) which seemed quite defensive and unwilling to recognize any problems with his attitude [88]. To make matters worse, he added a rather severe but unsubstantiated accusation against his opponents in the Gaulish debate (in which I suppose he meant to include me), claiming that we severely misrepresented a certain (unnamed) source. Challenged about this edit, he is now evading the issue and refusing to substantiate the accusation by specifying what passage in what source he is referring to [89]. Given this hostile and unconstructive attitude, and given the fact that unsubstantiated accusations of serious misbehaviour such as source abuse are considered sanctionable personal attacks, I am afraid this issue needs to be re-opened and the question of longer-term sanctions (such as a revert limitation) for Kwamikagami needs to be re-examined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Where are these "personal attacks"? An editor (not you), who has since essentially admitted he was wrong on the point of fact he was so enraged about, said I should be sanctioned for insisting that we follow our sources, the basis for any edit on WP, and for following the lead of an admin who closed a debate. You're now bringing me to ANI, saying I should be sanctioned for defending myself when brought to ANI. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You made a specific accusation of a specific passage in some article being severely misrepresented, claiming that "anyone who uses a ref like that [...] either hasn't read their own ref or is being dishonest". This is clearly a serious personal attack, unless you finally demonstrate (a) what passage in precisely what article you are referring to (note that people were referring to multiple articles by the same author(s), so this is not trivial), (b) where and by whom that article was being cited wrongly. You have been evading this question when challenged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not evading. I can't remember the details of discussions that happened several months ago. I do remember Cagwinn insisting that Lepontic be classified as a Continental Celtic language, when any intro to Celtic will tell you that CC is not a cladistic node. After being repeatedly challenged over a period of months (by you at times, if I remember correctly), he finally admitted that of course it's not actually a cladistic node, but that somehow that's irrelevent. Then there was the ref being used for the claim that some linguists classify Lepontic as a dialect of Gaulish. The ref used to support that was a footnote saying that "Gaulish" was a useless term, incoherent unless taken as a synonym for Celtic. Hardly a good ref, since that's not how we use the term Gaulish at Gaulish language. Someone eventually did turn up a source that actually supported the claim, which was good, but then they insisted that we keep the inappropriate source because it was more accessible. "Personal attack" is supposed to mean ad hominem attacks or abuse. It's not a "personal attack" to criticize people for the inappropriate content of their comments or edits. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwami you should stop believing that we are blind or stupid. Why you had ignored ANI report that was made against you in June 2014? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Kwamikagami edit-warring at Gaulish language again. You took break and you returned when you thought that no one will talk about that report again, of course why we will bring old matters but you are always busy in creating some new edit conflict or giving birth to same old conflicts. There was 100% consensus for putting you under edit restrictions, only one person hoped that you will discuss edits without these restrictions but now I am hopeless that you will ever do. For how long you have been disrupting Gaulish language and other language pages? You ever learned from previous incidents? I saw that you had your rollback right removed because of edit warring and no one said that you will ever have it again. If you are as free as any new editor you will still repeat the same behavior, Wikipedia:DONTGETIT. I read what you type for removing references but I also look for references and consensus yet you ignore them. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How have I disrupted anything? Where have I made any recent edits to any Celtic article? I received notice that charges were being made against me, so I defended myself. Last time I didn't defend myself after the initial charge, because I thought it was too petty to bother with, I was sanctioned, and one of the sactioning admins said it was my own fault, that I deserved to be sanctioned even if I hadn't done anything wrong, because I hadn't bothered to defend myself more vigorously. So this time I figured I'd better defend myself, so that doesn't happen again, and now I'm being brought up on charges for defending myself! FP is charging me with "personal attacks" for pointing out that people have used a ref that does not support the point they're using it for, and now you first criticize me for "ignoring" the ANI report, and then call me "disruptive" for not ignoring it! These damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't attacks are one of the reasons I've been glad to be away from WP. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kwami says "any intro to Celtic will tell you that CC is not a cladistic node"; I suppose Kwami, despite showing no specialist knowledge of Celtic linguistics, knows better than Ranko Matasović (University of Zagreb, author of the Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, Brill, 2008)?

Matasović, Ranko, "Insular Celtic as a Language Area", in: Tristram, Hildegard L. C. (ed.), The Celtic Languages in Contact, Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2007, pp. 93-112.

P. 93, n. 1: "In broad terms, two theories are competing: (1) the traditional view, defended, among others, bu K.H. Schmidt (e.g. Schmidt 1977) and J. Koch (1992) classifies British together with Gaulish (and Lepontic, which is probably just an early offshoot of Gaulish) into Gallo-Brittonic, while the Goidelic languages remain as a separate branch of Celtic. (2) An alternative theory, defended by K. McCone (cf. e.g. McCone 1996, 2006, especially p. 171 ff.) and supported by P. Schrijver (Schrijver 1995), sees British and Goidelic as a separate Insular Celtic branch, while Gaulish and Lepontic are viewed as the Continental Celtic branch. Celtiberian, as is becoming increasingly clear, is almost certainly an independent branch on the Celtic genealogical tree, one that became separated from the others very early."

Kwami is already showing signs of re-starting his edit war, as he is now arguing again on Talk:Lepontic language. Cagwinn (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Insults on my talkpage

With this comment User:Iranmehr27 is unsulting me on my talkpage. It is not only a racist Anti-Afghan insult, but he is also directly insulting, more or less telling me to prostitute myself. You could ask one of the many Afghan or Iranian Wikipedia users to translate that text to you. --Lysozym (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that you did not notify the editor of this topic, as required. Also, these allege insults are over a week old and the editor hasn't edited Wikipedia since. I'm not sure what admin action you are seeking as the matter has become stale. —Farix (t | c) 14:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

After finding out what it means, I elided the text. Since that editor has stopped editing I'll do nothing else now, but if happens again let me know and I'll squash it for good. Zero^talk 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Misula89

Above user has made what appears to be a legal threat in their edit summary [90]- not blatent but is how I interpreted it as being last editor. Could someone look into it. Amortias (T)(C) 11:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. But the article itself has some very serious BLP issues, not least of which is that if fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. As such, I've nominated it for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The OP did not notify the editor as required. I have notified the editor of this thread.[91] —Farix (t | c) 14:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad, appoligies for the slip up. Amortias (T)(C) 17:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the issue further and it appears that Misula89 has a legitimate concern. A section of the article was copied directly from the article subject's IMDB page. I've removed it and deleted the affected revisions. Mike V • Talk 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Some urls are not permitted in that article because they don't belong to the authentic author's web site.

Please, stop from reediting the forbbiden urls or delete the article NOW or we are obligue to inform to the police.

Thanks! (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misula89 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I've had to issue Misula89 a Level 4 warning for vandalism of the article. The URLs he is changing are the IMDb profile and the subject official website. He has been changing them to random IMDb profiles and cypher-squatting pages. —Farix (t | c) 15:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

Could you take a look at User:SqueakBox edits? This editor insists in having the page List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame, which are quite enlighting. --Cavarrone 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at wikipedia have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments are just laughable which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Enfrocing (sic) BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: [92]. You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". Cavarrone 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a Citizen's arrest, you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Wikipedia policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If they are applied reasonably and properly... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. None of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Wikipedia as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited in the list. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with no Wikipedia article whatsoever - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to WP:PORNBIO which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of Data analysis. The assertion that any of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Wikipedia like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates here. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in List of Italian actresses stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. Cavarrone 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, Cavarrone♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. Resolute 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. Resolute 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That allegation is simply false, Reso, all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is required to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to bowdlerize the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Wikipedia policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Wikipedia practice, disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that WP:BLP applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. [93] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be removed immediately. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the solution I proose too, Wikidemon. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Wikipedia article counts as a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. Monty₈₄₅ 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is List of male performers in gay porn films, fully refd, while Template:Editnotices/Page/List of male performers in gay porn films needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention we already asked you at least twice which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that a reference is only Required when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Monty845 above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the Barack Obama article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The Ron Jeremy article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the Ron Jeremy article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. Cavarrone 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[User:Monty845]], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for wikipedia to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? Resolute 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• That you have challenged the factinclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. Monty₈₄₅ 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates WP:BLP, when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that is yes, see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered originl research because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at WP:BLP on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years.[94] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Recreating list

Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source.[95] Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, List of Internet phenomena. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. [96]I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit. He/she was adding sources to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can cite IMDb for contentious material - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page?[97][98][99][100] - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put specific names (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained the reason he excluded them, I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Wikipedia that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting en masse simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Wikipedia lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

werldwayd, you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see List of male performers in gay porn films. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark wikipedia demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have opened an RFC on the policy question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons if anyone would like to participate there. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As a random example, consider Major League Baseball Player of the Month Award. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are preferable but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Accepted in which policy is that, Rich? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, MrBill3, do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection wikipedia offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" either Bill Clinton's article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

It has just been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that anything involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this?

As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make wikipedia a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection wikipedia needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
  

Baseball Bugs, where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on wikipedia over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?

I'm quoting from an earlier comment...

• Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, come again? You're saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Wikipedia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal bias here, Scalhotrod, is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at wikipedia as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an extremely hasty generalization. One person complained on-site that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? moluɐɯ 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but we don't live in that world. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Jessie Andrews starred in Portrait of a Call Girl." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? moluɐɯ 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for Portrait of a Call Girl. So, for instance, if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. moluɐɯ 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue?" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Wikipedia has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn List of actors who got their baps out on camera in films where people don't generally get their baps out with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source is reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? moluɐɯ 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's not a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a directory of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of WP:COI: When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, regardless of who is advancing it, because it is not within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. moluɐɯ 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of wikipedia while another is not. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Wikipedia. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.) that an actress wanting to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" moluɐɯ 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Wikipedia the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. moluɐɯ 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make List of actors whose career started after a Bryan Singer party and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not that far off. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Wikipedia porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. This actor found being labeled a model by Wikipedia quite controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

COI involving lawsuit at Jake Adelstein?

Bridies (talk · contribs) has made highly questionable and poorly referenced material to Jake Adelstein. User has been warned about this on their talk page. User has also engaged in edit-warring and vandalism of the article's talk page. It appears that the user has a long history of causing disturbances on Wikipedia but no action ever seems to be taken. People like this compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and it's reliability. 24.176.33.62 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I dunno what this dispute is about, but edit summaries like this one invoking legal buzzwords make me think there's at least one IP editor with a significant COI regarding the article. Definitely needs a look. --erachima talk 14:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... Calling people "troll" and removing talk-page content isn't exactly the way to go if you are worried about poorly sourced material. I am also inclined to note that there are no recent contributions to that page by Bridies, yet you seem to escalate it all the way here and to WP:AIV. Definitely not the way to go. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides... You might want to notify people when you report them here, if only as a matter of civility... No worries. I did that for you. Kleuske (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, court documents are primary sources and IMDB is also a non-standard source as much of the information there is user-contributed or tertiary. The outcome of the parties' private settlement notwithstanding, you need a better source for "X filed suit in court claiming Y" than their legal filings. You would need a reliable secondary source for that. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I have had nothing to do with the content dispute involving court documents and a lawsuit (which is between a redlinked editor and an IP, and is not at all acrimonious, and has not reached the talk page). I would love to see a diff demonstrating that I've even been editing in relation to that, or that I've added "highly questionable and poorly referenced material". The OP's (who didn't inform me of this ANI, btw) involvement in this article (and almost all of his 4 edits to Wikipedia) was to reply to an old explanation of an unrelated revert I made (which was sufficiently uncontroversial that no one else replied), with similar assertions - as above - about my editing history (no diffs, no specifics at all), with the edit summary "calling out a troll". He made another hostile reply, before simply removing my own (admittedly, and understandably, I would hope) snide replies. Also another IP has been doing the same thing, simply removing my posts and replacing it with accusations of trolling. Suspect either sock- or meatpuppetry. bridies (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, the fact that this is supposed to be about the lawsuit content dispute, and that the OP has any interest in that, is news to me. bridies (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Regards the mysterious escalation to ANI (that Kleuske noted), it comes a day after I asked the other IP to stop removing my talk page comments, on pain of ANI... bridies (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia sanctions

Please block all ips from russia until 1 - 1 - 2020. Due to high tech ban under sanctions. 69.178.195.28 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is spammy. Along with his other edits, he should be the one blocked.Forbidden User (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for any claim that Russia's sanctions include a ban on editing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please delete 2 articles?

Can you delete 2 irrelevant articles, which are created by User:Damián80, who was blocked twice for edit warring. [101].

List of En otra piel characters is poorly written, and there's unreferenced and irrelevant information. List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes is also unreferenced and Wikipedia's not an programming guide. Best wishes. Zeta54 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Also that person undid my adds without no reason. I just have no words [102]

Any administrator who take this subject, let me say that this user is a probablemnte puppet Sky0000, Not sure, but both users to edit the same manner and through a cell, I'm not making accusations, but editions of this user are similar to those of Sky0000.--Damián (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot my passwords again and I had to do new one please that person never leaves me alone because I did 2 accounts more now all accounts are closed and I promise I will not make new accounts but please solve my problem and do not ban me. Zeta54 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a verification of accounts. Anyway I do not understand your message, if it comes to you, which I can not be sure, you should have requested his release on your main account, if you are Sky0000, but if not, do not understand coming your application to request that these two items are deleted.--Damián (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[103], I discovered that person also had a puppet account. Zeta54 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I have noticed this legal threat of Maura Kelley (talk • contribs against user Helpsome. Please act. JimRenge (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "Please send me your email address so I can have the professional wildlife experts and their attorneys contact you." JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User blocked for legal threats. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user following her withdrawal of the legal threat. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User Eleanor60 has escalated to legal threats and cross-posting personal information about me to my talk page

The dispute with user Eleanor60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Eleanor60_spamming_all_Ford_Mustang-related_pages_with_comments_about_Denise_Halicki.27s_copyright_to_the_Gone_in_60_Seconds_franchise - has resulted in the user issuing legal threats to me and Wikipedia on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cudak888&diff=prev&oldid=619742003

The user is also posting personally identifiable information about me gathered from internet forums.

Please take action. I don't know who this person is, but the issue is escalating into something too close to home.

Cudak888 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted the edit because it contained personal information. I am going to block the user Eleanor60, though I don't see the legal threat, as they're obviously here to promote their own interests, not to improve the encyclopedia. Review is requested, since I did clean-up on two of the articles involved. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Diannaa. I just re-read their statement and realized that their "legal" comment didn't read as a direct threat, but their poor writing caused me to interpret it differently. At any rate, I am glad to see them gone - it became very frustrating to see hours of meticulous research, editing and referencing go down the tube time after time. Cudak888 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by 67.243.47.146

67.243.47.146 (talk · contribs) Stated on User talk:Smartse Please mind your business and leave the defaming of my character alone...or there will be a lawsuit. Jim1138 (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

An immediate lengthy block of the IP is needed. Where are the admins? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week to account for possible reallocation. Mike V • Talk 01:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the comments, the IP claims to be Eddie Brill and that the information about him leaving the The Late Show is false. —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP's complaints are based on a NY Times blog and a Reuters article. If those are considered reliable sources, then the IP's complaint is with them, not necessarily us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Blatant plagarism of public domain sources by a Wikipedia administrator.

One of the recent articles created by @Rosiestep: came to my attention last night, and when I read it the phrasing seemed strange for an article written by an editor. After looking at the cited sources, I realized that it was because the entire article was plagarized from 100+ year old texts. I"m not talking about 'closely paraphrased', I'm talking about extensive verbatim copying, without any rewriting. Cited to the source, but not attributed. Not a copyright violation, but blatant plagarism.

So, I looked at the last five articles she had worked on. Every single one was exactly the same, thrown together from the cited public domain sources. In some cases, two or three sentences in a row from one source, then some from another. In some cases, three or four paragraphs in a row. In one case, the plagarized text crossed a gap where there were missing pages in the Google books scan, and the mangled sentence fragments were reproduced word for word.

Specifically, with diffs that show the extent of the plagarized content...

1. John Judson Ames - content plagarized mostly verbatim (with a bit of rearrangement) from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 11-18 - removed with this edit.
2. Bancroft Library - content plagarized from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 163-166 - removed with this edit.
3. California Silk Center Association - some content plagarized from An illustrated history of Southern California, page 463 (the lead) was fixed by @Huon:, further content plagarized from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 146-148 - removed with this edit and this edit.
4. Joseph D. Moody - entire article plagarized verbatim (except for changing the tense of sentences) from The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Volume 8, pages 138 and 139 - removed with this edit.
5. Los Angeles Plaza - content plagarized from Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern ..., Volume 4, pages 247-255 - removed with these edits and further content plagarized from The Quarterly, Volumes 3-4, pages 41-44, including directly a broken sentence spanning two missing pages in the Google book scan, removed with these edits.

I have by far not looked at all of her contributions, but out of the last five articles to which she has made substantial edits (most of which she created), every one was a blatant case of plagiarism, and at this point is seems apparent that there are many more. This is unacceptable.

I'm well aware that there will be complaints and drama about this, and, to be honest, I care little about anything said by the apologists that typically pop up around this kind of thing. I have discussed this off-wiki with several admins, who will remain nameless unless they chose to speak up, and one advised I bring this to ANI, while another said he would simply G12 the articles. It beggars belief to believe that an editor who has been an administrator for five years, and claims to possess a Masters degree, is unaware of Wikipedia's policies regarding plagarism, or even ignoring policy, the simple ethical issue involved. This is not something that should be ignored or dismissed as trivial, it is something that if ignored will directly serve to discredit the project.

Again, this is not a matter of a copyright violation, because the material is in the public domain. It's also not something that is just a 'policy issue'. It's a matter of academic ethics. Also, when an editor types in the box, unless they attribute the content to a source, they are claiming that the content is their own work, and claiming that they hold copyright in that content. In this case, that claim was patently false.

This is not a dispute between her and I, and is not something that she needs to explain or apologize to me about, which is why I have not attempted to 'resolve this' somewhere else. This is something that she needs to justify and explain to the community, and there needs to be far more eyes than mine looking to see that this is fixed, given that whether intentional or not, given her prolific editing it is something that could potentially span hundreds of articles. Revent^talk 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• So why are you removing the text rather than just providing proper attribution? I also don't understand your reasoning for bringing this straight to AN/I without first trying to raise it with the editor in question. Monty₈₄₅ 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like he did try to raise it with her but what do I know. I suppose one could say don't template the regulars, though... /me shrugs Cathfolant (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I supposed to personally take responsibility for overseeing if an administrator cleans up after themself? Or am I supposed to personally look at every single one of her articles? It's not a dispute between me and her, like I said. Removing the material and providing a diff is a simple way to show the extent of the problem. Revent^talk 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess someone other than you should give this an extra look, then. That was your intent, correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentialy, yes. Let me make it blatantly clear. I'm not here asking for sanctions, I really couldn't care less if she is 'punished' or not, I dont even care if it was intentional or not. I'm bringing it up here because it is an issue that requires the 'intervention of administrators or experienced editors' to see that it is actually addressed, specifically because of her prolific editing over time, and the fact that the ones I looked at were all plagarism. This is not the 'request for sanctions' noticeboard, though it is used that way, it is the 'incidents' noticeboard. Revent^talk — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about trying to settle this with the editor, person to person? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Revent is asking for help with that, since this seems to be a rather herculean task to do properly. :-/ , (lots of edits to go through); and they don't know the best process to follow here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. My first time here... a bit disconcerting. I made a mistake by not adding the source attribution template at the bottom of the articles immediately; given time, I would have as I have on other articles. Check out my user:Rosiestep/Tools page and you'll see that I've got the source attribution template listed there for ease in access as I use it from time to time. I will add the source attribution to the pages that need it now. If I need to do anything else, just nudge me. My apologies for incoveniencing your weekend with this problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you were still working on it. That explains it then.

I heard Revent say something to the effect that they would assist with that if you needed any help, if I read that right. In any case, Have fun! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Hi. I hope that you aren't under the impression that this was a personal attack on you in some way, as it truly was not intended to be so. I don't know you, and as I said, was not here asking for sanctions... I was trying to bring enough eyes to the issue to ensure it was taken care of, as from what I had seen it was an ongoing problem. I only looked at your most recent edits, and so I honestly had/have no idea if you add the templates later. I merely felt, as I tried to make clear, that it was not something that should remain a 'me and you' issue, since it was not a content dispute, and not something that I could in any meaningful way personally ensure was addressed. (There's also the matter of simply making other aware of the issue 'in general', not just regarding you.)

The big problem with adding the attribution template later is that Wikipedia is mirrored...constantly, and there is no insurance that those mirrors are of the latest version of the content. If a version of the page is created with unattributed content, that version of the page is effectively making the claim that that content is your personally copyrighted work, and licensed to Wikipedia. Even if you correct it later, that version still exists, and could be reverted to, restored, or simply distributed in that version. It's important (in a sense that some people will undoubtedly consider trivial, but ethically) that the content is properly attributed when added. To do otherwise opens Wikipedia to accusations (whether in good faith, or otherwise) of ignoring plagiarism, even if it was later fixed.

I am perfectly willing, if needed, to help you fix any articles where the attribution is still needed, and you can feel perfectly free to revert my removal of the content (just please fix the issue). Like I mentioned, the main reason why I removed it instead of just adding the attribution was to generate the diffs that showed the size of what had been copied, so that it would be clear it was significant and not just me being pedantic.

Anyone who wants to close this now can feel free, IMO. Revent^talk 04:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the source attribution template to the articles in need of it. I can see how my slowness/sloppiness proved I wasn't thinking it through... mirrors and all. Sometimes, skipping a step is no big deal and sometimes it is. Because plagarism is a big deal, I'll take this as a friendly reminder to avoid skipping/postponing the source attribution step again. As for the removed content, I'll take a look at restoring some/all in the next couple of days. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, and so you did. That was a bunch of work done very quickly! Did Revent help? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Revent:, whatever you thought, you owe Rosie a big apology. You should never come running to ANI talking about a seasoned contributor in this manner, it looks malicious and looks like you're trying to get her into trouble. You should have simply asked her first. All her articles need is text attribution in addition to the source (which she's clearly quite happy to go back and do). It is quite acceptable to use PD material on wikipedia and our resource would greatly benefit from public domain text, however close to the original. This sort of thing really angers me on wikipedia. Please don't do it again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Big apology"? The question is whether Rosie screwed up or not, and it seems we now have it from the horse's mouth. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he owes her an apology. Regardless of whether she forgot to add the attribution template there was absolutely no need for that hostile tone, reporting her as if she was a vandal. If you can't see that it was inappropriate to come running here instead of notifying her first.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm not going to argue with you. All I have to say to you is that, based on what you have just said, you have apparently not read all of my earlier comments. The issue needed to be addressed regardless of when, or if, she logged back in. Revent^talk 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not a big apology, perhaps a small one. Many editors think they can copy paste material into an article, then work on cleaning it up. That isn't the case, and when the material is subject to copyright, some of us spend a fair amount of time rev-deling old versions. That isn't necessary in this case, because it is pd material, but why not include the attribution notice in the first edit, rather than a later one? I agree it would have been a better practice to send a personal note rather than a template, but when you are poking through contributions and finding many issues, I can understand the desire to notify quickly and a template is easy.

I also note that the posts about the issues were archived, within hours and without a response. Many of us have noticed editors removing notices from talk pages without a response, and it is a red flag, not proof of anything, but a big red flag. Could user:Revent have tried again, to make sure before coming to ANI? Of course, and that would have been a better option, but please note the OP asked advice of several admins, one of whom recommended posting here. Is an editor with under 10K edits supposed to tell an admin that their advice to check in with experienced editors is wrong? That's asking a lot.

I don't think we should be castigating someone for identifying a potential problem, notifying the other party multiple times, and after getting no response (but evidecne that the post was seen), and advice from an admin to post here, actually followed that advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that the ANI post, and in fact Rosie's first comments here, were a couple of hours before the templates were archived from her talk page - hardly the big red flag you talk about, and not really reason to jump straight to this noticeboard.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like to me this issue was resolved amicably with both editor's acting in good faith. Job well done!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Profanity and abuse directed by IP editor against myself

Resolved

Not sure where else to put this but do I have to put up with this abuse from IP editor at 108.20.78.7?? Quis separabit? 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed their comment and added a warning. If they drop the issue, great. If they reply with anything else then I won't hesitate to block. If another admin feels like a block is already warranted, go right ahead. In short, Rms125a@hotmail.com, No: you don't have to deal with that. But it was several days ago at this point. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But it was several days ago at this point.

I am not onwiki 24/7; I reported it as soon as I saw it. It was on his talk page not mine. Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile tears. A passive-aggressive abuser. He (Rms) picks a fight then cries to mommy when he's stood up to in the most invisible corner of WP. Rms is nothing but a bully here. I had conceded on an editorial point and he still picked this fight. Take a good look at the edits... I made a sincere reassertion of arguments for "off-topic" while noting some lack of AGF by him. I fairly quickly conceded the editorial point after someone else came along and gave a civil explanation for the reversion. Everything was perfectly fine at that point. It should have been over and done. But, Rms couldn't resist posting his snooty, and snotty "lesson" on my talk page. He just couldn't help but to essentially call the IP "stupid". Then he had the gall to complain that I was abusive to him in my response. Well, that's GARBAGE. The only way to stop a passive-aggressive twit is to call that spade a spade. Rms, nobody should have to "put up with" your own abusive game. I won't.

There's nothing more to see here. As far as I'm concerned, this fight is over and done with. I'm moving on (as I tried to previously before being chased down by Rms). You can "block" me if you like, but that would be foolish and you wouldn't be considering the big picture.

I'm going to do two more things related our unfortunate digression before I go: 1) I'm going to revert the deletion of my "special comments" on my talk page. That's an important matter of principle. To have deleted my response without deleting Rms's also-inappropriate snark was an improper judgement made before Rjd had all the facts. 2) After that, I'm going to blank the whole page because it's all very stupid. All of this digression is very stupid.

108.20.78.7 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stupid question. Wouldn't this navbox be better as a simple succession box? --NE2 06:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Marked section as resolved for now. The user was active and refrained from personal attacks/civ issues. I'll keep an eye on them for any other issues. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The most comments by the IP (05:48, 4 August) on this thread make it quite clear that this is not resolved. Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"The user was active and refrained from personal attacks/civ issues." is inaccurate ("passive aggressive, snooty, snotty, bully"). Quis separabit? 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the sandbox by an IP address

I am letting you know that this IP address has been misusing the sandbox as demonstrate here and keeps making disruptive edits to the sandbox as seen in their contributions. I don't know if a block would been the most appropriate action to take or if to formal warning to the user and let then know to read the Misuse of the sandbox page. I hope that you admins will make the most appropriate decision of what to do with this anonymous user. Many Thanks for your time, 5.175.150.244 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hot damn, Ass Pus is still around. This guy has been doing this on and off for almost a decade. --NE2 06:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User Technmaticity approving articles apparently w/o reviewer rights

Technmaticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who does not seem to have wp:reviewer rights Technmaticity rights has been 'approving' AfC articles and moving them to article space.

• Approval notice of Nakul Ambilkar diff
• Approval notice of Luis Valadares Tavares diff
• Move of Luis Valadares Tavares to article space
• Move of Nakul Ambilkar to article space

These articles do not appear to be ready for article space. Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

His blanking of this section here is a bit telling on what we are dealing with. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for blanking out this area, actually I was confused a little. Anyways, do we need to have some specific rights in order to accept articles? It looks like the answer would be yes, that's why I've been put up here. The thing is, that I do know that which article to accept or not and I was following those specified rules only to accept the articles. It is holiday here, therefore I just thought of helping you guys by reviewing some severe backlogged articles. If you don't like this act of mine, then I'm ready to not to do so again in future (but please tell me that what do I need to do in order to have article approval rights?) Anyways Thanks and I'm sorry for what I did due to lack of information. Sorry again. Technmaticity (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Technmaticity. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants to see the requirements for reviewing draft articles. The problem is, if articles are moved to mainspace when they are not ready they may be deleted, which is unfair to the developers of the draft. One of the drafts is full of promotional language, and the other is a BLP which is almost unsourced. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ok so I've read that page and it looks like I need to have minimum of 500 edits and at least 90 days old account. So from now on, I'll try to achieve this target and then in future I shall apply to review articles with full authority. And one more thing, If I'll get selected as the reviewer then is there any rules specified that "I would need to be review x number of articles in y time-period?" And can you also link me to the "guide to review" or something similar. And just one thing, is everything clear now? I mean; will I be excused this time for doing changes without permission? ...Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technmaticity (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Apart from this, note that you do not need to be a WP:REVIEWER to review AfC submissions. The permission is for reviewing pending changes, not AfC. This ambiguous name has caused many misunderstandings, leading users to request rights they don't actually need. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AfC has been greatly harmed by below-par reviewers in the past, which is why the restriction is now in place. The review is often a new editor's first contact into Wikipedia, and rejecting a review for no good reason, or passing it through only for it to wind up at AfD is extremely harmful to our well-being as it gives the newbie the impression they're fighting a loosing battle in contributing. You have got to have a solid grounding of basic Wikipedia policies for article inclusion to review successfully, and I personally think the easiest way to demonstrate this is a good track record at AfD via AfD Stats. Of course, now that tighter restrictions are in place, the pool of available and competent reviewers is reduced, leading to an insane backlog which is more and more frequently "jump started" by people just writing things in mainspace anyway as they can't be bothered to wait. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A related question: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants says: Only users listed on this page will be able to use the AFC helper script.. I don't see this user listed there (or recently added/removed), yet their edit summaries include the AFCH link, which seems to indicate script use, as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Quite possibly I am - I'm easily confused... Begoon ^talk 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I can't see anything mentioning that WP:REVIEWER userright is required in the criteria, nor anything in the gadget code that enforces it. Some editors on the list aren't in the usergroup (e.g. QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV and Pigsonthewing). Could you clarify? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:REVIEWER isn't a requirement, though it was considered. You have to add your name to a participants group, after which the tool will work, but there is a "soft" requirement of 500 edits (ie: you can still add your name if you're under that but you might well be reverted out of the group). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, as I mentioned, this user doesn't appear to even be in the list... Shouldn't that have prevented script use (or at least use of the official script)? Begoon ^talk 14:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up that one of the improperly moved entries, Praneet Sah, appears to have been the subject of some previous spurious editing at AFC. This led to the SPI here. I'm not sure that there is a direct connection, but Technmaticity seems to be attempting to promote Sah at the Online journalism in India entry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Which I just removed again, as uncited, before you posted this, after they reverted your removal... Praneet sah was, indeed, one of the related articles: moved here... They dropped the surname capitalisation after this G11: Praneet Sah Begoon ^talk

Update: RHaworth actioned my speedy G11 on Praneet sah (thank you). Worth noting that Technmaticity contested the speedy instantly, which is hardly consistent with the position of "sorry, I was just helping to fix a backlog because I had time", nor with the fact that they "approved" that article at AFC as their first action after 10 innocuous edits for autoconfirmed, then edit-warred to add the guy to Online journalism in India. I added to the SPI at Cerefo. I remain concerned that they could (it seems) access AFCH scripts immediately they were autoconfirmed. I find that quite worrying. Begoon ^talk 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish page move ban: request for clarification

SMcCandlish was recently banned for three months from making page moves following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish, which resulted from undiscussed moves of approximately 250 animal breed articles. During that discussion, and also before it, he was repeatedly told in the clearest possible terms, and by numerous editors, that articles should not be moved without discussion if the move is potentially contentious. He also cannot fail to be aware that issue of capitalisation of bird names is a contentious one in Wikipedia. In that context, is his listing of a requested move of Swedish Blue duck to Swedish blue duck at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests acceptable to the community? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I often misunderstand, but think it's clear that he should not actually move, while a listing like this is exactly the required prior discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't see the issue here if it was a controversial move request at WP:RM. He wants to move a page, he realises others might not agree, so he should start a discussion about it. That's exactly how we should do things - consensus will play out. His request for a technical and uncontroversial move appears to have been declined. I would also see a problem if SMcCandlish had started a bulk (eg: 20+) of requested moves, but not one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• This is patently vexatious, frivolous nonsense by Justlettersandnumbers on at least three levels, and this editor's pattern of following me around and making bad-faith assumptive objections to misc. things I do or say (RM is just a request/suggestion, not an action!) with regard to biology articles is starting to look like obsessive wikistalking. Is that acceptable to the community?

1. Capitalization of the common names of bird species (e.g. "Bald Eagle" vs. "bald eagle") was formerly a contentious issue on WP, settled at RfC sevearal months ago. It has nothing whatsoever to do with names of landraces or breeds of domestic livestock, even if some of them are birds. That contention is over and wouldn't be applicable to this RM even if it were not.
2. MOS:LIFE is crystal clear that "general names for groups or types of organism" are given in lower case (except where containing a proper name or starting a sentence). This includes landraces. (Formal breeds are not addressed, and it's expected that an RfC will determine at some point whether to capitalize them, as most specialist sources do and most general-audience sources do not; that debate is not relevant here.] Not only is there no question as to what MOS:LIFE means here, it even specifically uses a landrace, the Van cat as an example, to be extra-double-plus clear about it. There, ergo, is no reason whatsoever to expect that the requested move would in fact be controversial. Manufacturing a "controversy" simply because one is, at best, confused as to what MOS says, or at worst trying to get another editor's goat, is not indicative of any actual meaningful controversy.
3. Finally, my move ban specifically directs me to use RM process, not manually move things myself, and I am complying. The uncontroversial moves subprocess of RM is part of RM process, by definition. Hounding me for having a faintly different idea of what is or is not "controversial" smacks of though-crime, and in this case, policy clearly backs my interpretation anyway. RM process is flexible, and procedurally accounts for RM nominations believed to be noncontroversial to be flagged with ease by anyone as not noncontroversial. I.e., there is a process for this, and running to ANI is not it.

I have to suggest that WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to Justlettersandnumbers, as this ANI filing isn't just vexatious and frivolous, but an abuse of process, as well as assumptive of bad faith.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - I assume you did want to raise a requested move on Swedish Blue duck? I can't see evidence you have - I've looked at the talk page and there is no RM template. Nor is the page in Category:Requested moves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's me listing it at RM, with a very clear rationale. If it's been contested, "The admins who patrol RM/TR ... take it to a full discussion". I.e., it's not my place to re-open it in a different venue if there's already a process in progress for dealing with it. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I'd be instantly attacked at ANI for doing so myself, given the high level of personal animosity directed at me by various bird-focused editors who will not cease blaming and verbally savaging me for their failure to carry the day in an RfC they instigated themselves. (See my talk page, and WT:BIRDS, and WT:RETENTION, and WT:SIGNPOST, etc., etc., for boatloads of that stuff, as well as recent pile-ons by non-bird, animal breed editors with similar WP:OWN-ridden axes to grind.)

UPDATE: The article has been changed unilaterally to remove all suggestion that it's a landrace (and the lead actually falsifies what one of the sources says, as I've detailed on the talk page). Meanwhile the editor who removed "landrace" from the article has since then found a source (see talk page again) saying it is a landrace (but has not self-reverted deletion of that fact from the article text). Regardless, a) the move would no longer be uncontroversial while the article is in this uncertain state, so I have no objection to the RM not proceeding nor being relisted; b) there was no reason at all to think it controversial at the time, and changes to the article, which may need to be reverted, have simply given an illusion of controversy. Even the editor doing this deletion and later sourcing of the landrace fact says "what a mess!" about the entire article, which is severely broken in other ways (talk page again). Perhaps some bird and livestock editors should spend more time researching and getting their articles in some kind of factual shape than bashing people, for what look like personality-based reasons, in admin noticeboards over rename suggestions they can't even mount a factually-based objection to without tripping over themselves. If anyone cares here, the facts coming to light are that there's at least one Swedish duck landrace and at least one Swedish duck formal breed probably derived from the former, in at least four color variants, and we probably really need a Swedish duck article that explains this, not individual POV forks on color variants, that pretend landraces don't exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Perfectly acceptable. The admins who patrol RM/TR (I'm one of them) are supposed to give consideration to anything listed there and if they think it will be controversial they take it to a full discussion. And if anyone then contests it, the move will be reverted and a full discussion will be started. If he was repeatedly listing articles at RM/TR that had to get taken to a full discussion as controversial then that would be a problem, but I don't see that as the case here. This is the way SMcCandlish should be handling his restriction. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see it differently. I do a fair amount of move requests. When I see a number form the same editor, I usually spot check some, but if I know the editor and their history of getting things right, I do not review carefully every one. I think this is a reasonable practice, as there are sometimes hundreds of move requests in a batch. Technical and uncontroversial ought to mean exactly that - virtually no one is likely to object, and the main checking ought to be that the editor didn't mangle a name. However, User:SMcCandlish is well aware that capitalization issues have been contentious. Maybe this class is different, but the way to determine that is to propose or two on the talk page, and make sure there is no push back from the community. It may well turn out that SMcCandlish is right, but if arguments need to be made and accepted, it does not qualify as a technical request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves: "If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself.... [I]f you are unable to complete... the move, request it below." [Emphasis added.] The existence of one capitalization controversy a month ago over one batch of moves does not indicate that all moves involving capitalization changes are likely to be controversial. A lone editor, with a history of rantily disputing misc. unconnected things I do or say with regard to animal articles (and who is following me around from horse to sheep and now duck articles, that this editor has shown no other interest in but undoing what I do), is not "push back from the community", it's one individual with a personal issue. Another unilaterally acting editor who PoV-pushes the article in question to remove information in a way that fundamentally changes the article and makes it seem like the move idea didn't make sense, but who then later fesses up on the talk page that, oops, there actually was a reliable source after all for the info they just removed, is not push back from the community, it's a mistake. As already noted, there was no reason at all to expect that move to be controversial; a similar one I requested just before it was not, nor was another a day or three ago. The waters have thus already been tested. The "controversy" here is entirely fake, generated by animosity in one case, and false changes to the article in the other. If you think that capitalization changes should be prohibited from speedy RM procedure, you'll need to take that up at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves and get RM's instructions rewritten. I decline to be prosecuted for following the RM procedures you say you are so familiar with, after another ANI case (involving the very same vexatious complaint-filer) explicitly directed me to follow those procedures (after that ANI case was blatantly canvassed to vote-stack against me, no less). I've already blown my entire day's editing time dealing with this nonsense. ANI does more harm than good yet again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that Justlettersandnumbers should back off, stop hounding SMcCandlish, and let the settled capitalization issue be. SMcCandlish is just doing the thankless work of implementing a consensus in places that have it wrong still. Where is the controversy in that, except in so far as Justlettersandnumbers wants to stir one up in each place? Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of trying to weasel his way around a topic ban, McCandlish should just stop any activity connected with moves. Unless he actually likes being dragged to ANI every few days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued uploading of untagged images and lack of communication by User:Angelo Trovato

• Angelo Trovato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has multiple warnings for uploading images without copyright information, stretching back to May this year and has failed to communicate with other editors. In early July, I tried to make him look at his talk page by deploying a script that displays a message box every time he makes an edit -- see User:Angelo Trovato/common.js. (There was an oversight on my behalf where said boxes do not show on the upload form). Despite this, the user has continued to edit and upload untagged images. This warrants some kind of block, but for how long? MER-C 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I placed a 48 hour block. Many images seem to fall within NFUR, but there are too many other problems to ignore. We need some assurance that the editor has understood the problem and plans to change.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I really in violation of something?

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

---

I just got a warning e-mail from a presently-blocked contentious user stating "I see you've re-inserted the text I redacted. Please review the BLP policy page. It applies to contentious material about living and recently deceased individuals. Please undo your re-insertion of the violating text, which is Original Research, Soapbox, BLP violation, and fyi is subject to the Arbcom discretionary sanctions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at ARBPIA."

What I had done was restore the rationale for a delete vote by User:Carolmooredc, which was innocuous and illustrated why she voted as she did. The Hannibal thing is mentioned several times in the deletion discussion. Such discussions are not subject to OR rules and/or sourcing as would the actual biographies be, she said nothing slanderous or demeaning, she was making an observation only.

My restoration of her text, by the way, is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHadar_Goldin&diff=619801823&oldid=619799329 I've tried to look up this ARBPIA thing, can't find it, and don't need to spend any more time on it.

Is this something I need to worry about or can I go to bed?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA is the page, fwiw.--Auric talk 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, there's nothing I can make out of that gordian knot, except that I didn't violate anything, and User:Carolmooredc didn't either. Thanks for the link and the confirmation, good night from Japan.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious BLP problem there. The comment has political overtones, obviously, but it doesn't actually say anything about the politics or beliefs of the article's subject; BLP isn't relevant to that aspect of the comment. Further, the comment (at least implicitly) expresses doubt about the notability of the individual at hand; while that type of discussion certainly can engage BLP, questions of notability are the bread and butter of AfD and the comment appears to be entirely in bounds. (Caveat: I have read neither the biographical article nor the rest of the AfD thread; I have only considered the contents of the comment at issue. I neither endorse nor reject its substantive content.)

Incidentally, presently-blocked users shouldn't be evading their blocks to edit Wikipedia pages—who was the blocked editor? If there are BLP issues that blocked users wish to bring up, they are free to use the appropriate channels: Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's SPECIFICO, but he didn't edit Wikipedia pages to write me, he e-mailed me. Just it sounded like he is definitely not a reliable judge of what is or is not, *ahem* kosher on Wikipedia, so I wanted to put it to the admins if I stepped on someone's sacred cow. How's that for a mixed metaphor? Sleepy...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't do anything at the direction of Specifico, which would be WP:BE. So no harm, no foul on anyones part. Specifico & Carolmooredc have a long history of less-than-cordial interaction. One starts editing in a subject area and the other follows. Sometimes these are new areas, sometimes old interests. (Both are topic banned from certain subjects.) You and the community just happened to be caught up in the affair. This thread had best be closed so that more editors are spared. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just a pattern of SPECIFICO Wikihounding of me going on for almost a year which I will have to deal with separately. It's perfectly ok to say that an individual may have been killed under the Hannibal Directive and that may be the only thing making his life and death notable, though I actually wasn't quite that explicit in my posting. But it's already in another article, which is why I voted delete; however, had someone else come along and said, "No, here's 14 WP:RS saying this is really important." I might have changed my opinion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here are some relevant refs since the NY Times ref I used in the two article it also was removed from Hadar Goldin and Hannibal Directive so more than enough to put back the material when I or someone else has a chance: Haaretz; Israel's I24news; IB Times; National Post. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time in next few days to deal with it but encouraging others to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

SPA 107.199.168.97 longterm editwarring on various religion articles

107.199.168.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin please block this guy long term? He has been edit warring for months now, especially on King James Only movement. Many many people, including myself as various IPs a few times, have reverted his unilateral removal of sourced relevant content. His rationale is "bias", despite the text not stating anything other than pure facts, and he also refuses to ever engage in any discussion, despite multiple attempts by others to do so. It is clear that he is nothing more than a single-agenda POV pusher and he should be blocked long term to prevent the continued unilateral and unjustified removal of sourced relevant material. 2600:1000:B012:216A:63D9:F760:42E3:F49A (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange IP edits to Beyoncé (album)

Hello, me and a few other editors have been struggling with a substantial influx of IP edits on Beyoncé (album), where the genre field is being changed. A while back we reached a consensus to add Electro R&B and pop to the infobox, but another editor pointed out that the former isn't an actual standalone genre, so through edit summaries and the talk page, Alternative R&B replaced electro R&B as a better suit. Now these IP edits want the genre field to read as it once did previously, but are refusing to recognise that consensus has changed, and, most importantly, will not discuss their proposed change on the talk page, which is the best way to achieve a consensus to add/remove genres. I'm confused by the nature of the edits (which is why I am posting here) because I suspect they are all from the same person or the same group of people as these IP addresses haven't edited Wikipedia before, they all want the same thing (and relentlessly) and their edit summaries are very similar. I'm unsure whether to assert they I believe they are a sockpuppet or are masking/changing their IP, or whether these are synonymous? —JennKR | ☎ 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's likely all the same person, editing from a dynamic IP (their service provider assigns a new IP each time they access the Internet), possibly from a mobile device. It's not being done intentionally by the user. As this will make it difficult to communicate with the user, I will semi-protect the article for a few days to drive them to the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar Password Change Request

Hey, all, I'm an admin but I have no idea what this actually means. About 2 hours ago, I got the 'Someone (probably you, from IP address 75.84.49.129) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia'. Headers show it's from Wikipedia, not spoofed or anything. The IP translates to a Roadrunner/rr.com address in Southern California.

I had not requested it, since I was asleep at the time, but I happened to wake about 10 minutes later. I changed my password nonetheless, and went about other things. About half an hour after that, I got another request, reading: Someone (probably you, from IP address 2605:E000:84C3:5500:FC15:732D:FF9:4FAD) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia'. I can translate this out of Unicode, but it's all gibberish to me; symbols and a few CJK Ideographs. I'm not sure what's up, or whether it's something to be concerned about (I've never seen an IP masked like this before), and I'm not quite technical enough to hunt it down.

Anyone else getting these pwd change requests, or is this just an attempt on me? Can anyone get any usable info out of that code? And is the fact that the IP came through to me masked like that a cause for concern? --Thespian (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a friend gave me the clue that it was an IPv6 address, and surprise surprise, it traces to a rr.com/Time Warner cable modem (https://www.ultratools.com/tools/ipv6InfoResult?ipAddress=2605%3AE000%3A84C3%3A5500%3AFC15%3A732D%3AFF9%3A4FAD). --Thespian (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)