Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting -- He has shown respect for the sanctions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.

While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor cannot change. Every time the ban is lifted, the editor returns to his former behavior. Too risky. 1999sportsfan talk to me 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was around before the Topic Bans occurred and experienced the problems. However, reading and considering the answers given to the questions, below, and on the basis that this really is afinal chance, I would support lifting the Topic Ban for this last time. If re-imposed, it would be difficult to support and future lifting. If anyone else causes disruption, then so long as HighKing behaves in the ways he has said, I don't think he should be penalised for other editors' bad behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If the community recommends that you have a mentor as a condition for the lifting of the TB, then I suggest you accept Snowded's offer. Though it didn't work out for me, that was because of my own behaviour/conduct. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.

There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.

Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.

You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that in general, there's more regular community members saying that the ban should be lifted than not. But the general concern appears to be that *if* I edit (on "British Isles"), *and* there's disruption (unspecificed), *then* that's a situation to avoid. So as a compromise, can you please comment on the proposal below as a step to ease concerns please. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Highking and Murry1975 are never far from each other. Some would consider this suspicious. BI and IMOS editing are inherently linked especially given that Highking has been topic banned for replacing BI with Britain and Ireland. I'm not sure Murry1975 should be removing any user comments and especially without notifying said user. I'm sure an Admin will be along shortly to speak to him.Dubs boy (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Following on from various discussions, the following proposal was suggested by Doc: "trial or "probationary" period suspending the topic ban would be more realistic than a complete removal of the ban, FWIW. If no disruption occurs as a result of the ban being lifted during that specified amount of time (like 6 months minimum), we go from there." I'm agreeable to such "probationary" period. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. But, seeing as there's no consensus for that, a 6-month probation is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was just barely a consensus to lift the Ban, but I'd rather address the concerns properly. Thanks again GoodDay. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The editor seems to have an agenda which cannot be fulfilled as a result of the present ban. I suspect that if the ban were lifted the situation would revert to how it was previously. Neil Edgar (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per what I have said above. This proposal is not substantially different since there are no concerns about disruption while the ban has been in place. The ban is doing its job. Chillum 01:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to what you'd like to see in the proposal? It would also be helpful if you articulated what disruption you believe I played a part in. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The topic ban works, and it concerns me that the editor is so keen to return to an area where they created many problems previously. Number 57 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As you have seen above Highking and Murry1985 operate on a tag team basis and would give The_Dudley_Boyz a run for their money. Remove the topic ban and you will see these 2 continue to collaborate promoting a skewed POV.Dubs boy (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Second set of Questions

It is true that every editor should be given the opportunity to change his or her ways (to "reform", if you like), and that giving them an opportunity to show this is all part of the process of reform. So, with that in mind, I'd like to ask the following set of specific questions of User:HighKing. Some have been covered in previous messages, but it is worthwhile to have them all centrally given and answered, I think, here:

A. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour now?

B. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour before any of the Topic Bans?

C. Are there things you can't do now, because of the Topic Ban, that you would want to do if the Topic Ban was removed?

D. What are the areas you currently contribute content to, and how would those areas change if the Topic Ban was removed?

E. Suppose the Topic Ban was lifted, and then you saw a number of articles that used the term "British Isles", what would you do? Would you: (a) Remove "British Isles" from the articles; (b) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles" with a statement that unless people gave adequate justification for its use, you would remove it; (c) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles", perhaps join in any discussion, but refrain from editing out the term in the articles; (d) Do nothing and move on; or (e) Something else?

F. Would you keep to the decision you selected in the previous question if the Topic Ban was removed, accepting that an immediate re-imposition of a Topic Ban might happen if you don't, and that this new ban would be unlikely to be removed in the future unless really convincing and clear changes in attitudes and behaviour were shown?

I would be grateful to hear your clear and full answers to them. I've asked them with the aim of then determining the chance of disruption brought about by consequences following from any and all of the answers given.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DDStretch.

• A. I think the behavior you're seeing for the past 6 months is most likely to continue as is. That is, no "gnoming" of large numbers of articles, try to focus more on content.
• B. I would hope you'd have seen and noticed a big difference already. Gnoming was the big behavioural problem previously. Before the Topic Ban I was caught up in a bubble with the idea of implementing strict definitions across articles for terms such as "Ireland" for the name of the state, "British Isles" to mean the geographical region only. That led to edit wars and long disagreements over references. I can see now how that idea isn't workable because it doesn't reflect real world definitions and usage. There's none of that behaviour any more. The job of Wikipedia isn't to define a term, especially a narrow and tight defintion that doesn't reflect day to day usage.
• C. Nothing springs to mind to be honest. I've no desire to jump into any particular topics or edits. But it's normal and healthy to want to show the community that lessons have been learned, and to remove the shadow of editting under a Topic Ban.
• D. I mostly contribute to Irish interest articles and topics (history, local articles, sport, nature, names), technology and food/drink.
• E. OK, trying to answer this in the sprit I believe it was asked. I'm not sure if you mean to say "a number of articles"? If it was a single article, and if I thought the usage was really wrong and not a "grey" usage, I'd do C. Not A. Not B. Also E. - Snowded has offered to "mentor/monitor" any edits, and if that offer is still open I'd pop him a message on his Talk page and wait to see what he thinks. Ideally I'd prefer, even if I pointed out something that was incorrect, that the community made the edit if they felt it was appropriate, but sometimes there's no engagement at all at the Article Talk page. In the situation where there's no engagement on the Talk page, and Snowded thinks it is fine, I'd like to think I could make the edit. I don't want to derail the discussion, but realistically, the elephant in the room here, is the sock. Perhaps its not obvious, but there's a high probability that if I make an edit, any edit, correct or not, the sock would revert anyway. Also, realistically, the community has no appetite to deal with any disruption relating to "British Isles". Too long and too complicated, and a trivial matter at best. So unless there happened to be a clear plan or process in place to deal with any sock-triggered disruption relating to any of my edits that resulted in the removal of "British Isles", I wouldn't and couldn't be confident that no disruption would take place. So I know that realistically D should be the logical next step to avoid disruption. On the other hand, I'm sure that we, as a community, should be aghast at the idea of allowing a sock (any sock) that kind of power/influence. But thats a different issue and I don't want to derail this discussion. I'll take whatever direction and advice people have in this regard. And after C/E above I'll do whatever, including D, if that is what the community believes is best.
• F. Yes.

Thanks DDStretch, answered as best I can. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those answers. Having read them and considered them, I think that as long as you edit wisely and carefully, and try to take up Snowded's offer (or anyone else's similar offer) for the situations I asked about, then I will support lifting the Topic Ban. You may have to convince others still, though. But good luck!  DDStretch  (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. DDStretch can you formulate something to get consensus? We might want to check out on some of the editors commentating here as well. At least one has had an antagonistic pro-Unionist position on the Derry articles for example. So it might be an idea to ask for uninvolved editors to make the decision. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng and edit warring

I'm a minimal party to this, so I shouldn't issue a block. EEng has been engaged in an edit war and has ownership issues with Phineas Gage. He has greatly expanded the article to where it is a GA candidate. Six editors, ChrisGualtieri, Chiswick Chap, Johnuniq, Tryptofish, Magioladitis and I have said it is time to move on and for EEng to stop (See Talk:Phineas Gage). EEng then went and reverted for 4th time in the past 48 hours. Others editors have had their edits reverted by EEng. This has already been the subject of an ANI discussion that went nowhere. He has also been the subject of a disruptive editing this past month. EEng also resorts to name calling and diatribes. Such as name calling in the two previous discussions at ANI and a recent diatribe on how all the above editors are "hit and run" editors. Issues range from content to style. EEng's style is, as Dicklyon put it (note EEng's style in the diff), "There's no reason for this article to be so excessively idiosyncratic in style". EEng reverted Dicklyon for supporting his fellow "Gnomes and MOS Nazis".

I feel a short-term block is in order unless the disruptive editing and rudeness doesn't stop. I don't want to see EEng topic banned from the article. He is a major contributor and co-author of the only scholarly publications on Phineas Gage. His input is needed in order for the article to become a GA. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an awkward situation because EEng is very skilled and has done a lot of good things, but this may be a case where a person gets used to being right, and is unable to make allowances for others. @EEng: Suppose we are all wrong—what should you do about that? Should you revert us because we can't argue as eloquently as you? Should you persist until we go away because we are obviously misguided? Sorry, but those approaches won't be successful. Please find a way of rationalizing all this in your mind as being our fault, and move on to something else. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I protected it for 24 hours, after which I began looking at the history page to see whose edit was the most recent. If this edit be at all typical, we have substantial violations of WP:CITEVAR going on, among other things — people attempting to take the article away from the standardised citation style used by its major author. Let me remind you that not all citation standards use the {{ndash}}, among other things (example), and that the placement of {{shy}} permits the article to be formatted like a professional print publication. In real life, when amateurs tell professionals that they're right and that the professionals are wrong, without solid factual evidence, they get ignored and forced out of the way if necessary. Kindly step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectators should know that this is almost entirely about the preferences of certain editors for one form of markup over another -- in most cases, not even affecting the final appearance of the page! -- and who think WP is improved by their going around forcing all articles to conform -- for example, replacing {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} with literals — and – because "that's what editors expect to see" or "templates slow down the servers", which of course is nonsense. Such edits carry blithe edit summaries like "required by MOS" when, of course, MOS says no such thing. (And, of course, it's almost impossible to distinguish — from – from a regular hyphen - when editing.)

This is just the latest in the longrunning campaign, by ChrisGualtieri and others, to teach me a lesson about submitting to the will of the borg. Here's what John Vandenberg had to say about this a year ago: [1]

ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance .. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWN concerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. John Vandenberg ^(chat)

(Bold added by me.) This latest kerfuffle is just more of the same of that.

EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• This EEng guy, sheesh. Hard to fathom sometimes. Anyone might think he had a metal rod stuck in his head. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:) Here's a joke: Phineas Gage runs into a bar... EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

... unlike: EEng runs into a block... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• My issue began when EEng added 487 Template:Shys to the article that did not render one active use. Putting shy and nbsp templates into invisible comments is completely useless. Cite templates should not be using Hyphen and nbsp templates as Bgwhite pointed out. EEng tries to make eloquent arguments, but has repeatedly been unable to comprehend the basic "Shy" template function. The article as I originally found it had every reference broken with a "false referencing" system that is the most complex and inane system I've ever seen. And I'm not just saying that, EEng called it a "hack of hacks", but EEng had effectively modified the appearance of the page to what looks good on his computer. I had less then 20 characters (not words) across the screen when it began. The page was effectively unreadable. While much has been done to improve it. Also... What CITEVAR issue? The biggest change I see is the Macmillan source (one of many) being cited with the year of its publication in the text; it is also the one with the biggest error that EEng is violently opposed to highlighting. Specifically, the one where Macmillan gives the wrong information and says there is a second source that apparently (according to EEng) doesn't exist. There is definitely a content and COI issue here at play, but BGwhite's concern over edit warring and EEng's name calling should be examined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• When multiple papers by the same author are cited, it's common to add the year of publication e.g.

Jones (1998) discovered this, confirming it in Jones (2001), and giving further data in Jones (2002).

-- because it looks stupid to write

Jones discovered this, confirming it in Jones, and giving further data in Jones.

This is an accepted style on WP, and that you think there's something wrong with it is typical of everything that's happened in the last year.

• My "hack of all hacks" was an experiment to see if existing < ref> machinery could be tricked into putting citations in alphabetical order by author name. I spent considerable time trying to get other editors interested in finding a better way to do it, and I finally abandoned it as too unwieldy. For a year you've been trying to make it look like this some evil thing I did, claiming that "it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit."

My discussions with other editors about how I planned to keep others from editing the article by making the markup extremely complicated

Discussion with anther editor regarding the ref formats and figure #s [2] (section Extensively revised): "There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results ... The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things." Request at Village Pump for better ways to alphabetize refs [3] (sectionControlling order of reflist): "Nasty hack though this technique is I actually feel its advantages outweigh its drawbacks and I'd like to take it live in the article, with the hope that someday a purpose-built facility will become available to make the hack unnecessary. There's only one other editor at Talk:Phineas Gage who's willing to engage this kind of technical issue and I'd be most happy if you'd look over the implementation (in my sandbox) in detail and explore the question with us." Attempts to get other editors to participate [4] "For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more" [5] "I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership!" [6] "I could really use an unbiased eye to comment ... I keep trying to get others involved but can't."

• As for the rest, I refer again to John Vandenberg from last spring ([7], bolding added):

from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. ... John Vandenberg ^(chat)

EEng (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought Phineas Gage was a delisted FA, I'd never realised it had never got there in the first place. Having a done a few edits on it, just from the referencing and prose in the bits I looked at seems it ought to be possible to get up there. I see last year it had an abandoned GA review which seems to have broken down over stability issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but somebody once asked at the Graphics workshop, when I was active there, if we could enhance one of the images, so that the words on the bar could be read. I think we were unable to help much, because the detail wasn't there. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've been involved in trying to get editors to solve these disputes for a long time. The problems are not entirely one-sided, in that editors on both "sides" of the dispute have a history of asking for help with dispute resolution, then suddenly losing interest when the resolution process starts to look serious: see, for example Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phineas Gage.
• There is a comment above that tells the editors who have expressed concern about the situation to "step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard." That comment is not helpful. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and if we are suddenly engaging in "professional" editing, I'd like to know when I'm going to get my paycheck. Until that time, I would suggest that all editors who come to a page in good faith are entitled to be listened to, without being told summarily to step aside.
• About edit warring, EEng was already at 3RR when I reminded him at his talk page: [8]. His page edit subsequent to that time, [9], is, despite the edit summary, in part a 4th revert.
• This dispute is partly about formatting, but also about writing style and how to balance sources, some of which EEng coauthored in real life. The talk page discussion shows numerous editors expressing thoughtful comments, with EEng a minority of one, and not persuading anybody. Even allowing for some stubbornness on both "sides", he is unilaterally impeding progress towards making the page a GA.
• A this point, I would see a block for anything other than 3RR as punitive, rather than preventative, and I doubt that EEng's opinion of his role at the page would change following the block. I share Johnuniq's concern about preventing EEng from making any contributions to a page where he truly does bring expertise about the subject matter.
• It seems to me that the best action would be to topic-ban EEng indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, but continuing to allow him to edit Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointed to see EEng here again; I think we may need a block at this point. I take John Vandenberg's point with a pinch of salt, as it contains zero diffs. If the problem was one caused by "mass-/automated-'cleanups'" we would not be here for the umpteenth time. This seems more like an OWN problem. Block or a topic ban? I don't know but I do know we cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't read all that. Who is interesting on working on the article? I don't mean who is interested in working on how template xyz displays some picture or transmits some bit of mysterious data to some other template, but who is interested in working on the article to provide information about the subject to a reader? If it is just EEng, you should leave him alone to get on with it and formatting be blowed. If it is genuinely other people too, then EEng needs to lighten up a bit about the formatting (who cares if the line splits midway through supercalifragilisticexpialidocious if nobody else can make out where supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is in the text when editing because of all the templates?). That's it, if anybody wants me, I'll be cutting a baby in half to stop two women arguing over it. Belle (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a significant group of editors who want in good faith to not only improve the page, but to make it a GA. This isn't a question of telling us to leave him alone, but it is a question of EEng needing to lighten up. (No babies were harmed in the posting of this reply.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would include myself in the group who would like to help bring this article to GA but have been turned away by EEng's OWN and BATTLE behaviour. I would also encourage anyone interested in helping out here to read the last discussion here on this editor's conduct, which was archived without resolution a few weeks ago. I think we do need to take some sort of collective action here. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we agree on a topic ban? I, for one, support an indefinite topic ban at Phineas Gage, while allowing continued editing at Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would be happy to settle for a topic ban rather than a block. --John (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Tryptofish, you don't seem to have made any response to EEng's explanation for the template formatting - that he was attempting to get "citations in alphabetical order by author name". I'm not saying that's the only problem, nor that his approach to that problem was the best one. But it seems like a reasonable explanation for what he saw as good faith improvements to the article. Do you except that explanation or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It may explain one or two edits, but not the larger issues here. If one goes over the talk page history, for example Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, the concerns are far more wide-ranging than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against that. I was searching for some admission of (at least some) good faith on the part of EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, via the link given by EEng, the "citations in alphabetical order by author name" attempt was made over a year ago and before any of this mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it's not part of "this mess" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I don't believe it is part of this mess. But I may have missed something from the loooong talk conversations. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been AGF'ing for the longest time. Don't just look at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, but also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Personal attacks and OWN violations. I'm hardly someone who is unsympathetic to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The ongoing "discussions" you and EEng have had are the main reason I took that article off my watch list last year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let's be very clear that I have not lacked for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban for EEng and ChrisGualtieri I think are now in order, plus a minimal block for EEng for the latest round of edit warring. This is not just about styling, though placing 487 {{shy}} templates is extremely excessive. Arguments have also been over content and referencing. EEng and Chris are the most vocal. Taking both out of the equation would help any of the other editors get this to GA. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does EEng have any explanation for the 487 {{shy}} templates? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 If I understand correctly, EEng states MOS says you can use them (MOS:SHY), but says nothing on how many. If you want to consider style as part of the argument, I'd say judge for your self via this snapshot, before most of the mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They look like aids to editing that might be dispensed with after a major article-wide edit had been completed. And invisible to the reader, of course. But I guess some other editors might find them troublesome. (In some future software release I suppose they might be part of user-definable edit skins). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee note. Another editor found them to be an issue, but I support EEng's use of them in captions and other tight places as per the Template's documentation. In our last discussion and EEng's last edits, he has resolved the vast majority of the issues. SHY appears to trigger on spelling check runs, but overall, they should remain as long as the perform a function. So the previous issue has actually been resolved, but getting to that point was a bit tougher than I would have liked. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for both of them at Phineas Gage, but I oppose banning either of them from Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, no offense, but do not blame me or EEng when you caused the mediation to be rejected. That's right you (the filer) caused it to be rejected. EEng felt it was premature and I didn't even get a chance to voice myself. You may mean well, but you certainly have gotten your facts wrong here. I ask that you strike your above comment about that. EEng should not be blocked, there is no reason to block because it'd simply be punitive. ANI is not a place for an RFC/U and it most certainly is not going to help when 5+ people all want this at GA. Tryptofish, you supported much of my changes, I realize my changes were far from perfect - and I'll admit that I was blindsided by all the errors in Macmillan 2000. You know better than anyone else that I also want this article to be GA or FA. EEng reacted with hostility and I have been afraid to try and deal with it since. Sorry if I add my voice to the pile, but I spent 40 hours researching Gage and I tried to work with EEng - but I do not need to be abused. I won't stay in such editing environments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EEng's being receptive and fixed all the issues I had and then some. I do not think any MOS issue actually remains now. EEng fixed all the issues before this came to ANI with this edit. Why was this brought to ANI anyways? WP:CIVIL? Recently, he's been tense, but not anything outright 'disruptive'. I'm confused. Anyone care to explain why this is open still? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a recent sample edit. EEng has been fighting for years to keep his idiosyncratic formatting in this article. Use of {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> is eccentric, disliked by other editors, and makes the article very difficult for others to edit. EEng has added this formatting many, many times and is currently at 4rr. He is arrogant and rude if challenged on his weird formatting and long-winded writing style, such that it is very difficult to work with him. Most people just walk away, which has reinforced EEng's feelings of ownership of the article. It's not viable to suggest we can go on like this. --John (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I feel a need to reply to what you said to me, although it also is becoming clear to me that nothing is going to come of this ANI thread. I can sympathize that you would want to respond to what I said (following what Bgwhite proposed, although subsequent talk separated my comment from his), but turning it back at me is a cheap shot, and I think you know it. Your diff simply shows that I withdrew the request, after seeing that no one besides me was willing to participate. I didn't cause you or anyone else to choose not to participate. You made that choice – and I remember diffs where you, first, came to me at my user talk to ask for my help and, then, were demanding dispute resolution and, later, turned tail when I started the mediation. Also, the reason given by Bgwhite was not related to the attempt at mediation. It was what he called your "most vocal" posture at the talk page. So my advice to you is to take notice of how Bgwhite, coming new to the page, perceived your conduct, and keep it in mind going forward, since undoubtedly this issue will crop up again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Its interesting to look at the page statistics, EEng (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) have between them contributed 81% of the article [10]. Although a couple of editors who've commented here pop in the number of edits, none of them have substantially contributed to the prose and do not appear in the top 10 contributors of text. Their sole contribution appears to be undoing EEng (talk · contribs)'s formatting style to substitute their own preference and its really for no benefit to the article. I dunno guys, there are plenty of really badly formatted articles out there but this isn't one of them. It may be idiosyncratic but it works and it works well - the article looks fantastic in WikiWand. I think some people are forgetting that wikipedia is first and foremost an exercise in writing an encyclopedia. So if your only interest is in formatting it "differently" I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a red herring. If your only interest is in making fallacious observations at an administrators' board I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. --John (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And so we arrive at the nub of the matter

It's even sadder than you make it sound, BedsBookworm. This bunch isn't changing the (visible) formatting of the article to be more attractive to the reader or conformant to MOS -- for the most part they're changing the internal, invisible markup to other markup that does exactly the same thing.

Are {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> unusual? Yes. So what? Why does everything have to look like what some self-satisfied roving enforcers are used to?

Are these forms really "disliked by other other editors"? It depends on the kind of editor. If you mean "disliked by editors who show no interest in an article other than to make the markup look they way they think it should look, and who, out of nowhere, arrive to assert their personal preferences as 'rules', apply their mindless scripts, then rush off to clutter the edit histories of the next thousand articles (having had zero effect on what the reader sees)", then I guess Yes.

Oh... except sometimes they do affect on what the reader sees. As explained here, there are places where double-newline doesn't create a paragraph break as it usually does, and <p> must be used instead. Yet here's a high-handed edit (edit summary in full: "no need") taking out <p> in the places where there is, in fact, a need -- and thereby breaking the formatting. Then someone else has to take time to fix it. [11]

So the best thing these activities achieve is nothing, but now and then they screw something up. It's like the old joke about selling at a loss but making it up on volume.

If there's a lesson here, it's that Wikipedia needs a rule something like "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" -- except that there already is such a rule, right at the top of each MOS page. (Take a look.)

I've been fond of quoting Beyond My Ken in recent days:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and I have had our serious differences, but at least he takes a longterm interest in the article‍—‌Tryptofish too, of course. John may think this incident has reinforced my "ownership" of the article; I'd like to think it's raised awareness of the cumulative damage done, and the huge amounts of editor time wasted, by (I'll say it again) these self-satisfied roving enforcers. EEng (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful now EEng, you wouldn't want to get blocked by an uninvolved admin, would you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After the block

I'm saddened to see that there was a block, and I have some concerns about Bgwhite being involved. But, instead of being "the nub of the matter", I feel that EEng's post above was a saddening demonstration of why we have a problem, and a problem that will continue after the block is over. (It's certainly a textbook case of turning an ANI thread that was about to peter out as "no consensus" into something worse.) EEng, sincerely, I'm glad that you point out, just above, that I have a good-faith interest in the page, so please listen to me about this: The claim that the editors who express concerns about the page are simply driving by, and objecting to the formatting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any legitimate interest in page content, has started to become a recurrent theme in this discussion, and it is wrong and needs to be refuted. It is starting to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS. What has happened at Talk:Phineas Gage over the past week or so is not anything like that. It is not just a matter of disliking something trivial that readers of Wikipedia do not see. After all, we can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. What really did happen was a group of editors showing up in response to a call to make the page a WP:GA, and trying to work in good faith to that purpose, and then finding themselves in an edit war where each of them successively made either one or zero reverts, and you made all the opposing reverts unilaterally. It's a falsehood to say that the idiosyncratic page formatting is an accepted alternative, equal in the eyes of the editing community to what occurs on greater than 99% of all other pages. If all that formatting (not to even mention the more substantive issues about sourcing on the page) is a good idea, let's have a community RfC at WP:MOS and determine that the community thinks that. Until then, such a consensus does not exist. But the editors at the Gage talk page expressed concerns that are consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus, and the talk page consensus was unambiguously against you. So let's put an end, right now, to this theme of calling the editors who have disagreed with you drive-by editors who do not care about page content. It's a lie. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an offensive and disruptive lie and the block was merited for making and repeating it. John (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• I think the block - done during the middle of this discussion - is not necessary a good thing (because now unless someone copy-and-paste stuff over from EEng's talk page, his opinions cannot be heard. Thus, I have added a {{DNAU}} for a few days so that this discussion is not archived before EEng gets a chance to reply here again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who took the weekend off, Bgwhite blocked me Friday night, calling my post above "harassment".

• I posted the following (here edited somewhat) at my own talk page, in response to Bgwhite's block notice:

Noting that you blocked me for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill explain how ridiculous you're making yourself look:

If the test [of what is offensive] be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the 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 ... an intemperate opponent.

In other words, Bgwhite, it stings because it's true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is within bounds. I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness.

EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Bgwhite had nothing to say.

• Tryptofish says: We can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. But I didn't say that each change was simultaneously damaging and petty/trivial/unseen. I said that each change was at best trivial/petty/unseen, but now and then one of them is damaging.
• Here's the actual "lie" in this conversation (since apparently it's not OK to call other editors self-satisfied, but it's OK to call them liars): that the article violated MOS, or GA criteria, or the mysteriously unspecified "present-day Wikipedia consensus" to which Tryptofish refers; and/or that any of this posse have responded to my attempts to discuss their changes, other than to tell me they are five and I am only one.

• Here's a diff [12] showing the hundreds and hundreds of changes which started this scuffle. Point out a few of the violations of MOS, or of the "present-day Wikipedia consensus", or of the WP:Good article criteria, being corrected here..
• Here's a link [13] to my attempt to discuss these changes. Point out where anything more meaningful than "we outvote you" was said in response to my attempts to discuss.

• Let's hear again how self-satisfied is hurtful namecalling, while accusations like "COI", "arrogant and rude" -- not to mention "lying" -- are thrown around with impunity in this very discussion.

EEng (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Name calling is childish gaming to involve an admin who takes interest in any case on ANI. Doing it isn't going to make you immune.--v/r - TP 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn between rolling my eyes, too, or just wiping a tear from them. I got into this whole mess as someone who considered EEng a Wiki-friend, thinking that I was coming to take his side in a much earlier complaint, but I was surprised by what I actually saw, and for the longest time, I have tried to take a middle stance that opposed any sanctions against EEng. What tipped it for me was the unambiguous edit warring and unwillingness to accept consensus during the recent GA discussion. In the last ANI complaint about EEng, just a month ago, the discussion was about to quiet down when EEng needlessly re-inflamed it. The same thing happened above, in the post that prompted the block. And now, it has happened yet again, in the post-block comment directly above. Although I can understand that any editor might want to let off some steam after a block that they consider to have been unfair, I'm afraid that I cannot pass this off as simply that. EEng does not have to agree with other editors, but he is failing to acknowledge that they have non-petty concerns, and failing to indicate that he is willing to make an effort to work towards consensus, unless that consensus is what he personally prefers. The discussion here got off track with competing proposals to issue blocks and to topic ban another editor, but I suggest that the only way to get a meaningful conclusion is if editors will focus on this one editor. I still think we should topic ban EEng indefinitely from Phineas Gage, while continuing to allow access to Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems whose correction I was reverting

• The true lesson of "The last ANI complaint about EEng" is quite different from the one Tfish implies. The OP of that thread (Johnuniq) complained that "recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive ... EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet". But none of the editors subsequently calling for my head in that ANI thread were participants in the MOSNUM discussion -- instead they were (surprise!) the same cast of characters seen piling on in this ANI thread. And in fact, in a subsequent MOSNUM discussion the following unsolicited compliments were posted by someone who actually was involved in the earlier MOSNUM discussion -- the one in which (according to Johnuniq) I had been so disruptive:

• [14] The discussion on kWh was mostly good-natured, and it was resolved well with Eeng's stewardship
• [15] If I had known about the proposed topic ban I would have opposed it. You are doing a good job. Consider toning down for newcomers not yet accustomed to your style, especially non-native English speakers who might not appreciate the wit.

It might add force to that editor's comments when I say that he and I completely disagreed about the issue under discussion until almost the very end.

• I believe in the good faith of everyone here, but some are so certain that they've ceased to examine their own claims. So please, do what I asked in bold above, which is to open the diff linked there and point out two or three of the MOS violations, or "concerns consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus", that were (as you've claimed) being addressed in that diff, and which I was therefore resisting or reverting. Unless you do that, everything you and John and Bgwhite say here falls to the ground.

EEng (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Others e.g. Martinevans123, Nyttend, BedsBookworm, Ritchie333 -- please, everyone ping your favorites -- are encouraged to look at the diff as well, and opine.)

Difficult to offer an objective comment as I have become familar with EEng's "colourful" style of interaction. I think much of this is good-natured but often appears, especially to those unfamiliar, as flippant, aggressive or arrogant. That said, as EEng suggests, I think actual clear diffs, to illustrate this "blockable" behaviour, are still required. It's obvious that he does not see himself as the only guilty party here. But I've always found both Tryptofish and John to be very resonable in all my previous dealings with them, so I'm sure they must have a valid point. I think Bgwhite may have made a grave error of judgement, as an involved admin, in blocking EEng while this discussion was still open. It seems to have served only to antagonise EEng and made postions more entrenched all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thank you for the kind words and for your desire to find a reasonable resolution. I will attempt to reply with specifics. Where you ask about blocking, as opposed to a topic ban, I want to make it clear that I have advised against any block, throughout this discussion, so I am not going to defend the block. I think there is a case that the block was borderline WP:INVOLVED, and I also think that there are cases that, both, the block was provoked and that there was a valid rationale, instead, for a 3RR block. In the end, it's time to move on from the block, not to go back over and re-parse it.

EEng asks for specific diffs concerning the consensus about MOS. I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [16]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [17]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [18]. He never disagreed.

EEng presents the discussion about the GA editing as one where the only responses he got from anyone were of the "we outvote you" nature. I will point to an example where I tried to engage with him with great specificity and in great detail about these editing issues: Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. And that's just one example of where I have tried to engage on these issues; there are many more. Now I understand that EEng is asking here about responses in the most recent talk page thread, but anything he asks there, I already answered before, and it is unhelpful to keep acting anew as if nothing has been discussed already.

EEng argues that the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one, and that my analogy was incorrect. In that earlier thread, I said this: [19]. EEng replied: [20]. The first half of his reply could have ended the entire affair peaceably. The second half was a needless jab at John. Unfortunately, John responded: [21]. EEng then massively escalated the conflict: [22]. When I referred back to that exchange, here, I was referring to the fact that EEng failed to drop the stick then, as he is also doing now.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I did not ask for "diffs concerning the consensus about MOS". I asked you to point to something in the article that violates MOS. To make that easy I provided you with a diff of the "corrections" (which you supported) to these alleged violations. You still haven't pointed to anything.

• But since you bring it up, as seen in your diff I did not say that 'the way [I format] pages is largely just a matter of [my] personal "pet peeve" and "pastime"'. I said that ragged right margins are a pet peeve, and hunting them down is sort of a pastime". That's quite different. (I have to sit through lot of boring meetings, and they frown on pornography, so I hyphenate instead.)

• I didn't say that "the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one". In fact it's a lot like the present one (e.g. same cast of characters piling on). What I did say that you draw the wrong lesson from it, as explained above.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wish I was smart enough to understand edits like this one. Whether Bgwhite should have issued the block or not is somewhat beyond my ken, but that EEng's behavior left something to be desired is clear to me, and that a stick needs to be dropped is clear to me also. "Drive-by editor", if it involves an assumption of bad faith as seems to have been the case here, is certainly not productive and can be considered a (blockable) PA. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• This bullet point slightly revised for clarity. Don't blame me for your headache, Drmies, because that's not my edit -- this one is [23]. To see what I mean by that, see this slice of the revision history [24] I was in the middle of fixing citations, adding content, and other such trivial stuff, during which members of the posse showed up repeatedly to revert to "their" version, in which important stuff (like non-visible markup linebreaks) is they way they like it, and irritating blemishes (such as internal notes pointing out missing page #s in citations) have been banished. That this old version of theirs was missing a lot of actual content didn't matter, of course.
• After the third such visit from The Enforcers, I opened a discussion [25] in which I carefully outlined the issues as I saw them. As you can see, with one minor exception, I got no substantive answer -- just a lot of "we're right and you're wrong".
• After a few more days with no response, I explained [26] that I was restoring the article to a blended version, for example removing most of the hidden notes "since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio".
• And next thing you know, here we are at ANI!
• I have never said or implied that anyone's acting in bad faith, only with such certainty that they forget that consensus means "reasoned discussion" not "voting".

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Those kinds of edits give me a headache, myself, and I've parsed through probably a hundred of them. The tl;dr to take from them is that there are a huge number of non-displaying comments, templates that you have to look up what they are for (and that often have no effect on the appearance of the page on most devices), notes appended to notes, and content about how some investigators (collaborators of EEng in real life) went about determining that previous investigators were "incorrect". At a minimum, there is a good faith conversation to be had, as to whether other editors agree with having all of that in a GA (and I predict a forthcoming complaint that I got all the details wrong in that description), given the complexity that it poses. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your strikeouts, Tfish, though now a perfectly good "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge will have to go to waste. I guess I can forgive that in the interests of the greater good.
• My "collaborator" is a man I've never met and have spoken with just twice on the phone, and with whom I coauthored one paper six years ago. If there were a dispute of any kind on this subject I'd most happily present it -- warts and all. But there's not: every paper on Gage in the last 15 years explicitly endorses the article's presentation.

We can have a good-faith conversation on all of this, but it's going to require that absolute certainty, and accusations of COI, be checked at the door. Back to the Talk page!

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the outside view. It would really gladden my heart if EEng would voluntarily recuse from editing that article for the duration of preparing the article for GA, something it is easily capable of. I tell you that as a frequent GA and FA reviewer, the esoteric formatting would be an instant fail. It makes the article more difficult to edit without imparting much if anything in the way of improvement or utility. If you don't trust me (or any other editor) to have the best possible at heart for that article, I will voluntarily join you in recusing from the article. Apart from the funky coding, most of the work in the article is good, but it is improvable. No work of man can say otherwise. There are a zillion other articles you can edit, and you can of course contribute to article talk. I predict the only alternative will be a formal topic ban, and/or more blocks. I would totally have blocked you for your obfuscation, rudeness and contempt for your fellow editors had I not been involved in trying to edit the article a few months ago. I am famously lenient and I am sure other admins may have a quicker block reflex than mine. Or do you have another option you wish to suggest? --John (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• And sorry, I don't know how that happened. I read your comments EEng, and the last bit about returning to talk is a good point. But earlier on you talk about other folk who want to improve the article, and to raise it to peer-reviewed status, as being a "posse" and call us "enforcers". That isn't acceptable at any time, and it especially isn't right after a block for being mean to your potential co-workers. Please, take a break from this warfare, and do something else for a while. It's a wiki and you really can't prevent others from editing your work, or be mean to them when they try to do so. This is fundamental to our enterprise here. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• John, I have no answer to offer here. A very narrow topic ban may be the best solution: no one wants to prevent EEng from editing (I hope), but it seems to me there is broad enough disagreement with their edits to this article. BTW, I agree that "posse" is not acceptable language and violates AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I also think that a very narrow topic ban has become unavoidable, as much as I have tried (fruitlessly) for the longest time to avoid anyone having to be sanctioned. Below, EEng calls me to task for, in his opinion, never providing a direct answer to his questions. In my opinion, I already did exactly that, many times, with Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD being just one good example. EEng apparently believes that I'm doing WP:IDHT, and I believe the same about him, so I'm not going to respond below, and I'll just allow whoever may be uninvolved to decide for themselves.
• I propose, yet one more time, that EEng be topic-banned indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an understanding

Directly above, Drmies points to this diff: [27]. Take a look at the diff, and see who the editor was. EEng replies "that's not my edit". EEng goes on to refer to the editors who disagree with him as "the posse" and "The Enforcers". And all this in the context of an ANI discussion about his unwillingness to treat other editors in the discussion with good faith and without insult. I'm not asking him to agree with other editors. But I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge that other editors really do have good faith concerns, and demonstrate a willingness to engage with them on neutral terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, you have to look at the revision history [28] to see what I mean by "that's not my edit".
• I have said repeatedly above that I believe everyone to be acting in good faith, if misguided. It's the stubborn certaintly, combined with the absolute refusal to give even a single example of the alleged problems (see below), that's pissing me off.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems (nth request)

Tfish, you and John keep talking about the "esoteric formatting", but despite my repeated requests you never say what that is. For the love of God, right here, right now, in front of everyone, after all this wasted time and effort, one of you please specify what you're talking about. Let me suggest you do this by making (say) three actual, live edits to the article, each illustrating one variety of this "esoteric formatting" by removing or fixing one or two instances of it. Then link the three diffs here, each with a link to the pertinent MOS provision or other guideline).

If indeed there really are clear violations of MOS, I'll be the first to rush out and fix all instances of them. If it's a matter of judgment or opinion, we can talk about it on the article's Talk page, one by one.

That's all I've ever asked for, and not too much to expect. I doubt I'll be participating here further until that's done. EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people can reference the recent past and the reason this was brought here, but let's review some issues. This edit resolved the <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> issue. Shy templates in invisible mark up = totally useless. Painfully old, but this edit to restore useless invisible comments was a repeat issue. Part of the issue has been resolved by you acknowledging Template:Cite_web#COinS after BGwhite pointed it out, but that was also for technical reasons. Glad you understand that now. Though MOS:MARKUP was a repeatedly mentioned. The replacement of many templates you've added with actual characters makes sense and many equivalent changes are so widely supported that even AWB makes the changes for you. Though I am certain that: <!--DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING>>>>-->{{sic|neighbouring|hide=y}}<!--<<<<DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING --> is a perfectly good example of two irrelevant and distracting invisible comments that is in the current version. Your insistence on nonequivalent measurements "three inches (8{{nbsp}}cm)" are also a bit unusual because of the way you choose to display them. Though this and numerous other issues are best dealt with on the talk page... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article in the editing window right now. Half of what I see seems redundant to me. Upload links in the image syntax, all kinds of templated spaces and spacings, marked-up paragraph breaks, lists, hidden comments of all kinds, hard returns in the middle of sentences and paragraphs, a plethora of notes with all those formatting codes in the notes (hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins)--I have never seen so much templating in one article, and the net effect is, for an illiterate like me, that my editing the article seems very unwelcome. I hope that was not the purpose, but man this looks awful. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for links to pertinent MOS (or other) guidelines showing that this is anything more than a matter of judgment that should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than unilaterally thrown away by people using edit summaries like time to move on, majority opinion the best guide [29]. So much for discussion and consensus. Your bit about "hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins" is especially amusing, since there used to be comments explaining <!--END NOTE--> (see [30]); but I was told those weren't wanted, so I got rid of them [31] It sure is hard to please everyone. EEng (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I am glad you find something to be amusing here. There's a better option, of course, then adding another layer of commentary: simplify. (The problem isn't really the notes itself, it's the enormous number of templates sprayed throughout the article. Someone should count curly brackets, just for fun.) You're not doing anyone any favors with this style of editing, or with these interactions here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR, EEng, 4RR. --John (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD, WP:VOTE, John. EEng (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR is an absolute rule, one of very few we have. Believing you are right or that a consensus was improperly arrived at are not legitimate justifications for breaking it. If you plan to break it again, you will be blocked again and you would be better topic-banned from the article as this is less stressful for all concerned. Is this the case? --John (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Do you plan to high-handedly WP:TAGTEAM me again, then talk sanctimoniously of 3RR? Do you plan to shift from one misinterpreted guideline to another, then in desperation denigrate another editor's work as "shit writing", as in [32] --

If I'm confusing you by referring to ideas that are perhaps new to you, I can make it simple to help you. It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girl's diary, not an encyclopedia. Does that make it easier to understand? --John (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

-- then give lectures about respect and collaboration, and threaten blocks and topic bans? EEng (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling "notably", "remarkably" and "went so far as to say" in the article "shit writing" when you insisted on edit warring to retain it. I stand by my judgement that this is not good style but I accept I could have put it more nicely. It is both notable and remarkable to me that this disagreement took place over a year ago, and that you are still edit-warring to prevent others from improving the article. I note with regret that you are still throwing around personal judgements like "WP:TAGTEAM" following your recent block for personal attacks. It is better to talk about improving matters (which I was doing in the section you highlight, albeit in unparliamentary language) than to discuss their motivation, as you are doing. If I had said you were a "shit editor" that would have been a personal attack. I did not though. Do you see the difference? --John (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. Whose meat puppet are you accusing me of being? What is your evidence for making such an accusation? --John (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference.

• If I say your comments are hypocritical bullshit (which I am saying), that's not a personal attack. But if I were say that you are a bullshitting hypocrite who splits hairs to remain within the letter of the rules while violating their spirit (which I'm not saying), then that would be a personal attack.
• If two editors take turns reverting a third, and I call that a "tag team", then I'm violating AGF. But if you say I'm "edit warring to prevent others from improving the article", that's not a violation of AGF.

Your deft shapeshifting between pious saint and flailing bully being now fully on display, I'm happy to end this. You will want to have the last, sputtering word, so be my guest. EEng (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a pious saint and I don't think I am a flailing bully either. Once again you are criticising the person rather than their arguments. My arguments are: you may not prevent others from editing the article in question by edit-warring, you may not insist repeatedly on obscure and user-surly coding that nobody but you thinks is of any use, and that you and the article would therefore benefit from some time apart from each other. Your conduct in this thread, and the last one here, unfortunately reinforces my judgement. And now I too will back off and let others have their say. --John (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have more eyes on Phineas Gage. Perhaps even if some fresh eyes would do what Drmies did, above: try opening the edit window for any part of the page, and see what you think about it. Or perhaps try to help at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, but the citation style makes it impossible for someone not already familiar with the article (not just the topic) to edit it while keeping the reference style intact. If it was the original style with which the article was created, it would be marginally acceptable, but would prevent the article from being a GA. Converting the references to harvard-style names would make it possible to edit without the risk of confusing or duplicating references, but I have never before seen a Wikipedia article with this many notes, and few with duplicated notes, other than table footnotes.

Some of this may just be saying the reference style is complicated, perhaps not unnecessarily so. But that would have to be justified on the talk page. It doesn't appear to have been, although I haven't checked all the talk archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that examination. Your experience with the complication is similar to what many of us have experienced. As for whether there has ever been an established consensus for doing it that way, I'll repeat something I said above: I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [33]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [34]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [35]. He never disagreed. He subsequently said here that his "pet peeve" is actually ragged right margins. Most of the archived talk page discussions are about EEng and other editors disagreeing about the formatting; EEng certainly has explained his reasons there, but he has not for the most part gotten editors who disagree with him to change their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Block and admonishment proposal

• For being excessively pedantic with the Phineas Gage article (including wasting time with the GA and Talk page)
• For repeatedly bringing up the same "Prove that I'm being disruptive" argument when many of the disputants have been fait-acomplied into submission by digital forests of carefully composed debating prose
• For excessive wasting of volunteers time here at ANI

A 2 month block should be implemented upon EEng coupled with a significant admonishment reminding EEng of the standards of behavior.

• Support as Proposer Gah... huge wall of text is enough to push me from disinterested apathy to enraged action. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, in that form, but I support your intentions, and I thank you for that. EEng is a helpful editor in many other ways, but he just has an issue with this particular page. I'll repeat what I suggested above, instead: I support an indefinite topic ban of EEng from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose both the block and the proposed topic ban. EEng has written a interesting, well sourced, and informative article, and while they could/should try to behave a bit better, to topic ban them would be losing sight of Wikipedia's main goal (being an encyclopedia). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is for that reason that I proposed no restriction on editing the talk page. That way, we don't lose EEng's expertise about the content of the page, but we allow editors to edit the page itself in accordance with consensus, instead of having to defend against edit wars that go against consensus. That is the real way to advance the main goal of building an encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban on EEng largely per user:G S Palmer and comments by user:Nyttend earlier. The block handed out to him recently is outrageous. If anything EEng has shown remarkable restraint in the face of being baited for almost a year now. Tryptofish, your proposal to restrict EEng to the talk page is ridiculous, like many of the false content issues that you and others drowned the talk page in over the last year, such as supporting the idea that a children's book can be a good source from which to base medical facts. You never lifted a finger to help fix the citation and notes problems caused by others on this article, but join their chorus of 'ban him' when EEng's syntax takes advantage of the features available for making a page very attractive, even after they have been discussed at MOS. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised to see a discussion now underway at Talk:Phineas Gage which shows that user:ChrisGualtieri, EEng's strongest critic, is engaged in fruitful collaboration with EEng, as it matches my experience over the years, where I've never had a problem finding an agreeable solution with EEng on this page even on aspects that I dont 100% agree with him, and I have enjoyed discussing gritty details with him re both content and syntax which have resulted in vast improvements to the article over the years. We should be so lucky to have such dedication shown to all our articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per G S Palmer and John Vandenberg. I can't put it any better than it already has been put. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block and topic ban. I largely agree with G S Palmer and John Vandenberg. I think as things cool down, more cooperation will emerge. I am One of Many (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per I am One of Many. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block and topic ban, per John Vandenberg and others. "Excessively pedantic" is one of the silliest charges I've ever seen on Wikipedia. EEng does appear to be quite pedantic, but that same pedantry seems to have produced a remarkably thorough article on Phineas Gage. This whole proposal and its wording suffers from a lack of WP:AGF. Are you claiming EEng is purposefully wasting people's time, or just that too much time is consumed as a result of his editing/formatting style and "digital forests of carefully composed debating prose"? Should EEng be admonished to debate less effectively, then? IRW0 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - EEng's working with me, but I don't think another block is going to result in a net gain for Wikipedia. The article is still so arcane in formatting that its a tedious chore to make even trivial changes, but its been a huge improvement in the year and the content has somewhat improved. This is a very important page because of its high number of views and work is being done. It has not been easy and there is always something to disagree over, but in large, progress is being made and the page is improving - that's all I really care about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment EEng needs to be clear that further edit-warring will result in another block. --John (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

John needs to be clear that it takes two (or more, in case of tag-teaming) to edit war. Remember to turn out the lights when you're done. EEng (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support block and add indefinite topic ban. Wikipedia is not therapy. --John (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is, it doesn't seem to be working. EEng (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Someone should probably close this entire thread, as nothing further is going to come of it. I continue to oppose the use of blocks in this situation, as they truly will not prevent anything that needs preventing. I do note that ChrisG and EEng actually do seem to be working well together, and I hope that it lasts. As for all the editors who oppose any action, I was one of you until the recent edit war changed my mind – and I hope that you all have a good plan for how you will each, individually, help bring the page to being a GA, and that you will have good solutions when a GA reviewer has objections to the page formatting. And something else: I want to set the record straight. John Vandenberg claims some things about me – and some other editors appear to be accepting it as truth without checking for themselves. Throughout this dispute, I've learned to expect that John Vandenberg will eventually show up and attack me, without letting the actual facts get in his way. It's puzzling how such a person could ever have become an administrator, much less get elected to ArbCom, because truly, whatever it is that sets him off about me has no basis in the world of reality. There's a consensus at MOS??? I don't distinguish between good and bad medical sources??? I don't engage in fruitful collaboration with EEng??? I've never lifted a finger to help improve that page??? Amazing!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, those aren't the things John Vandenberg said (except about MOS, though I'm not sure what he's referring to there). Also for the record, you and I certainly have engaged in fruitful collaboration in the past, and I hope we will in the future. EEng (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by what I said about John Vandenberg – but what is much, much more important is that I, too, look forward to working with you fruitfully in the future as we have done many times before. For me, none of what I've said about you here has been personal, but I sincerely hope that what you, and Chris, and anyone else will take away from this ANI wall-of-text is that editing of Phineas Gage is about working collaboratively to improve the page, and not about having things one's own way. You said to John, above, that it takes two or more to edit war; please remember that the recent edit war had you on one side making multiple reverts, and everyone on the other side making only a single revert, or none at all. That doesn't make the other editors a tag-team, or a posse. Now, will somebody please close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

After commenting here, I looked at the most recent edits at the Gage page and at EEng's user talk, and I hope that I didn't speak too soon here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney

DangerousPanda has blocked Barney the barney barney repeatedly for personal attacks on Bearcat. Today, DangerousPanda ratched the sanctions up again by blocking Barney even from editing his own talk page. Realistically, Barney has not been behaving himself. But it's becoming obvious this did not happen in a vacuum. Bearcat has continued to pick at the scab, obviously gloating over Barney's predicament and doing everything possible to annoy Barney. He should simply walk away. But also, I'm concerned with the growing appearance that DangerousPanda may be too WP:INVOLVED, that it's starting to become personal, a test of wills. When I pointed out my concerns (respectfully, I thought), DangerousPanda's response was as insulting and in the same way as what got Barney blocked from his own home page, questioning whether my brain was working. I don't think I deserved that but I do think it's evidence that DangerousPanda's handling of the situation is no longer helpful. Discussion may be found at User talk:Barney the barney barney#August 2014. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

False, at no time did I insult you. This has been discussed, and clarified with you directly, and subjected to consensus - please stop using your erroneous reading as a need to provide some form of action against me. the panda ₯’ 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is the "consensus" outcome DangerousPanda is referring to. You'll pardon my uncertainty. It happened so fast. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try to be specific in your responses and make them actual responses to the points being discussed? First, you complained about Dangerous Panda, then when I responded about his actions, your response to me was about Bearcat, and when I responded to your point about Bearcat, now you are talking about Barney. We're not going to make any progress to any outcome if you are veering all over the map. I still have no idea about what specific outcome you expect to come from this discussion and what steps you think we should take to get there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "boorish" about responding, politely, to continued namecalling and continued mischaracterization of one's behaviour — especially when the editor in question was actively @pinging me, even when he was responding to somebody else, to make sure I knew that the personal attacks were continuing. I was not purposely watching his talk page to see what was happening; I was getting active announcements in my notification queue that I was being discussed, and responded to those notifications in exactly the same way that I'd be perfectly entitled to respond to similar discussion of me, and/or similar active @pinging of my attention, in any other space on Wikipedia. I will step away as you wish, but there is no basis for claiming that I've acted inappropriately at any point in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.

• What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing and disturbing trend for admins to indefinitely block content builders, demand that they grovel as a condition for their return, and then gag them by blocking access to their own talk page when they get upset. Another point of view is that this is a destructive strategy that unnecessarily alienates content builders from Wikipedia. That included content builders who just see this nastiness going on from the sidelines. Presumably admins who employ these methods feel that the mission of admins is to severely administer discipline to the rabble of content builders and show them who is boss. After all, there is no mission statement for admins. No one knows what they are here for, and individual admins are free to make up and follow their own ideas. There are many other ways of resolving behaviour issues, but admins are not taught about them, and generally seem to lack skilful means for resolving them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, here is my take on the situation. This has nothing to do with blocking "content builders". DPs response was to a situation involving disruption of an AfD and personal attacks for which, not unreasonably, a 96 hour block was imposed. That should have been the end of it but BtBB chose to engage in further personal attacks on Bearcat, resulting in an indef block. BtBB's subsequent unblock request claimed "I haven't done anythign (sic) wrong" when in the preceding Talk page section he had once more attacked Bearcat. That led to the withdrawal of Talk page access, again, not unreasonable given the circumstances. Disruption and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and in my view DP has acted correctly and in no way become "involved". The standard OFFER will apply if and when Btbb choses to return. Meanwhile, the mission of admins (yes, there is one) is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, prevent disruption and ensure that editors do not engage in behavoir that is considered unacceptable by the community per AGF and CIVIL.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's unclear on just about every point, Phil. To mention a couple, where is this mission statement you refer to and what is this "integrity" admins are supposed to be protecting? Who ensures the integrity of the admins themselves? I'm not sure why you think BtBB doesn't qualify as a content builder. You say that the "standard OFFER" applies to BtBB. According to that offer BtBB is in effect now banned for six months, after which he may shop around and see if he can find an admin to grovel in front of, a grovel which "usually takes a few days". In the meantime if BtBB want to return, he would be "well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects". That's sickening. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my thoughts unclear–let me clarify. I didn't use the word "statement"—I said "mission" while the "integrity" I refer to is ensuring compliance with the corpus of guidelines and policies that shape Wikipedia according to consensus. Admin's are !voted in as trusted members of the community and you are free to question their interpretation of community consensus through discussion. I also didn't say BtBB did not "qualify as a content builder", I said that the matter under consideration had nothing to do with content building, which it doesn't. The standard Wikipedia procedure in the case of an indef block is covered in WP:OFFER. If a review is considered appropriate before the expiration of six months, then everyone will have the opportunity to comment at the subsequent discussion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a mission statement, the "mission" you refer to is just one you decided upon yourself. Which is the point I was making, that admins just make up their own mission. Likewise, the guidelines and policies are controlled by and largely written by admins, not the community. There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. But admins have appointed themselves for life. In long past halcyon days, would-be admins including school children needed do little more than ask to be an admin. Many of these legacy admins would not get community approval if they ran again. Nor would many of the more recent entrants to the admin corps. So it is not correct to say that admins as a body have the trust of the community. The admin corp might gain trust and respect from the community if enough admins found the courage to address the absurdities of their own system. Rational change can come now only from within the body of admins. Content builders are powerless, and recent events have clearly shown that Jimbo and the Foundation lack the insight needed for helpful intervention. Wikipedia has been hijacked by an admin system which controls its own terms and refuses to look squarely at what it is doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The admin in question was in fact rejected once by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DangerousPanda (redirects to /Bwilkins) in April 2009. Later, they were accepted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 in January 2010. This was four and a half years ago, and the last discussion had 116 participants, the overwhelming majority of whom were in favor of adminship for this editor. Your generalizations are moot at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your strange "rebuttal" has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact I said the diametric opposite to what you apparently understood: There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. Bwilkins was not remotely in my mind when I wrote that. My generalizations are in fact accurate and easy to authenticate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the apparent topic of this discussion was not remotely in your mind when writing here, then why are you writing here and not in a separate section? Do you not see the potential for this kind of a tangential rant to be offending to that person? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the principle of indefinitely blocking content builders, which is most certainly central to this thread, and replying specifically to Philg88. Do you not see the potential for this kind of failure to read what was said to be offending? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit hard for barney to respond to the all encompasing witch-hunt now that he's had all editing powers removed. Maybe unrevoke his talkpage first to see if he's able to discuss this now he's had a chance to sleep on it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. But I suggest a 48 hour cooling off period.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't do anything that EVER resembles "cooling off blocks" - that's a dangerous suggestion. This is the second time I've removed talkpage access - it was returned, and they continued their attacks. They've had a couple of weeks to "cool off" if that was indeed possible. Barney still has many avenues of appeal open to them; let them use those wisely once they have formulated their appeal offline the panda ₯’ 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well as long as you look like a reasonable human being and not some crackpot on a powertrip. Good work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If letting him edit his own talk page hasn't worked in the past, how about if we make a couple changes that might give us a better chance it will work this time? First, ask Bearcat to stay away. His stirring the pot isn't helping and the fact you defended Bearcat's boorish behavior rather than stopping it isn't helping either. Second, let's ask you to stay away, too. I don't think Barney is ever going to "knuckle under" for you but I also don't think that should be the condition for being able to edit here. The condition should be that he behaves himself. Let another admin decide whether Barney can behave himself at least on his own talk page if there are no new provocations. If we can make these changes, I think it can work. Msnicki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what? You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit. I don't play power games, and such suggestion are inflammatory rhetoric in and of themselves. Those are serious accusations that you neither provide proof of, or withdraw. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Having had implications made about my competence and knowledge by BtBB at discussions surrounding Talk:Jacob Barnett, to the point where he/she tried to get me topic banned, I have been following the above discussion. The problem is that when you are subjected to personal attacks, it becomes very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands. The signs of emotion are usually there, I see them in the above contribution. Therefore I would tend to support the view that DP should withdraw from this case, and should probably have left it to another, previously uninvolved admin to extend the block to the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the propriety of the block but this is another case where watching a blocked editors talk page allowed us to get exercised about inflammatory comments which would otherwise have been read by nobody. We should have some sense of proportionality in these situations. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need to bring up a new development in this matter — namely, about three hours ago Barney sent me a pvt e-mail consisting of one line: "It is not too late for you to apologise for your actions." Apart from the fact that I still haven't at any point taken any actions that need to be "apologized" for, there's obviously a veiled threat here of what might happen if and when he decides that it is "too late" anymore. I'm certainly not going to engage the matter by actually responding to his e-mail at all, but the fact that it was sent at all needed to be raised. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the protocol at WP:EMAILABUSE; note that emails should not be posted online. (This is not an endorsement of Bearcat's interpretation of the email, just a note that conduct in emails are out of scope of ANI due to copyright / privacy concerns). NE Ent 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should apologize, Bearcat. Per WP:IUC, "Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If he read my advice to him earlier in the day, he knows that apologies are always voluntary, else they'd be worthless anyway. If he can't be required to apologize, he knows you can't be, either. So I'd be inclined to take his remark at face value, that he's open to negotiating a way to bury the hatchet. Of the three possible choices I outlined for him, avoid, get along or fight, but only within the guidelines, maybe he'd like to get along. Perhaps he'd be willing to exchange apologies. There's nothing wrong with asking him, well, if I apologized, could I expect one from you? WP:AGF Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Indefinite Block Be Limited?

There are at least two questions here. The first is whether User:DangerousPanda became involved in the block of User:Barney the barney barney and should have let another administrator handle it. The second is the length of the block for User:Barney the barney barney, who is currently under an indefinite block with talk page access revoked. The first question is about the past. The second question is about the future. I propose that we discuss the second question. In my judgment, Barney is a contentious editor who is a net plus to Wikipedia. I haven't located the AFD that was the original locus of the dispute, but I infer that it has been closed. Disruption of an AFD and personal attacks are inappropriate, and are appropriately dealt with by blocks. However, indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as vandals, flamers, trolls, or incompetent editors. Barney isn't one of those. Barney isn't the sort of editor to whom the standard offer applies, to see whether the editor has learned and can become a net plus, but a contentious editor who is already a net plus. I propose that the community change Barney's indefinite block to time served, slightly less than two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as described above. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. It's time to move on. But to avoid new problems, I would also ask that Bearcat avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for a period of 3 months to let this heal. His behavior, continuing to stir the pot, even after Barney had already been banned, is a big reason we're here and coming from an admin, I find this inexcusably boorish. Additionally, I would ask that DangerousPanda avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin for a similar period, again, simply to let this heal. There are lots of admins; if Barney has done something new and even more egregrious, surely another admin can be found to deal with it. And I would ask Barney, try to move on, behave yourself, learn from this experience, don't blow it. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read my response above to the first time you characterized my actions as "boorish" — users and administrators are allowed to respond to namecalling attacks and mischaracterizations of their actions, especially when their attention to the discussion is being actively @pinged. Perhaps I misread what the result was going to be, but my intention was a good faith attempt to clarify the matter rather than to "poke" it or "pick at a scab" — and there's nothing "boorish" about politely responding to a personal attack. I gave my promise above to step back as you requested, but I'm not going to accept being described as "boorish" in this discussion for simply responding to personal attacks in a polite and civil manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your earlier comments about being pinged whenever he had something nasty to say about you. Like Robert, I haven't even been able to find that AfD that apparently started it all and frankly, I don't really care that much how it got started. I do care about fixing this and getting good behavior all around. I don't think this is about the AfD anyway. I think it's just about people who don't like each other.

I am not calling you to task over any response you might have made before he was blocked. I am calling you to task for this specific post to Barney's talk page after he'd already been indefinitely blocked. This was over the line. You had to know this couldn't possibly improve the odds the situation could be defused. I think the whole point was to give Barney another poke and see if he'd make another mistake. You should have simply walked away. That post was where I became sympathetic to Barney's position. If you were that boorish (and, sorry, that is the word), that determined to keep beating the dead horse even after you'd won and gotten Barney blocked, I thought it seemed a lot more possible you could have been truly annoying in a heated debate and not nearly so innocent. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the right as a Wikipedian to directly respond to any and all attacks on my intelligence, integrity and capability, regardless of the venue in which they're occurring — it's not my responsibility to have predicted that he would respond by ramping the attacks up even further, nor is it my responsibility to ever leave a personal attack on me sitting on the table as the "last word" in any discussion. My responses were always polite and WP:CIVIL — I've been accused in the past of being a bit too blunt, and sometimes coming off more aggressively than I intended to, in my writing style, so I (a) make every effort to be careful about how I phrase myself in a conflict situation, and (b) only ever respond to the substance of what the person is saying, and never attack or insult the individual who's saying them. I'd certainly be willing to accept "boorish" if I had lapsed into responding with similar insults, but I refuse to own that adjective for responding civilly to personal insults that I had no responsibility to not respond to. I'll certainly own up to misreading how productive the attempt was actually going to be, but there's still a massive gap between "misread the situation" and "acted boorishly". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who care, this is the AFD that some people are pretending doesn't exist. Look at the edits. Look at the hatted comments. Look at the edit-summaries. Every editor has a right to nominate an article for AFD if they truly believe it's not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. They do not deserve to be called a "liar", a "troll" and/or an "idiot" simply because they nominated an article for deletion and defended their nomination. It is the behavior on this specific AFD that led to the original ANI report, the original block, and BtBB's behavior has led to all escalations since. This block is NOT about "boors" or "people who don't like each other", it's about one person's behaviour; period. Indeed, I have neither likes nor dislikes for any of the editors on this site - you're simply someone on the other end of a computer. I may dislike behaviours, but that's not the same as disliking a person. Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending this AFD is not the reason for the block is short-sighted, and fails to get to the true root of the overall issue. If you want to have someone unblocked, the root behavior needs to be addressed the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a real misunderstanding of the purpose of an indefinite block above. "Indef" means "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". I blocked BtBB originally from an ANI report about disruption and personal attacks, primarily in an AFD. When he continued his personal attacks, I removed talkpage access. Following a brief discussion at ANI, I returned their talkpage access. They then used this newfound freedom to not only continue their personal attacks, but to increase their ferocity. This led to me increasing the block to "indef", using the definition above, and when they continued further, re-removal of talkpage access - no member of this community should be forced to live with continual personal attacks. I have admitted more than once that BtBB can be a beneficial content creator, but that the personal attacks MUST be curtailed before the block can be lifted. The process for unblock is clear in WP:GAB: they need to recognize their behavior was contrary to community norms, and give the community (or at least the reviewing admin) that there will not be a recurrence. In the times that BtBB has had access to their talkpage, they've done nothing but attack another editor. As such, there cannot be an unblock at this time, based simply on the process for unblock. When they're able to make a WP:GAB-compliant request, they're welcome to use UTRS for that purpose. There's also ZERO question about me being "involved", as there's simply no proof put forward that such a relationship existed: calling me involved does not make me involved the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose barring some sort of recognition on his part that those personal attacks are inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I supported Robert's proprosal but per my comments above in the main section at 03:03, I would also support proceeding in steps, first lifting the talk page block and setting as a condition of lifting Barney's indef that he state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. But to make any of this happen and make it stick, I think we need to ask that both Bearcat and DP step back. Their continued involvement is no longer helpful in achieving the desired outcome, the one in which Barney is able to contribute and there are no behavior problems. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The block was justified and necessary to prevent further disruption. All Barney the barney barney has to do is convince the community that the behavior will stop. The amount of time served has no bearing on whether he understands why he was blocked and what he needs to do differently to have his edit privileges restored. I disagree with Robert McClenon's premise that indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are NOTHERE. - MrX 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But, as shown above, your comments are not correct. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per EatsShootsAndLeaves; behavior needs to be addressed first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not like he's banned. He doesn't even need to grovel or apologize. All he has to do is convince the community that his disruptive activity will end; that could easily take the form of a classic non-apology like, "Mistakes were made, and I regret my involvement. I am ready to drop the stick and move on." Alternatively, he could be given a chance to hang himself, which I am sure he will do rather quickly given his prior behavior. He's really not doing himself any favors by aggressively dismissing the possibility of collaboration with others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This matches the advice I gave Barney on his talk page when all I knew was that he'd gotten himself blocked and probably deserved every bit of it. It's still my advice. But I think the real problem is 3 people who don't like each other and have become locked in a pattern. Expecting Barney to offer up even a non-apology to an angry Panda who also happens to be defending Bearcat's continuing stirring of the pot is just silly. The simple answer is to separate these 3, at least temporarily, and see how much of the problem that fixes. If you think of this as a problem in negotiation, of negotiating good behavior from Barney, I'm proposing what's known as changing the negotiator. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, suggesting I'm "angry" or dislike BtBB. False on both counts. I have no emotional involvement when it comes to BtBB at all ... you and your false and unfounded statements on the other hand ... so seriously, screw off with that bullshit. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. "I'm not angry, not a bit!" For more on just how not angry you are, please see here. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted already multiple times, that is nothing to do with BtBB: that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person the panda ₯’ 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. Now I'm a liar? Isn't that one of the characterizations that got Barney blocked? But how much sweeter when you say it, I guess.

If indeed you aren't invested in this, not emotionally involved, why is it so hard to walk away? Why is it important that you have to be admin who reviews Barney's next unblock request? At minimum, you know he doesn't like you. So why can't that be handed off to someone else? What is the benefit of your continued involvement? Is it more likely or less likely the problem can be resolved if you handle it? Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance the panda ₯’ 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're willing to walk away? If so, I think this can be solved. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors, and act what I believe to be appropriately when a) needed, b) not involved (except in emergency situations). If there's ever CONSENSUS (not unfounded accusations) that I have erred, I will deal with that accordingly as I always have in the past the panda ₯’ 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal is not aimed at enhancing admin privileges and power. The usual voting pattern with such proposals is opposition from admins and would-be admins and support from content builders who are not admins. That is the voting pattern above, with just one possible exception. Admins and would-be admins have a conflict of interest here. A parallel would be allowing the military in a country with a military dictatorship to decide what powers and privileges they should have. There is a lot of appeal to the "community" above, when what is meant in practice is merely the views of a blocking admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A misunderstanding is that indef means forever, it doesn't it means when an uninvolved admin sees fit the block is lifted. Indef blocks are also not to be confused with bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef is not infinite. Also the WP:STANDARDOFFER is there for any and all blocked editors to return to the editing community. Epipelagic if there is empirical evidence to support your blanket statement please present it. Otherwise please mark your comment as opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2014
• Oppose Indef doesn't mean forever, and considering the circumstances, I think the appropriate block is in place. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indef is often used to quickly get rid of an issue, but i think indef should be only used in very rare cases, for users who have been blocked repeatedly, without any signs of positive contributions. My suggestions if for indef in general and i do not want to judge the particular incident discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I hope Barney will eventually satisfy the Wikipedia community that he/she will refrain from referring to other contributors as liars and idiots but from his/her most recent posts I see little evidence that that is about to happen. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (reading section titles is hard) Wikipedia is certainly strong enough to persevere in even these strenuous times when a blocked editor calls another editor a liar, idiot or troll on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of block without concerns leading to the being addressed. Having said that, no objections to restoring talk page priveleges to allow for normal block appeals. It is of course understood that misuse of the user talk page again will lead to revocation of talk page again and likely be seen negatively in later requests as well. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing block length until BtBB makes some sort of commitment to tone down the attacks. This is troubling; even a token gesture of a non-apology apology is needed here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Barney has made a habit of being hostile and uncivil for quite some time; this isn't a bolt from the blue but the result of a consistent pattern of behavior. When he's willing to put forth a good-faith effort to follow policy, including the Five Pillars, then the block can be lifted immediately - but until then we need not to let the usual chorus of admin abuse (i.e. abuse aimed at admins) cause, once again, somebody who refuses to follow policy be given a pass because 'they create content'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The only person who has mentioned "abuse" in this thread has been you, Bushranger. So what is this "usual chorus of admin abuse" you refer to? If you just made that up and it's not true, then you have just provided an example of an admin gratuitously abusing content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - long-term nuisance editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I stand with those saying enough is enough. Jusdafax 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I believe Dangerous Panda revoking the Talk Page editing from BtBB was justified, but I do believe that BtBB deserves a shortening of the block. On second hand an indef block doesnt always stay Indef, as I have seen many cases where that "Indef" lasts less than a month. As long as BtBB is willing to be civil in the future, I support. --Acetotyce (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Let it go and move on. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal

There's clearly some but not a lot of support for Robert's proposal that we simply lift the indefinite block on Barney, turning it into time served. Many editors cite (correctly) that all Barney has to do is promise to stop making personal attacks. And while I supported Robert's suggestion, it was more generous toward Barney than I came seeking and, if none of the rest of the people dynamics were changed, I questioned if it would actually work. Here is my proposal, which I think will work.

1. The indefinite block on Barney's talk page should be lifted, i.e., Barney's access should be restored to his own user talk page only. I contend that the talk page block serves no purpose except to pour more salt in the wound and make it less likely a positive outcome can be achieved, especially under the circumstances at the time, with Bearcat stirring the pot and DP supporting that boorish behavior.
2. Standard conditions should apply to lifting the indefinite block on Barney's privileges outside his talk page. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, this could take the form of the usual non-apology, though personally what I would like to see from Barney is that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat.
3. Another uninvolved admin should monitor Barney's talk page and review any new unblock requests Barney may make.
4. Bearcat should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for 3 months, simply to let the situation heal. I agree he had the right to post to Barney's talk page even after Barney was blocked, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Bearcat's actions clearly made it more difficult to resolve the situation and as admin, he should have known better. I called his actions boorish because they were; the word simply means "ill-mannered". It's not a crime but it's not helpful. There was already an admin on the job ready to take immediate action if Barney didn't behave himself and the idea that Bearcat needed to defend himself is just silly.
5. DangerousPanda should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin, also for 3 months, also simply to let the situation heal. DP claims he's not at all emotionally involved, not a bit angry, but his acting out and disrespectful behavior toward me (calling me a liar, telling me to screw off or that I should "act like an adult" and that he no longer considers me a "respectable person") simply for having raised the question all completely belie that. Of course he's angry. The thing is, all of us are human and we all experience human emotions. There's simply nothing wrong or surprising about that. And as Viewfinder points out, when you're being attacked personally, as DP was by Barney, "it's very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands." So DP's behavior is completely understandable. But an admin who's beginning to experience emotional involvement is compromised. He's no longer able to manage the situation dispassionately. An admin should be able to recognize the signs of his own rising emotions and voluntarily step back to let another admin take over. That didn't happen and it should have. Further, even if DangerousPanda doesn't dislike Barney, it's obvious Barney dislikes DP and that requiring Barney to submit unblock requests to DP is not helpful. Even if DP doesn't think that amounts to "knuckling under", it's pretty obvious Barney does. And it's just not needed. Barney needs to behave but he should be able to demonstrate that to any uninvolved admin. There's no reason it has to be DP.
6. As nom, I also would voluntarily agree to avoid interaction with the parties, namely, Bearcat, DangerousPanda and Barney, for the same 3 month period and for same reason, to allow healing. As Gamaliel correctly points out below, my bringing this to ANI has also stirred some emotions.

If we can agree to this, I think we can de-escalate and resolve the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like a solution in search of a problem. This is all standard stuff that should happen or is happening anyway. Regardless of whatever potstirring may or may not have occurred, I see no evidence of continuing disruption on the part of DP or Bearcat which requires intervention or all this talk on this page. But I will support this proposal in order to bring this matter to a close, on the condition that the nominator also avoids any interaction with the parties or this matter for three months as well, as I feel that the vigorous pursuit of this matter has exacerbated a situation which would have come to a natural resolution on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, NP. You make a good point. I've revised my proposal accordingly to incorporate your suggestion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: any "evidence of continuing disruption", what evidence would you expect? Barney is now completely blocked, even from his own talk page. Bearcat might have enjoyed potstirring when Barney could be provoked into another poorly-chosen response, but what would be the point now? And I wouldn't expect DP to be reviewing new unblock requests if Barney's not able to post them. The question is what happens if all we do is unblock Barney from his talk page. If we don't ask Bearcat and DP to avoid him, I think we're doing what didn't work last time and expecting a different result. Bearcat volunteered above that he would avoid Barney. I asked DP directly but he hasn't answered. I think it would be helpful to put this into an actual agreement, one that was Barney also could rely on in choosing his response. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as I think there's no reason to needlessly hammer on an editor for attacks made while they're blocked there is also little reason to enact some sort of ad hoc framework to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. If we can ask bearcat to ignore the personal attacks made we can surely ask barney to ignore the comments made on their page and get on with editing. I suspect DP will exercise their judgment in interaction w/ Barney--that's not a euphemism for "won't interact" but a statement that we should trust them enough to interact in a reasonable manner as judged by them, not a random AN/I discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No problem exists here. The suggestion above is that I've somehow done something wrong, which consensus says otherwise. The sole person launching shyte all over the place is MsNicki who continues to make false claims, attribute false intentions, not just about me, but about other editors. IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks which she makes simply because she (as she already admits) refuses to actually read the entire situation. Neither Bearcat nor I have acted in any way uncivil, boorish, or inappropriately, as per continued consensus. If a block is going to get Msnicki to drop the WP:STICK and go back to what they do best, then great. BtBB's way forward has already been set in stone. Close this farce and move on people the panda ₯’ 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm saying your choices weren't very good and that I thought they were adversely affected by your emotions. I don't blame, dislike or disrespect you for any of that. I get mad, too, like everyone else, so I know how my decisions become compromised when my emotions are running high. This is what it means to be human. But I thought your escalation to blocking Barney even from his own user page was too fast and that your defense of Bearcat's posts was unhelpful and I suspect your emotions were an unhelpful factor in how it played out.

Fundamentally, my complaint isn't that you did anything wrong, it's that you didn't perform very well. You started with a routine situation involving two otherwise productive people who'd been fighting over something apparently quite unimportant, one of whom had now crossed the line into silly playground personal attacks. Eleven days later, you'd escalated it into a situation where one of those editors will likely never be back. The successful outcome should have been, the behavior problems have ended and both those editors are now productive again. Sure, you could argue, that's all on Barney. But it's not. As the admin, you were the manager of this people problem and it's reasonable to ask, can you solve a people problem like this or not. Here's one that only got worse, the longer you worked on it. Frankly, as soon as you knew Barney disliked you so intensely, that alone should have been a reason to hand him off to someone else, even if only so that Barney could know for sure that what was happening to him wasn't personal and he really did need to shape up. But I think Barney probably got to you with his insults and that's why you couldn't give it up and why you were so inclined to support Bearcat's actions even though obviously they were torpedoing any chance you had of a successful outcome. When I asked you to reconsider the talk page block, you blew me off. That's why we're here. When I asked (above) if you'd now be willing to walk away, you didn't answer. That's why we're still here. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't answer above because I told you in advance that I wouldn't due to your continued false statements, personal attacks, and bullshit which you've merely rephrased and repeated above. I have more than once disproven your "emotion"; you call Bearcat's post "unhelpful" when it's been shown by both a good reading AND by consensus to be otherwise; I have no knowledge nor understanding that BtBB "dislikes me intently", nor do you have such confirmation - it's not inherent in any of the written words so far, so we cannot assign background "hatred" to anything; what you NEGLECT is that I once already returned his talkpage access, and returning access led to BtBB escalating his attacks - even you have admitted that you have refused to read the actual DISCUSSION that led to his block. You jumped in mid-situation, read the entire situation wrong. CONSENSUS through multiple discussions has said otherwise, yet you continue to refuse to drop the stick and and gigantic chip on your shoulder. BtBB's block AND removal of talkpage access has been determined by the community to be valid; Bearcats comments and ability to comment have been confirmed by the community - now you're simply attacking Bearcat and I, hoping that some shit will stick - modifying your words, and modifying the locus of blame to where it doesn't exist does not make for some special kind of velcro. Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop the panda ₯’ 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're not sure how Barney feels about you? Wasn't this a clue? Msnicki (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Never saw that before. Entertaining, but it appears that he removed it before anyone could see it. I don't get rattled, nor put stock in what someone says in the heat of the moment and then remove after rethinking; it's continual insults like yours that rattle me :-) the panda ₯’ 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal I've put on the table is that we all just walk away. If we have an agreement, I am done. There won't be anything continuing from me. Barney becomes someone else's problem but he does get another try on his talk page with a different admin and less provocative conditions to do the right thing.

(Barney, if you're reading this, you need to know that I'll be really disappointed if I discover I've gone to this much effort, basically for a stranger I felt sorry for, and you blow it. If you get a second chance, you do need to do the right thing and move on. I won't feel sorry for you a second time.) Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is based on a bunch of lies, a bunch of incorrect readings, and a bunch of things that have been rejected again and again. Again, your harassment and personal attacks are unwelcome. Stop, and drop the stick. If anyone has damaged BtBB's case, it's you by screwing this up so royally. I have advise BtBB that I fully support them making their appeal to BASC or OTRS. Drop the stick. This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you...but this one has been a doozy that you could have avoided by a) reading, b) following process, c) re-reading the panda ₯’ 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've persisted in this and I've tried to ignore it. But I think it's time to remind you, as KonveyorBelt already tried, that per WP:NPA, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." An admin who can't resist making personal attacks of his own doesn't seem to me like the best choice to manage people problems involving personal attacks by others. 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who this random person is, but you've solidified my point: MsNicki has cast aspersions again and again, has assigned emotions and motive where none existed, called people boors, and yet has never been able to link to a single place that proves her point - THOSE are clear violations of wP:NPA as you note above. All I've ever done is remind her every time she does it that it's a PA. As such, I have never levelled a single PA here. Thanks for clarifying it for everyone the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump in on either side, but personal attacks don't further your cause. KonveyorBelt 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose MsNicki keeps making blanket statements about how things "are" yet provides no evidence to back up these assertions. De-escalation has already occurred and, as stated more than once, BtBB has a way back to editing - it is called the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that standard offer starts with demanding that Barney wait six months. I don't think that's justified. I'm asking that we dial back and let Barney try again under less provocative conditions to post a suitable unblock request on his own talk page now. He could turn around and blow this, in which case, you can bet I certainly won't be rushing back to his defense. But I think this is worth a try for an editor with a history of otherwise generally helpful contributions. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I personally don't think that the standard offer is required. As I've said before, he can formulate his unblock request offline, submit it through WP:OTRS or even the Arbs unblock process (wasn't WP:BASC a way of doing this, or did they stop). Last time he was granted access to his talkpage, it didn't go well - we have no proof that's going to change. Using OTRS or BASC will allow him to create a WP:GAB-compliant request, realizing that he's going to have to abide by his promises - this cannot be empty words. Indeed, OTRS or BASC might add additional limitations/restrictions on unblock, but that's not my purview. Nobody has provoked BtBB for the last 2 weeks, so people need to actually read the entire set of exchanges, and STOP suggesting that there's anyone's actions "at fault" but their own. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point, we're better off letting BtBB form the unblock request offline, as this is out of the line, and when taken the rest of the matter into consideration, I can't help but to think that there's not enough assurance that similar attacks on editors won't repeat if we return the talk page access to BtBB. So unfortunately, I must vote no on point 1. The rest I'm neutral on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If Barney is unblocked from his own talk page and decides to use it for more bad behavior instead of doing the right thing, believe me, I'll be the first to ask that the block be reinstated. I'll be genuinely annoyed that I'll have wasted my time on someone so undeserving. But if the rest of this agreement is place, I think he'll do the right thing and I'd like to see him have the chance to show us. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Msnicki: - at least 1 person (i.e. Knowledgekid87) thinks that your first point meant an unblock when what you mean to say is restoring the talk page access. I think fixing that would definitely help. (To Knowledgekid87: If I make the assumption erroneously, you have the permission to WP:TROUT me. Or even {{whale}}.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. That's very helpful. I've added some additional clarification that I hope will help. Let me know what you think. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should Barney be given another chance here? I mean what is the difference between him and all of the other editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this situation was managed far more poorly than usual. Where else have you seen someone who's just been blocked suffering long argumentative missives like this one on his own talk page, stirring the pot just 40 minutes after the second block? Bearcat should have known better and when apparently he didn't, DangerousPanda should have stepped up to manage the situation and discourage this behavior. Instead, DP endorsed that boorish behavior, yet still expected Barney to cool down enough to prepare a suitable unblock request for an admin he likely began to perceive as one of his main tormentors. This was never going to work and that wasn't Barney's fault alone. DP mismanaged what started out as a routine problem that should have been easy to solve and that part's not on Barney. That's what's different. Msnicki (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks - this situation was NOT managed poorly, in fact, as per consensus above, it was managed quite sanely. Repeating that I shouldn't have done something when the community says otherwise is improper. Just because you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow does not mean I managed anything poorly - I gave BtBB a hell of a lot of rope, and he used it as I hoped he wouldn't. Stop questioning my competence (because that's a personal attack) when the community has determined otherwise. Again, this is harassment, so cut it out the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Based on the latest The unblock request, it is again attacking users and using the everybody but me wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as given in the section above, in addition to this being another case where WP:INVOLVED is misunderstood. 'Involved' explicitly exempts administrative actions - including (but not limited to) blocks, warnings, and policy advice. If it's felt that an admin shouldn't be further handling a case where they have blocked someone, then those cases may or may not have merit, but waving the flag of WP:INVOLVED on them makes them invalid from the start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• The policy says 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'.. What Msnicki got was That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. I do not consider such discourse "calm and rational," and, as an editor in good standing, Msnicki deserves better. Administrator conduct states Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ...Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. NE Ent 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Another model display of deftness deafness in dispute resolution. I know I was satisfied, about the way NE Ent must also feel about now. It wasn't like you'd said something clearly rude, like "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen". It wasn't at all like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

More insults or just sarcasm (or both)? English is not my first language, after all...sometimes I miss some of the nuances the panda ₯’ 08:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is some advice I just posted to Barney's talk page. I realized that if my proposal was accepted, I would no longer be able to give him this advice. I should do it now. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of deletion process

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

---

- Wrongly tagged for delete based on no sources - corrected without apology - Source wrongly tagged as self-publshed - corrected no apology - Extra deletion process started before discussing with editors on the page or on talk page - initiator withdrawn - Vote cast by policy acronym without anyone having read provided source or even asking what it says - Vote not withdrawn without any clear explanation. [[36]] FinalAccount (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the deletion discussion is still ongoing. You should wait until it's over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have grasped that I, a Wikipedia content contributor, am asking for help from Wikipedia administration to discuss or help with what I perceive to be misuse of the deletion process, currently at the last point of misuse listed above? FinalAccount (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) p.s. i have no doubt the article won't be deleted, it very obviously won't be, this is not a roundabout way of trying to get at that. I am talking about apparent user misuse of the process. FinalAccount (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Final Account is correct. The delete votes were withdrawn, and now there are none, I'd say it's ripe for a close as keep. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As above, have closed the AfD as withdrawn with nominator, followed by withdrawal of only actionable !vote. Euryalus (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well thanks for closing the deletion process but again I am asking for Wikipedia administration to make some comment about the user who started off by mistakenly using a delete tag that's for articles with no sources listed, when it had two listed, and hasn't acknowledged let along apologised for risking my hard work in this way, and then for voting delete before waiting for verification of one of the provided sources, and then, even when it's clearly obviously a non-deletion article and had even been reviewed and passed by someone separately, STILL just said 'can't confirm keep' thus stopping the article being deleted on the basis of the instigator withdrawal - apparently simply to annoy me, even though he started all this by his mistake. FinalAccount (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing matters here. The prod was added by User:Nafsadh, [37], it was then removed by User:GB_fan [38] as the reasoning seemed invalid (as you said, the article did have sources). It was then nominated for deletion by User:Stuartyeates [39].

The fact that a mistake may have been made in the rationale by Nafsadh doesn't affect the AFD nomination by Stuartyeates in any way. From what I can tell, Stuartyeates never claimed the article had no sources. Nor did they comment on an inability to verify. It appears that their primary problem was the sources you used at the time did not establish notability under the WP:GNG (and also I guess failed any subject specific criteria). Verification of the sources doesn't help if they either aren't WP:RS or lack sufficient coverage to establish notability.

To be clear, I'm not saying Stuartyeates was definitely right to AFD, I haven't looked at the sources present at the time so can't comment. I'm simply saying that whatever mistakes Nafsadh may or may not have made have no bearing on Stuartyeates AFD.

Also, even if Nafsadh made a mistake, you really need to learn to WP:Assume good faith and let things go or you aren't going to last very long wikipedia. Note also that even if a mistake was made, that doesn't mean there was any abuse of process. Contributors aren't expected to be perfect and it does sound like there were problems with the article at the time of the prodding, or at least one other contributor feels there was. So Nafsadh likely had a fair reason to be concerned, even if they may have made a mistake in the specific prodding rationale.

And no one is going to rule that someone made a mistake, that's not what administrators do. (Actually you're far closer to earning administrative attention i.e. a block if you continue to fail to AGF and make accusations like "apparently simply to annoy me". You seem to do good work, but understand wikipedia is a collobrative effort. So you need to learn to get along with your fellow editors even when you have disagreements or mistakes are made. And that includes not continually demanding apologies or confirmation of wrongdoing. It sounds like you may be a new editor. If so, may be seek help at WP:Teahouse if you're confused about something rather than coming to ANI and complaining about other editors.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory Note from involved editor. The article concerned was PRODed during a regular NewPagesFeed reviews - a very affective practice withing Wikipedia, especially because a lot of hoax-pages and articles about non-notable subjects pop up. Subsequently it was AfDed again by another editor Stuartyeates probably mostly with similar concern as mine: no apparent reliable sources were present. Stuartyeates investigated and was not satisfied about notability, neither was I. Meanwhile original creator, FinalAccount, harshly attacked me in the PROD notice on his talk page [40] questioning my cognitive ability -- which by no mean nice, and I felt extremely offended. Off course FinalAccount continued to add sources about Ronald R. Fieve, but he (assuming FinalAccount is a he, correct me if wrong) was not ready to cool down on AfD. Consequently his comment, "No thanks coming from you are accepted - my work on the article has nothing to do with your tagging deletion efforts - you hindered what I was working towards anyway. And you are a policy joke" made me think whether I should go for a RfC/UC or not. Since he is relatively new contributor and as I was extremely confounded from his remark about himself on his page: "do have a mental disability" -- I decided to cool down. In the end, this ANI (without notice!) bothers me. -- nafSadh did say 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh to begin with there is nothing obligatory to leave a note no matter how involved you are with a situation. Your inappropriate BLPPROD was the initiation of this entire thing. A BLPPROD should never have been added to the article as the very first edit had sources. You need to take responsibility that you did not follow the BLPPROD policy. Finally as I suggested to FinalAccount drop it because you are not helping. GB fan 00:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's all I want - some slightly sense of acknowledgement of some responsibility. Not just for my benefit but for Wikipedia content. And not just for the BLPPROD but Nafsadh then voted to delete WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT HAVING READ OR ASKED FOR VERIFICATION FOR OR ASKED ME ABOUT one of the extra sources I listed. Wikipedia administration - please confirm that this is not acceptable, or is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement to explain any !vote for or against deletion. No one has to ask for verification of any sources or ask anyone about any sources. FinalAccount drop it and move on to working on articles. GB fan 00:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process was based on a statement that there was no evidence of independent sources. I provided three, one being in a psychiatric journal. Nafsadh then voted delete without any comment on them and without even having read at least one of them. That's perfectly fine treatment of the general public trying to contribute to Wikipedia then is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the PROD (proposed deletion) or the AFD? As I've already said, these are seperate things and shouldn't be conflated. If you are referring to the AFD, your statement seems even more incorrect (but I don't think anyone is going to insist on an apology). The AFD rationale was "no evidence of in depth coverage in independent source". Without commenting on whether this rationale was valid, you've missed out a key point namely the we need in depth coverage to meet the WP:GNG not simply coverage in independent sources, and the claim was the sources you used didn't meet this. The fact that the article may have had 3 sources, no matter whether these are journals or whatever, is obviously irrelevant if this coverage wasn't sufficient. In fact, it seems unlikely a psychiatric journal would have in depth coverage of a reseacher. Remember this is an article on the person, not on their books or research or anything else. An article on the person will cover such details if it's a signficiant part of their life, but it ultimately still needs to qualify for a standalone article on the person. A person who's research is famous or has written a very well known book will generally meet one of the subject specific guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:WRITER but that doesn't negate the fact the subject of this article is a person. It may be that the information in the article was sufficient to establish presumed notability under one of the subject specific guidelines despite not clearly meeting the GNG. But that's a distinct point and doesn't mean the claim in the deletion rationale was wrong, simply that there may have been reasons to keep despite that. (You could say if that is true, that the article probably shouldn't have been AFDed, but that's a more complicated point.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

BLPPROD stipulates that there shall be some reliable source. Sources did not seem to be reliable. I considered CSD/AfD and PROD. So, you can think the tagging is inappropriate, it is not necessarily a violation of BLPPROD policy. @GB. -- nafSadh did say 00:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh, You should go back and read WP:BLPPROD again. It says you can only add a BLPPROD to an article if it has no sources in any form. The reliable source portion only kicks in when sources are added after a BLPPROD is on the article. If there are any sources in any form that confirm any information in the article then a BLPPROD can not be added. There were sources in the article that confirmed information (reliability of those sources have nothing to do with it) so a BLPPROD was inappropriate. You were absolutely wrong to add a BLPPROD to the article. GB fan 01:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory note from involved editor As noted above, I've withdrawn my nomination based on the numbers of editions of this academics work listed on WorldCat (many editions of multiple works by a mainstream publisher == evidence of a widely held / used books). In my withdrawal message I suggested the article creator add this data (and a {{Authority Control}} template) to the article; this has not been done. I also note that most of the links in the references don't work for me and aren't really suitable for an international encyclopedia (the issue appears to be region-locked texts in google books unavailable outside the US, but could also be the maximum page access limit that we sometimes hit). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, why are are the links not suitable for an international encyclopedia? Sources do not have to be in English. Sources can be behind paywalls. Sources do not have to be readily available to a majority of editors. The sources only have to be verifiable. If others can get to them and confirm that they verify the information in the article that is all that is required (it does not have to be someone from the US). If you think a {{Authority Control}} template belongs on the article, you can add it. There is no requirement for any one else to add it. GB fan 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The links are unsuitable because they appear to be region-locked; working only for a relatively small subset of editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Like talking to two brick walls - as just pointed out to you, no links are even necessary at all, as the information to find the source is there in the citation? And you know what, I realise now you mean because some of the links are to google.co.uk - but you know what, you know how hard it is to access them - change it from books.google.co.uk to google.com?!?

In any case this is just bizarre as they are all totally normal types of sources in english for which I provided direct online links and I am not in the US and no one asked me for other links or extracts. One of the two original sources was in any case perfectly reliable, being published by an international mainstream academic society. As to some worldcat/authority, who cares, I already sourced in the article which I expect Stuartyeates saw that the english language version alone sold over a million copies in five years and was instrumental in introducing America to Bipolar Disorder. FinalAccount (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What GB Fan said. Note also that this also mean sources don't have to be online. In the case of any book source, Google Books or whatever would generally only be a convenience link. The citation details should generally have sufficient information such that the book can be tracked down via some other method, such as a: physical copy. I didn't and don't really want to get in to the back and forth on the original AFD more than I already have. But even if the way they're approaching this isn't helping, I do feel the FinalAccount has a point that you should always take great care if you're AFDing an article and haven't actually read the sources (even if the reason is you can't access them) and can't be sure they aren't reliable. (Although I'm not sure that the sources were sufficient to establish notability under the GNG anyway, which seemed to be what you're AFD was for. It sounds more like a case where the sources may have established notability under one of the subject specific guidelines.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources currently in the article where not in the article when I AfD'd it; but their addition didn't cause me to withdraw the nomination (because as I mentioned, the most of the links don't work for me). There was some weight added when I found (and added) a handful of papers on google scholar with more than 100 cites (see in-line comment). What caused me to withdraw was the WorldCat editions, which has not yet been added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect - two of the sources were in the article when you AfD'd it (one of them a chapter by the subject published with biographical paragraph by an international academic society). And as you must know, no links are even necessary at all. Are you seriously claiming it was beyond you to search for the books online yourself, or change books.google.co.uk to google.com? And that a bit of Original Research of citation/sales figures on your part is better than the multiple sources of significant coverage I've added to the article? FinalAccount (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing this a second time - see comments in results box above. Please feel free to continue a discusson on sources on the aticle talk page, but there's no admin action required here. Euryalus (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Reptilians

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

---

User:MONGO declared his/her intention of edit-warring on the Reptilians article and talk page here and here, and has carried out the threat here, here, here and here. He/she has offered no constructive criticism, saying only that "That is the typical ploy of everyone that thinks they are right....to make others disprove their edit." When I tried to discuss it with him/her on his/her user talk page, my post was deleted with the edit summary, "dont start something you cant finish". Can this user be requested to edit civilly and collaboratively, please? Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Scolaire wrote the section he has in the article in his sandbox then circumvented discussion in much detail by moving the entire passage to article space. That is not editing collaboratively. He has repeatedly reinserted PAs in the talkpage made by an IP because the IP supports his edits. His post on my talk page wasn't anything other than threats and snide insinuations. No need to provide the diffs as they are already above. Looks like an ownership mentality on Scolaire's part...he should learn to build an article within that space and seek consensus for his changes before assuming all would be in agreement.--MONGO 15:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs you provided of Mongo "edit warring" on the talk page are diffs of him removing personal attacks, which is entirely appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A defence of removing personal attacks might carry more weight if the deleted post had not been a response to a personal attack on the editor by Mongo: I'm just going to remove your adolescent posts on sight no matter what IP they come in on and you can take that to the bank. --Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then his comment can be removed as well, but it is disingenuous for you to call his removal of an attack "edit warring" and doesn't cast the rest of your complaint in a favorable light. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Scolaire post his material to the article talk page and if concensus is the references are neutral then no reason the material cannot then be added.--MONGO 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A pity you could not be as reasonable on the article talk page or your user talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure...you've been spreading love and joy everywhere as well...--MONGO 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that article just got off full protection a couple days ago and reverting is still happening, perhaps full protection should be restored until meaningful discussion has resumed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to on my account. I have started an RfC as suggested. I will not revert before it is resolved. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the most inflammatory editor is an IP, perhaps it would make sense to semiprotect article and its talk page for a while. Cardamon (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP has since toned down his/her comments in the discussion, and is not making any edits to the article. There is no apparent need for any kind of protection. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful IP editor is back...accusing myself and another editor of being hypocrites and that I'm his meatpuppet...I see no reason to not simply remove it for the long winded trolling it is.--MONGO 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Or you could simply ignore it as tl;dr. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

The dispute has now been resolved. It would be safe to close this now. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto

This apparent tag team has turned uncivility into a habit. As they have shadowed and dittoed one another's edits when attacking an editor like me or others, the team label seems appropriate.

They do this primarily on talk pages, and a review of their style of comments will show a continual and long-term misuse of talk pages for making personal attacks, boastfully assuming bad faith, and generally engaging in discussions in an uncivil manner, all of which amount to disruptive editing.

In reviewing, please also note that while PAs, etc. are frequent, there is never a counter-attack or reason to attack an editor to begin with. It's simply their method of discourse which has become so expected that I usually ignore them. However, their most recent comments on Peter Sellers talk has been noted with disgust by a new editor to the article, User:Wordreader, who wrote, "I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude." I personally am embarrassed that WP is shown in such a poor light.

For the record, while I'm posting this issue, I don't expect any censure of any sort against them. Their blatant PAs have appeared on talk pages with hundreds of watchers and many long-term wikipedians also commenting, and most seem to cower and say nothing, effectively giving their PA style tacit approval.

Just a few the diffs from various talk pages.

Peter Sellers talk

1. diff 9/2014
2. diff 9/2014
3. diff 9/2014
4. diff 6/2013
5. diff 7/2013
6. diff 8/2012
7. diff 8/2012

Stanley Kubrick talk

• diff 8/2014

Charlie Chaplin talk

• diff 11/2013

Light show (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightshow, you have engaged in endless sniping during the Sellers re-write—sniping that has lasted from mid-2012 to date—and managed to turn the work on the Sellers article into the most unpleasant editing experience I have experienced on Wiki, and you are the one that has managed to suck the joy out of that process. Your behaviour on the article has been so bad that a topic ban has been mooted here more than once.

This is yet another re-hash of a previous visit to ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article which was quickly dismissed, as was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Request review of personal attacks. A trawl through the Sellers talk page will show everything from Lightshow/Wikiwatcher's abuse to passive-aggressive sniping that merits a topic ban on Sellers. Requests for him to take Sellers off his Watchlist have proved fruitless, and a ban might be the best way forward here.

Finally Lightshow, numerous people commenting against you isn't tag teaming: it's people disagreeing with you, based on the fact that you're not a very good editor. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but I agree with my fellow tag-teamer. From the moment we touched upon Sellers to this very day, Lightshow has done nothing but condemn, snipe, and criticise all the hard work that we have put into it. We have taken Sellers from the lowly depths of C-class to the heights of FA which Lightshow disagrees with; he/she has done nothing in terms of helping with the articles development. Instead, they keep the article on their watch-list hoping that one day, someone will come along who is as like-minded as they are and join their "this article is shit" gang. Until then, every time a new editor comes to the page with a question, Lightshow seizes upon the opportunity to bad mouth the article and the two of us. Frankly this ANI is pretty wasted, but nothing unusual as this is always how dealing with them ends up. Pathetic! Cassianto^talk 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, your PA phrasings and word choices have become so similar and repetitious, I'd like to suggest a new one you can freely use with my full approval: Sucker. When you first started editing Sellers, you both honestly had me going for a while, with Schrocat writing friendly notes like:

"Hi WW, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - a brief holiday intervened! I think the article is broadly OK, but it doesn't hang together well at the moment—I think because of the alterations of passing editors. The overall structure is also broadly OK, although we need a few tweaks ("Acting technique and preparation" is in the middle of the chronological run through of his life, for example). I suggest that most of what is already there remains and the following structure is used (please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion!)"

I assumed your intentions were positive. That was then, this is now. And now you can freely call me "sucker." --Light show (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was friendly: I always am when there is a receptive editor to deal with. Unfortunately you did not prove to be amenable to the development and improvement of the article, and attempted to block every change, edit warring and running spurious RfCs to hamper every step. The RfCs were largely rejected out of hand, and numerous editors advised you to drop the stick, but all to no avail. After such a campaign of negativity, even a saint's patience would have evaporated by now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - User:SchroCat 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC) That's not cool no matter what the provocation. If you're that angry step away before typing, regardless of whether you think you're "right".__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither is two years of trolling, bitching and sniping, but let's just gloss over that behaviour. FWIW, I stand by every word, as it is true, justified and entirely correct. I'll also add that I wasn't angry at all: it was written while I was extremely calm, and is an honest straightforward appraisal of this editors approach both on the Sellers page and elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor appears to be engaged in a form of Wikihounding of those who he either disagrees with or won't let him have his own way, despite rules or consensus. He seems obsessed with the Peter Sellers article and the talk page history shows his many RFCs when that doesn't happen. Here we have one started at Mike Todd over the photo he placed in the infobox. The Sellers obsession is everywhere; up it comes at the Red Skelton talk page.

Those of us who don't agree with him become a Wikimafia in his opinion. From the article sandbox he started: "Obvious problems: You have greatly expanded a clear and brief paragraph into six separate topics, mostly film-related trivia, divided below, all jumbled into one hodge-podge paragraph. Which, btw, is exactly how the demolition of Sellers began. Note also that another editor has joined your team by now tagging the lead image." The infobox photo was a copyvio. He's been unwelome at my talk page since an exchange in March over a Commons-deleted photo ruled to be a copyvio.

As for his complaints about incivility, This comment "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?" to User:Dr. Blofeld is taunting and rude, yet he's crying about civility. Let's close this misuse of ANI and hope this editor will finally learn how to work congenially with everyone else.We hope (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of congeniality, I'm not sure I ever thanked you for getting me blocked from the Commons, investigated with your CCI, and for tirelessly tagging hundreds of recently uploaded public domain images, currently used for leads or body, with large red warning signs. --Light show (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To refresh your memory and for the edification of everyone else This is how you got blocked from Commons. We hope (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your off topic Lightshow. Leave others alone and concentrate on trying to get me and my tag-teamer blocked. Cassianto^talk 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was We hope that decided to join in with his image issues, not me. Nor am I concerned with getting anyone blocked, since you're both obviously immune from even mild censure or criticism. This is a notice board, and it's worth noticing the level of arrogance that has become acceptable. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I urge an admin to close this thread asap, obviously there is no action to be taken against Schro and Cass in light of the circumstances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience both users indeed act like a tag team, often together with two other editors. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban User:Light show from editing at the Peter Sellers article

Some of the above comments look pretty bad taken out of context, but entirely understandable when this haranguing has been going on for two years and I think this situation needs some resolution. After SchroCat and Cassianto put considerable effort into taking this article to FA standard (which they successfully steered through an FA review), Light show (under a previous user name) proposed junking all their effort and putting the article back to its C-class version: Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?. Now, I think it's fair to say that anyone who sincerely believes that junking an FA rated article is in the best interests of that article probably has nothing more to contribute in a positive way. Therefore I propose an article-ban for Light show: the article, SchroCat, Cassianto and Light show himself would all be better off if they didn't interact any more at that particular article. SchroCat and Cassianto are the ones that got the article promoted so they are best placed to stay and maintain it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Non-issue: As Schro-Cass has/have prevented me from adding so much as a comma over the last few years, putting up a no-trespassing sign when the article is already ringed with barbed wire, will add nothing. As the proposer has, in their comment at the link above, accused me of somehow reprogramming Wikimedia and gaming user feedback, I'm not sure their good faith is clear in their proposal. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Betty. It's not just the Peter Sellers article though Light show has kicked up a fuss about, it's other articles on film biographies any one of us has been involved with. But all were motivated by the Sellers vendetta he has and it is indeed the Sellers article which creates the bulk of his comments still. An interaction ban banning Light show from editing or discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass would be more appropriate. I support of course, but I fear a ban on just Sellers will prompt petty responses on other articles. I 'd suggest a full interaction ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support What Dr. Blofeld has said. The insult difs above took place on the Stanley Kubrick talk page and the sandbox the editor started. While the basis for this is the Peter Sellers article, that rancor has been spread around by him. We hope (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Lightshow, to say anyone has stopped you changing a comma is an untruth. It's also an untruth for you to say that Betty Logan has accused you of anything: she provided you with an explanation regarding the feedback, not accused you of anything. Sadly the two untruths here are just the latest in a string of mud-throwing from you, where you a unable to accept that anyone who disagrees with you on Sellers is part of some massive tag-team. It's time for the community to stop your interaction on the Sellers talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, needless to say. Lightshow has shown himself to be a thoroughly difficult editor to work with. I'm sure he does some good somewhere, so for that reason I think a full on block is not justified, but I think the ban as proposed above is a great comprise. Lightshow needs to let this one go and accept that the C-class Sellers is a long and distant memory. He also made things difficult for the FA nominator's on Charles Chaplin, but that is a different article altogether. Move on with your wiki-life, for god's sake! Cassianto^talk 21:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on this article and a broader one one should anyone propose it. A read of the relevant talk pages shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that makes editing by other members of the community an unpleasant task to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think waiting for some neutral editors to review and comment is required, since the editors above, excluding MarnetteD, have in some way, repeatedly attacked the editor, his edits, comments or uploads. There is no way to assume their neutrality. It's also worth noting how the original ANI against their PAs has digressed and been hijacked so easily into blocking the complaining editor. The message is that guidelines about civility, including not using PAs, can be ignored. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

this-"I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits." and this-"Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events." is civility? We hope (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The request, yet unanswered, was reasonable. Unlike this comment, from one of the above team members. And my mentioning his soliciting support there, was also fine. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although I would expand this to include the talk page, as that's where much of the conflict between the three has happened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I concur with Crisco 1492 and the earlier editors supporting the proposed ban. I have not previously encountered Lightshow, but the evidence above and in the pages linked to makes it clear that such a ban is in the interests of good editing and collaborative conduct. Tim riley talk 09:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – and, yes, it should be extended to the talk page as per Crisco's suggestion; hopefully the dissent will not continue to spill over into the other articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking a bit kangaroo here. Looking at the article history, Lightshow hasn't edited the article for about six months. If you look at the history there is a clear pattern of SchroCat reverting all changes made by many other editors to the article during that time. It looks like all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included. Not a very welcoming environment. Dr. Blofield's comment is telling here, wanting to ban someone from discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass. It's hard to read that as anything but a demand for uncontested ownership of certain articles. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: Frankly I'm sick of your sanctimonious uninformed comments here. You have no experience of what we've had to put up with for two years and it is rather annoying for some holier than thou individual to make judgements. Butt out, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Elaqueate, and you are? Cassianto^talk 17:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have to be someone to comment here? How is this attitude supposed to convince other uninvolved editors that others weren't similarly "welcomed" on pages you edit? Is this a "closed" !vote? Are we somehow not at AN/I anymore?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, no, just stop commenting on things you know bugger all about. Lightshow has a very long history of making snide comments on talk pages of articles, Peter Sellers mainly, but his vendetta has surfaced in article talk pages as diverse as Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick. It is incredibly annoying to have somebody who has not had to deal with this for the last two years turning up and telling people to be civil or accusing people of OWN. That several very experienced administrators support a topic ban should tell you that this has gone on so long it's time for something to be done about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just asking who you were, that's all. No need to swing your handbag at me, if anybody has an "attitude" it is you sir. Oh, and FWIW, I'm not here to convince anyone. Cassianto^talk 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You were just collegially asking me for my papers, got it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got the shitty end of the stick. I didn't know in what capacity you were commenting from; bystander, admin, etc.. But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. Cassianto^talk 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Classy argument.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

and one it appears, you have no business in. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I should keep talking to someone who just called me shit?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would that be, because I haven't called you anything. Are you having trouble understanding, or are you only reading what you want to see? Cassianto^talk 20:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to descend into personal attacks it reflects on you more than me. It doesn't improve anything here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another question to my a answered "Who would that be?" What personal attacks? Cassianto^talk 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the smear, especially as it is catastrophically wrong: I have not reverted "all changes made by many other editors". I have reverted the introduction of errors (grammatical, factual, or use of the wrong ENGVAR elements), which is entirely acceptable, I believe. If I am wrong on that point, please let me know. You are also very wrong to say that "all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included": that utter tripe. It's also not a question of ownership either: it's a question of having to deal with the behaviour of one disruptive editor who has been sniping and trolling on the talk page, not within the article, as well as on other talk pages. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: In my experience it is very normal for all the but the highest quality edits to be reverted on a featured article. The standards are very high on those pages. Chillum 14:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum:, you are right that changes to a quality FA should be made conservatively and that most proposed changes should demonstrate they meet that higher standard. I was only commenting that it seemed to be an individual editor that was ultimately judging that quality over a very long period, and that struck me as a bit of a warning flag for possible POV bias, conscious or not. FA doesn't mean perfect or finished.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If I had not reverted the poor edits, someone else would have done. I have not reverted any improvements to the article, and it have explained my edits when I have reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you find your own edits reasonable and necessary. Thanks for sharing that opinion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, however, find your smears and untruths to be reasonable or necessary, but you seem to have skated by that. Thanks for sharing and smearing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussed editor hasn't edited the article in six months, and the talk page currently only has a total of seven comments. No recent diffs were given in this proposal, but that hasn't stopped people from !voting on it. I can't see that any uninvolved editors have been given any actual evidence, other than being told to "butt out". The only diff given in the proposal is two years old and the user had a different user name (what's the deal with that? Is that public?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The change has always been noted at the top of my user page. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I noted above, it's even worse than a kangaroo court, as I came before this body with diffs to show a lack of civility and habitual flinging of PAs. Yet that original reason has been hijacked into a digressed topic of banning the complaining editor with almost no mention of the original complaint or its validity.

For a current example of how and why Schro-Cass resort to simple name-calling over calmly discussing things, visit the current Sellers talk page, where a new editor, User:MrBalham2, who is trying to point out exactly what I did years ago, is already being badgered and seems to be leaving in disgust. A quick link to what he observes in the article was first pointed out by me here, and the result of that was later pointed out here, which supports his and my observation. But this is not about Sellers, it's about the near total unconcern and ready acceptance of uncivility by this board.--Light show (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone appreciating some ironic humor, note SchroCat's first reply to the new editor: in the future, please comment on issues, not editors. and his most recent one, I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors . . . not just insults to others, when in fact that editor was extra civil. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have considered your own actions before rushing to ANI and posting this hastily added report. As for MrBalham2, they came to Sellers asserting their own POV which has been opposed by SchroCat and I. Their edits are not an improvement, and like you they can't accept that. It's just a coincidence that they are complaining about the same thing as you and they have an unhealthy interest in Sellers. Oh, and they came at the same time as this ANI having never expressed an interest in Sellers before; a bit iffy if you ask me. Cassianto^talk 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of iffy is when a new editor, SchroCat, starts working on Peter Sellers, and 5 minutes later, you, another new editor, join in supporting his every edit, comment, and PA from then on. That's what may be called iffy, IMHO. And noting such things can get one banned from a talk page, it seems. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor? I have been here since 2010, SchroCat possibly longer. It sounds like you feel aggrieved at us "new" editors coming along and making your shit C-class version into an FA. Careful, your pal Elaqueate may accuse you of ownership if your not careful... Cassianto^talk 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editors to Peter Sellers article, in case anyone wasn't clear about it.--Light show (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Light show's edits and talk page postings at Peter Sellers (and other film biography articles) have been entirely disruptive over a very long period of time, and their behavior is not collaborative, but rather intended to upset other editors and make it so unpleasant for them that they will not challenge his/her edits. I also support the broader interaction ban. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is difficult enough to bring an article to FA without someone stepping on your shoes the whole way. Light should contribute to areas completely unrelated to Mr. Sellers. I am not sure about a wider ban, though I think as long as Sellers is not mentioned it may be okay. Repeat performances would likely result in quick consensus for widening the scope. Upon further reading I support a wider ban cover Kubrick and such. Chillum 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support and we should probably look at Stanley Kubrick as well. This is a talented and potentially productive editor but needs to learn to work better with others. Over-quoting is a defining and annoying fault, and doggedly defending the over-quoting starts to make other editors think about walking away. --John (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having seen the present issue spill over to Stanley Kubrick, and judging by other interactions I've had with Light Show which, by no means the same degree that would require any type of action, do point towards a battlefield mentality they hold when they don't get their way. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made 517 edits to improve Kubrick, vs. 0 for you. Thanks for your support. I'll also note that Kubrick is a more honest example of how I, and other editors, should collaborate. For instance User:WickerGuy, the primary contributor, began his edits a year and a half before I started editing it. We, and other editors, including MarnetteD, had many discussions during the 8 months or so that it was heavily improved. There was never a heated discussion, no PAs, no uncivility by anyone. After much of the article was improved, WickerGuy even added some positive comments to my talk page. I know how to collaborate and work with other editors. You will not find any accusations about uncivility anywhere since I started editing 7 years ago.--Light show (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your talk page behavior, eg [41], clearly pitting yourself as one side against Dr. Blofelt and SchroCat, specifically bringing up the Sellers article issues here. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An odd example, since you agreed with me that he was adding trivia. And under your watchful eye, you've let Blofeld do to Kubrick's personal life material, namely turn it into a choppy hodge-podge, of short, disconnected factoids, exactly as Schro-Cass-Blofeld did to Sellers. Blofeld did that to Kubrick, cutting out 75% of his personal life material, about 2,000 words, under your protection, all in a matter of minutes! All three(?) of those editors use the exact same editing style, and unsurprisingly they all use the same uncivil PA style of discourse in protecting their demolitions. Their comments above prove the point. Nuff said. Kubrick should have stayed in NY.--Light show (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm sure @John: would agree on this, no personal life section needs to be well over 2000 words!!! I cut it by 75% because it needed such a drastic cut. I haven't got around to writing a decent personal life section yet so obviously it's still not going to read wonderfully well. You're absolutely clueless how to write encyclopedia articles and don't just get that bloat and excess quotes are just not good. An actor dies and there you are adding excess quotes and bloating it out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld—are you really responding to User:Light show? They pointed out that this was all done "in a matter of minutes". Incremental edits are conducive to collaboration. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary editor on Sellers had also thanked me: You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done. --Light show (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by maintaining the battleground attitude here, trying to drag me into this when the only reason I have the Kubrick page on my watchlist was from NFC issues years ago. Yes, some of what Blofeld added was not really well suited, but note the difference between suggesting that trivia be cut down for improvements and holding a grudge from a different article. The ban from editing the Sellers article seems well merited until you can drop this attitude and work cooperatively. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The ban from editing Sellers has been in effect for about two years. Every attempt to change punctuation or almost any other minor change by me or anyone else, has gotten reverted often without the courtesy of a rationale. A new editor tried to make some change yesterday, calmly discussed it, and still got pulverized with uncivility immediately. Maybe we should add the new editor to the proposed ban, just to make sure he doesn't try to improve things again. I do make comments on the Sellers talk page, but banning that kind of activity by a civil editor would amount to eliminating freedom of speech, not something I'm used to on this side of the pond. I do not use uncivil language, which is a bit tricky when pounced on by the PA team. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a lie to say there has been a ban on editing the page. Numerous people have improved the article and their edits stand. Those who introduce errors, change spellings (and punctuation) to AmEng variants, or introduce unsupported information or delete sourced information may be reverted, with an explanation. The editor yesterday (with whom the discussion continues) was not "pulverised" with anything, although he has been requested not to make personal remarks about other editors (he is extremely new and has not yet learnt the ropes here). You manage to turn up to pretty much every thread, and will bitch about the article, linking back to one of the many, many RfCs you started during the re-write (which the community decided against your opinion on nearly every one). Your negativity on the Sellers page has been seen in comments on threads on Chaplin, Kubrick, and I think one or two others, and I sincerely hope this will bring an end to it. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We haven't banned you, we have disagreed with your attempts to try and "improve" the article. Your edits were not an improvement and went against everything which seemingly passed the strict reviewers at peer review, GAN and FAC. But somehow, you think you're above all that and when you were rebuffed, you snipe at the "state of the article". Two years...of that! Cassianto^talk 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should anyone need an example of the exact opposite, note comments by another new editor to Sellers, who also had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I chimed in with a link to a similar issue from an earlier discussion. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, also hasn't returned. That's the kind if banning I'm referring to, the psyop kind. Very effective. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that as soon a someone makes a comment you "chime in" with the same old comment that links to one of the pointless threads you implemented during the least enjoyable editing experience I suffered on Wikipedia. As to Wordreader, I agreed with his comment, and less than an hour after he had posted his comment, I edited the article to overcome his issue, and commented appropriately in the talk page. All you did was bitch and moan. Can you not see a) just how annoying and depressing it is for others for you to constantly bitching about the same topic, and b) why this thread has been proposed by a third party with no axe to grind here? As to saying Wordreader hasn't returned because of the comments, I find that so dubious to be laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask him? And that third party proposer, out of the blue, accused me of gaming user ratings, so your editing team wouldn't be too embarrassed, I presume. Oddly, all user ratings disappeared from WP soon after. --Light show (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that the above discussion in the link, whereby I was immediately attacked, took place just a few months after the team began their editing of Sellers. Back then, SchroCat made comments like: Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section and this is now actually smaller than the previous version and a lot tighter than it was: I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before. or . I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers -, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! Within a few weeks, his comments took on a different tone, I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers And a few weeks later, he stopped using "Cheers" to sign off. And Sellers, IMO, is now in the cellar. Cheers.--Light show (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of us who support a ban are more than tired of being served Wikiwatcher/Light show WP:SOUP regardless of the type. This is the Skelton talk page, yet your inane nattering about the Sellers article found its way there. If there wasn't an agenda, this wouldn't have been posted there by you. We hope (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If any neutral editor read those comments, they'd have a hard time calling it anything but totally logical and inherently beneficial to discuss. So I'm glad that was the best you could find.--Light show (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOUP's on again! We hope (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements? Says who? Cassianto^talk 20:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – re-reading the exchanges above, I wonder is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? It looks rather as though this is an interested user flying a flag of convenience (a sock-puppet, I think is the WP term). Is it possible for Elaqueate to identify him/herself as a separate entity, please? – Tim riley talk 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. This: is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? is completely fabricated. What is wrong with you?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a break, then log off and log back in as Light show... Cassianto^talk 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Elaqueate, a user who has been editing here since Aug 2013, is a sock of Light Show. Such an accusation would need significant evidence. Chillum 20:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum: see Elaqueate, that's all you needed to say in response to my first question to you. Now all Elaqueate has to do is show me "the personal attacks" I have made against them and who called him/her shit? Cassianto^talk 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you are interested in that then go to their talk page. This is not the appropriate place for you two to bicker. Chillum 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate inasmuch that it was a question which he/she failed to answer. If he/she had of told me their interest in the case to start with then we wouldn't be here now. Their failure to answer even prompted someone else to ask. My original question was a civil, pertinent and innocent question to ask which was ignored. That is why we are here now. Anyway, moving on... Cassianto^talk 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't want an editor who just accused me of sock puppetry without proof and said But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. anywhere near my talk page. I think I've been pretty patient after being told my true colors are shit brown, but I don't need to deal with more of it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you two go to one of your talk pages or not. Do not engage in back and forth bickering about each other in a topic about another user. The noise being added to this discussion is not helpful. Rule of thumb, if you are talking about someone other than Light Show then you are posting in the wrong place. Chillum 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as Light show, I'm beginning to see why there are only "Supports" here, even though I can see that various editors supported some of Light show's suggestions on the concerned talk pages at times. Whatever Light show's behavior, it seems to have been met with some pretty nasty business in return. I didn't even cast a !vote and I was told to "butt out", asked to identify myself twice, was told my true color is shit brown, and had a sock puppet accusation as a "new user". I wonder how much filth I would have gotten if I'd actually !voted. Something's off here but it looks more entrenched than anything I'd want to spend too much time on. It doesn't look exactly one-sided to someone outside of whatever bubble people are editing in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The real rule of thumb, practiced by the team, is "The best defense is a good offense." Hence, an editor going to ANI about uncivility by a tag team, turns into a proposal to ban the complaining editor. Forget the rampant uncivility. Or when some new editor calmly suggests changes on a Sellers talk page, notice how the new editor is set upon immediately by the team. Very sobering and discouraging stuff. You would have been amazed at seeing how the team jumped on some other editors who were also criticizing Sellers at its peer review. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose. At least on the Peter Sellers Talk page some of the above have presented a caustic environment for those that disagreed with them. I disagreed with some of the above folks and User:Light show disagreed with some of the above folks. I don't think these comments are proper for Talk page use:

• "Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks."

• "And, once again, it's trivial shit by someone who never met of knew either man."

• ""The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. -- Then again, they may not give a toss. Now move along, there is nothing to see here! "

• "These are trolls, pure a simple. Let's stop feeding them."

• "THIS IS NOT OUR FUCKING OPINION, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK! Dr. B has addressed that. Now for gods sake move on!"

Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you "oppose" here based on our comments? Sorry, I thought it was Light show on offer here because of his behaviour? This is not a valid vote as you have missed the point of this proposal entirely. If I remember rightly, you accused the article and us of anti-semitism? Cassianto^talk

There has been some incivility, I don't think anyone supporting this proposal would deny that, but what do you really expect when someone has sustained a 2-year campaign to junk other people's work? The problem isn't really the incivility, that's just a symptom; the problem—and it's a fundamental one—is that you have an editor who is committed to a vastly inferior version of the article and who won't let go. The reason I proposed an article ban (and I did intend for that to include talk page input) is that I simply don't see how to resolve Light year's continued involvement in the article with maintaining its quality. You can see from the tone of this discussion just how much bad blood there is, and if it isn't ended here then it will almost certianly continue back at the article. Do SchroCat and Cassianto have another two years of this haranguing to put up with? What happens if they get so sick of it they withdraw and let Light year do what he wants to the article? The truth is it's a great article and it wouldn't be out of place in a professional encyclopedia, so the community should take action to safeguard articles of that quality. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment

Hello All

I'm a "newbie" so please treat me well. Please excuse typos and bad grammar, formatting etc. I think there are a lot of experienced editors here. Some of you have done some great work and rightly some of your articles have been promoted to FA status.

However, with your experience a little arrogance has crept in, and with that you've forgotten that anyone can edit these articles regardless of experience. This is the golden rule and the overriding principle.

Any disputes are discussed on talk pages. However, I've come across something that is worse than vandalism on these pages.

Some of these articles have over 300 notes and references. A majority of these pointing to a handful of books and their page numbers. But also sophisticated named ref tags as well. Deleting lines also means deleting these named tags. There is a lot of hard work put into them. The people who have created them have read all these books and created these references.

These editors have done some painstaking research. In this pursuit they have become quite experienced and are aware of all the rules and coding. However, this is where the arrogance creeps in, and worse still, they have become "experts". They then start forgetting the Wikipedian principles and become corrupted in their overzealousness.

If you look at my experience, as an example, on the "Peter Sellers" Talk page you can see that a group of editors who have clubbed together and built FAs are commenting. Some of the FAs are very good...and here's the problem....some of them are not.

1. When the editors are challenged and and it becomes one editor vs another "separate" editor and it is merely a difference of opinion. If the "separate editor" stands their ground, another editor from the club steps in and sides with their fellow FA editor.

2. At this points the consensus principle is abused.

3. Here's where the sophistication comes in. A third editor steps in and becomes disparaging and also sides with their fellow FA editor. Opening statements are also confrontational. A distraction to anger/wind-up the "separate" editor from the original argument which gets lost into, and deteriorates, into mudslinging. Since all three club members have the consensus there is no chance for dissent or objectivity on FAs.

This "ganging up" tactic is worse than vandalism. It's perfectly good editors who have become corrupt and forgotten the Wikipedia golden rule is (and in the words of Brian Cohen) is that "we are all individuals". This "gang"/club consensus should be avoided.

Light show is quite passionate and annoying to some of you, but they are on their own fighting their own point of view. They are entitled to be as challenging as they want. You can't shrug the principle because you don't like someone.

If you choose to block this editor from the "Sellers" article, then equally, SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld need to be banned/blocked from this article too. I believe Tim riley is part of the same club as well, and should also be blocked. If there are others, please point them out.

It'll be a painful object lesson for them all, however, they need to realise that "gang mentality" or bullying is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Administrators please investigate this more widely. If there are already existing rules regarding "editor clubs" please make those on this thread aware. If there is not, then I have highlighted a policy problem.

Newcomers to Wikipedia will be put off by this type of hostility. Wikipedia is one of the great achievements of the net neutral internet. Please don't wreck it with bad behaviour and the arrogant assumption that you are the true "experts".

Please note I am not a sock puppet for Light show.

Good luck all and happy editing! MrBalham2 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained to you previously, having people disagree with you isn’t "ganging-up": it's part of the way things are discussed and agreed upon here, and once you have been editing for more than ten days you will come to appreciate that. In other words, people joining in discussions is how we reach a consensus, and is to be encouraged: just because people disagreed with you, does not mean that anyone has been "ganging up" on you. This has all been explained to you before, and you have not taken it on board, just as you did not seem to take on board explanations in the talk page. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not a good way to start your Wiki life, and I sincerely hope that you read and take on board other people's comments, both in talk and forums such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've let it go on on the "Sellers" talk page. Don't worry! That discussion is closed. I'm illustrating your process of consensus here.

I've already highlighted your method and how I think the consensus process can be abused, so have other editors. Administrators can decide on whether that process was fair and whether you and your Wiki colleagues should be blocked from that article. I'm merely highlighting your methods in discussions. I'm entitled give my views and experience of that process. Your tactics are under scrutiny. MrBalham2 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting forward a reasonable opinion on a talk page about edits isn't a "tactic": it's how wiki works, and I am not sure that with your ten-days experience here that you've fully grasped that. Additionally, just because other editors disagree with you, doesn't mean there is anything underhand about it: that's how we build a consensus, and how the consenus changes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm clear about the consensus process. It is you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I hope you concur. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are not clear about consensus on Wiki, given your comments here and at the Sellers talk page, and that you are still in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory here. I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you. As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to get the whole picture. This will include Light show's grievances. Light show has used my case as an illustration on this thread. This includes you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is also under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I'm entitled to express my views. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality check: Earth calling Balham – how would a ban on editing the Peter Sellers article make any difference to an editor (me) whose total contribution to it was correcting three typos in August the year before last? – Tim riley talk 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about! I think you work with the aforementioned Wiki colleague on other FAs. Administrators need to be aware if FAs are becoming "no go" editing areas apart from a select few.i.e. if an FA editor is having difficulty with a another "unfamiliar editor" standing their ground then other Wiki colleagues swoop in to help out by applying a consensus. I think it's a practice that should be stamped out. It goes against Wikipedia principles. MrBalham2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A "no-go" editing area like this edit, which was made and is still present on the page? Or are you just complaining because when you deleted half a paragraph of pertinent information it was reverted? There is absolutely nothing "no go" about editing on the article, as the evidence of one of your extant edits shows. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was content with both edits. Including your reversion. My attempt was to transfer the information to its correct area and reduce a overlong para I accepted your revert. It was when I suggested a reasonable alternative is when the "team" swooped in with the tactics I mentioned earlier. I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues. The Administrators need to be aware that this happens. If there isn't a policy then there should be one to stamp the practice out. Wikipedia is for all (even the one's who make your editing life hell) and not and for a select few "gatekeepers". MrBalham2 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

MrBalham2 wrote (emphasis added): "I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues." Sorry to "swoop in", but this page is on my watchlist, as indeed is "Peter Sellers", and I couldn't help picking up this discussion. So who has told you this "now", and where? Your claim about "common practice" does not seem at all evident to me in this discussion you've had with a third party, where you have been told quite clearly that "you need to be careful about editing featured articles since featured articles are the highest standard of quality there is"; and "The fact that the editors you are in conflict with are all quite experienced. You are free to request a FAR; however, you must be prepared to have a result that you are not quite happy with." Alfietucker (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That has also struck me, and I have asked MrBalham on his talk page about this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the others were implying? The link to the third party discussion is a very good example on how you make new editors feel after such an experience of “being ganged up” on. Yes I am aware of FAR suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. I was made “aware" by reading Light show’s exmaples further up this thread. I didn’t need need to be “told” by anyone.MrBalham2 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of private email! Cassianto^talk 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure MrBalham2 is aware that there are already policies related to tag teams. Luckily, he seems to understand the common sense policies of civility, which is one of the pillars supporting WP, and probably civilization itself. But, like me, is taken aback that that a basic pillar can be ignored and overturned so easily by so many. Hence, the original ANI against two boastfully uncivil editors, even to other editors on this page, is immediately hijacked into a proposal to ban the complainant, who no one has shown to have ever made uncivil comments.

Regarding accusations that I've created a "battlefield atmosphere" on the talk page, I can assure your the exact opposite is the case. A quick example can be seen here, where the alleged team, shortly after coming to the Sellers article begins to demolish it without discussion, attacks every editor commenting, and gains the immediate support of teammates: Local editor being SchroCat. It is he who has single handedly turned this article's fortunes around and made it a serious future contender for FAC for which he should be applauded not villified. Recall that those two editors began their editing blitz on Sellers shortly before, and 5 minutes apart. And of course a quick look at the Sellers talk page over the last few days proves that the battlefield mentality is created against any editors, and by only one group: the team. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Light show. I don't entirely agree with you about the Peter Sellers article but SchroCat is a great editor...although too stubborn for me, Good luck to you both on the outcome. MrBalham2 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no previous experience of the Peter Sellers or related articles. I was on this page because of an unrelated matter. But I think the responses to MrBalham2's politely phrased comment more than adequately illustrate the problems with these editors' attitude and behavior. "I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you", "Reality check: Earth calling Balham", "Ah, the beauty of private email!" Whether or not these editors liked what the editor had to say, these are not reasoned or reasonable responses. Just looking at the current revision of the talk page, I see what I would consider intolerable rudeness to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) by SchroCat, with Cassianto chipping in at the end with "I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter." And the reader is expected to assume the assumption of good faith. SchroCat wrote above, "As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page." Actually, no. The Light show ban is just a sub-section; the thread is about the behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto. (Note: all of this is without prejudice as to the outcome concerning Light show). Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that Norton was edit warring, breaking citations, introducing errors and cutting across cited material by trying to force a citation that didn't support the information he claimed it did. You can ignore the degradation of a quality article if you want, but I'm not sure it's the most sensible approach to article development, do you? – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that some people, including Scolaire, would rather read a shite article which is littered with POV, mistakes, bad prose and dodgy referencing just so long as everyone who contributes are lovely to one another. This, it seems, is more favourable than reading a featured article and having to - although not needing to - read a few "rude and disparaging" comments from those who are protecting the article from slipping into the gutter. In an ideal world everybody would get on famously on featured talk pages, but this is not an ideal world. If it was, I would be shacked up with Jennifer Lawrence! Cassianto^talk 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both for illustrating my point so well. I needn't say more; it would be just gilding the lily. Scolaire (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• How odd: there is nothing illustrated here, except the fact you did not look into the reasons behind the interaction properly, or you would have seen that Norton was warring and ignoring all requests to use the talk page; while he was warring he introduced errors. You still have not answered the question of how you think this is a sensible way to approach article development. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Wouldn't this be an issue to take to WP:DRN? Anyway, it would be good if Light show, and Cassianto and SchroCat, avoid talking to each other in regards to the article anywhere, not just on the article talk page. It may be that Light may have some useful comments, given the above exchanges, and that Cass's and Schro's comments, while justifiably angry because they've worked so hard to get this to Featured status, come out as too harsh. So, I'm not voting either way, but I think a topic ban doesn't resolve many problems if there are some useful suggestions, at least. In fact, an interaction ban would be more appropriate if considered. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding interacting with them as much as possible. My few recent comments on Sellers' talk were to other editors who had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I naturally chimed in to help. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, hasn't returned. And the following talk editor has also left for good. The team should simply be banned from ever interacting with me or discussing me, everything would go fine. I have no desire to talk with them again, ever since I realized I'd been conned:

Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section . . . I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before, or I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! --Light show (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants any more examples of why this proposal has been made, Light show's most recent edit should provide enough reason of what people have had to put up with over the last two years:

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough of this obsession with the Sellers article, with the constant sniping and complaining, and with continuing to spread this nonsense onto the Chaplin and Kubrick talk pages. DRN? I think we're way beyond that with Light show's approach. – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, no DRN then? Maybe an IBAN is better, as described above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat. Then maybe next time an editor goes to ANI about a general issue of uncivility, everywhere, you and your team don't hijack it into a proposal to ban that complainant from so much as talking on Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you say is wrong and a hinderance to the article, so maybe next time you will learn to think before you type. Cassianto^talk 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• For someone who claims never to be uncivil, you do an awful lot of uncivil accusations. There is no "team": there are individual editors who are making their own value judgements. As for something turning back on the complainant, it's called WP:PETARD, and it is the community that is discussing things here in an open forum! no "team" of anyone's. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is not right or fair that editors who come here in good faith to work on this encyclopaedia should have to endure this sort of disruptive treatment, and for as long as as they have had to endure it. If individual editors cannot work on an article collegially then they should not be allowed to work on it at all. Jack1956 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I make 16 supports to 2 oppose a consensus to have Light show switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin etc including talk pages. Are their any admins looking in who can close this pantomime now? Cassianto^talk 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You refer to having User:Light show "switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin". Are you gloating? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that makes you happy to call it that then yes. Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question about speed editing: How does an editor, ie. SchroCat, manage to make 19 fairly complex edits to Sellers over a 1-minute period, which is 3 seconds per edit? When I use the term "blitz," I mean it literally. The three editors in question have somehow managed that feat a number of times. Here's some of SchroCats earliest edits. This is a compilation of those 1-minute changes That miraculous feat was immediately followed by DrBlofeld, who could do about the same number of (not-minor) edits in 1 minute. Not to be left out Cassianto was nearly as fast, doing 13 in 1 minute. Should Cassianto take a speed-typing class to help keep up? --Light show (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• They look like good edits. If made quickly all the better. Chillum 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not getting your point Light show? Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Much though I would like to be able to be that fast, the 17 (not 19) changes were over the course of an hour (16:11 to 17:11), not a minute. The same is true for Cassianto and Blofeld's edits. Whether a minute or an hour, I'm still not sure of either the problem, or the relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I've been used to looking at my clock up top with the seconds on the right. The relevance was that with such rapid-fire editing by three editors, there's less ability for anyone to check things or make corrections. Looking back, with up to hundreds of edits a day, the article was totally changed without little chance for previous editors to comment, proof, check facts, or edit the prose. Your're right, whether it's 19 a minute or 19 edits an hour, makes little difference. This happened on Kubrick recently. My understanding of the guidelines was that incremental editing for such major changes was recommended to allow other editors to review or comment. That opportunity was mostly eliminated. When established primary editors wake up and there's 100's of edits to review, the consensus-based editing system fails.--Light show (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it made featured article seems to indicate that the changes were good. It is good when an article is racially improved over a short period of time, we give out barnstars for that sort of thing. The history is always there so that you can take your time reviewing changes and always find old versions. And yes it makes a very big difference if it is hours or minutes. Chillum 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained in an essay on tag teams, "it's a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." Had the team acted in accord with consensus guidelines, this whole issue would not exist. A good early example of what kind of blitz editing led to this dispute. All very avoidable. --Light show (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When people gang up to improve the encyclopedia it is a good thing. Chillum 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that's an essay, rather than a guideline, let alone a policy, there is no tag team here. Try to WP:AGF and think that perhaps very active editors are working on an article to re-write an essay. That's not tag-teaming or meat-puppetry: that is how articles can be re-developed. They can, of course drift for a few years with no-one attempting to do much, which explains the parlous state in whch the Sellers article was before the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to rub my eyes: Try to WP:AGF. Was that meant as a joke? I couldn't count the times you boldly interjected yourself into talk pages, where I'm talking to another editor, to make comments such as in Chaplin:

More bad faith silliness from LightShow? What a surprise! He's always in a state of shock if someone doesn't cast a celebrity in a glowing light and gloss over everything in a private life! - SchroCat.

I have never accused you and the others of BF. And like your other ABFs, they usually have almost nothing to do with the context of the discussion, but are made simply to PA a GF editor. I can find dozens of times you and the others, who edit and comment exactly alike, have started your responses, to me and others, with the BF label. I've come to ignore them long ago. Sadly, as this ANI implies, so have your 16 supporters. --Light show (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no? Talk:Mike Todd ":No need to ABF by implying hidden agendas. My only agenda is to improve lead images that IMO need improving. That's why I didn't bother changing an image you chose for Red Skelton's lead, even though I also uploaded a different one last year. Yours was fine, even though it was much smaller. Lighten up." And the reply: Mike Todd talk page "If we're going to mix apples and oranges on Todd's talk page, let's set the facts straight re: your claim of not changing the infobox photo at Skelton: (add different image) (The original image is better in quality. Maybe a discussion should be started.) If the number of edits you've made to the Todd article and what they were are BF, then so be it." We hope (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, as I once tried to show, the article before your blitz re-write, went from a reader rating of 3.5 (very good) for "Readability" to 1, (incomprehensibe). And went from "neutral and balanced," to "heavily biased," according to the first 39 people who, amazingly, managed to read through it, and kindly took the time to give their objective opinions. It took me hours to remove the mud and battle scars when I returned after making that simple observation. --Light show (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly Drmies looked at your comment, and then at the article, and wrote of your behaviour that "These allegations, besides ridiculously untrue, are disruptive and I believe they are made in bad faith, a result of sour grapes." Just thought I'd remind you of that further example of WP:PETARD. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Point being? You know that I asked him what "allegations" he was talking about, since I only noted reader's ratings, and neither they nor anyone responded. Although it was just another blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment, so thanks for noting it. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Errrmmm.... Drmies is an experienced and well-respected admin, so I'm not sure I would class their judgement on editor interaction as a "blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment", to be honest! - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you concur with Cassianto's latest expression of civility. De ja vu all over again. WP's pillars are being mocked. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

...again, your point is? Your being your usual, disruptive best on the talk page. Like I say, as long as the edits are constructive, any editor can edit anywhere and at any time they like? It's how the encyclopaedia is built believe it or not. Cassianto^talk 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Light Show has attacked Dr. Blofeld's changes that he has done over at Stanley Kubrick. (Here is Light Show's addition to the talk page today). He is calling Blofeld's 50-odd edits over a 4 month period (in brief bursts) as problematic rapid fire editing and a problem because Blofeld had never edited Kubrick's article before. Clearly part of this same battlefield mentality to try to get their way in the clear face of opposition, maintaining the battlefield mentality. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a better link to the full discussion, as it shows who creates the battlefield and how the pillar of civility is mocked. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been open for 2-3 days now and a clear consensus seems to have emerged it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could close this. Chillum 07:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation by Tarc

Tarc (talk · contribs) has been misrepresenting comments made by me relating to the Gender Gap discussions that have recently been closed here. Their response to one of my comments and a minor clarification was to accuse me of being boorish and of somehow not believing that there is a gender gap problem on Wikipedia. I asked for a diff to support their accusation but they have consistently failed to do so, eg: one response was this and there is a thread at User_talk:Tarc#ANI_thread.

Ok, that's just one misrepresentation but then they made another here where they accused me of having written a screed yesterday accusing the project of using the mailing list to organize meatpuppets. They had no basis for that further accusation, as I tried to point out to them in this series of edits.

Tarc has now adopted the same course as Carolmooredc adopts when faced with a problem of their own making. Instead of apologising or retracting, they've suggested that they will ban me from their talk page and accused me of yet more things.

Anecdotally, I've seen comments in the past from people who have queried Tarc's ability to comprehend the statements of others. I've no idea whether Tarc's first language is English or not. Is there really a comprehension competence problem here or is it just one of plain rudeness, of misrepresenting for effect etc? Can someone perhaps have a word before their unfounded accusations against me become a part of the usual folklore based on scant fact that is repetitively trotted out by the likes of Carolmooredc. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone suggests you don't continue posting to their talk page, stop. It's a very easy thing to do. Are you demanding talk page access here?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I said above, including the diffs? It doesn't look like it. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know if Tarc speaks English, you don't know if I can read; it sounds like the world is filled with things to learn and discover. So, looking at the diff, you're objecting to the suggestion of the possibility of a potential future ban from a user talk page. Maybe he's not taking your buttercup-friendly comments in the spirit you're giving them? Either way, it's their talk page and you're not entitled to post your random thoughts there, if you're coming off as rude and patronizing (which those comments could be seen as, honestly).__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about being banned from that talk page. I am bothered about someone making misrepresentations, refusing to correct them and instead seemingly expanding on them. I am particularly bothered about it because the Gender Gap related discussions seem commonly to be perpetuating myths, half-truths etc about what people have said and because the main voice in those discussions has a documented habit of repeatedly drawing on those, even when irrelevant to the issue at hand. Tarc's misrepresentations of me will become set in stone unless someone sets that record straight. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this entire dispute should goto Arbcom, this is nuts and I feel that people here are getting fed up with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of it and I've barely contributed to the discussions at Talk:GGTF. I'm not sure of the grounds that would be used for referral to ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that original comment contains your advice prodding Carolmooredc to write down some kind of an ersatz "enemies list" somewhere. I don't think that's usually allowed by policy, and rightfully so. Maybe you didn't mean it exactly that way, but I think people will agree that you were giving not-very-helpful advice at the time, as Carole could be censured if she followed your advice. And you do seem to be asking what could arguably be seen as a loaded question regarding meatpuppetry and the mailing list, in the sense of "To what extent does your project harm puppies?" and then protesting that you never meant any puppy-hurting would ever happen. I don't know how much of what you said will be "set in stone" but I also don't know what you're trying to achieve here. I don't think you've started this without throwing some insinuations of your own.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest that she made an "enemies" list and she is well aware of what she can and cannot do (she has asked about keeping lists of diffs on-wiki for possible use in ANI reports, for example, previously). If you think that I have insinuated anything here then just say what those things are and I'll provide some diffs. I, on the other hand, have not accused Tarc of insinuating anything here: they've massively misrepresented and I'm not sure it that is a comprehension issue or deliberate. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're not sure, and your words can be interpreted a few ways, then I think we've all learned an important lesson here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my words cannot be interpreted in a few ways. And I am sure that Tarc is wrong, for which ever reason it may be, and that it needs to be dealt with. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am sure that Tarc is wrong, for which ever reason it may be... This sounds close to demanding a crime found to meet the sentence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are twisting things. Just take me as read: I'm not a complicated person and I'm not a schemer. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't stop you from unfair comment about your fellow editors. This thread is not constructive__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush:. No, they won't become set in stone, that hardly ever happens. (Admittedly, it's set in stone that I'm a toxic personality, but that was Jimbo, not Tarc.) The sooner you disengage, the sooner they'll be forgotten, and they're altogether not worth chewing over in this way. @Tarc: Please don't call people "boorish" (an extremely poor choice of words) and suchlike, that can only inflame a situation. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

Situshi seems to object to various criticisms leveled by Tarc, and to prove the point Situshi vaguely points to edits and remarks made by CarolMooreDC. So CMDC is the strawman/strawwoman and is thereby subjected to NPA violations. Those comments about CMDC should be {{rpa}}/redacted. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Srich, the arbiter who manages to piss off both Eric and Carol with supposedly well-intentioned pseudo-admin interventions? Tell me which criticisms need support and I'll provide the diffs - unlike Tarc, I have no objection to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

All this is is just spillover from the big Gender Gap discussions above. I took umbrage yesterday to Sitush badgering and browbeating Carolmoore, particularly with the insinuations that the Gendergap mailing list is a place to coordinate meatpuppetry...a theme, it seems, as he harangued the GGTF today with this "warning" about registering at women.com. As if women gathering together to discuss issued they're interested in is in itself nefarious. So ever since, Sitush has hounded me with this "DIFF DIFF DIFF GIMME DIFFS!" crusade, when I have clearly explained (via this response) to him that it is his overall attitude and demeanor, towards Carol and towards the subject itself, that is at fault. That is my answer to his question of "tell me where I said that"; I'm sorry if a wiki-jargon "diff" cannot encompass the entirety of one's sub-par behavior when it runs the gamut from my talk page to An/I to Jimbo's talk page (this secion, which contains colorful gems like "'only an involved idiot does that.

I don't want to bar people from my talk page...I even let some of my former banned foes that I've made amends with lately post there if they have something to say...but it's almost at the point where this particular person is going over the line. Besides the "do you have a reading comprehension" stuff already noted above, Sitush likes to insult via edit summary as well; nonsense - you don't seem even to understand punctuation, stop being an idiot. If he can clean that up, that'd be great. If not, then it's outta my hands. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a valid concern that there might be meatpuppets that are being gained from the mailing list. It looks like it's unregulated and any discussion there can lead to a page being edited by request, therefore de facto meat puppetry. Whether that's bad or not is up for debate; especially given it's mostly people who support getting rid of the gender gap. But I don't see him insinuating that there is, just telling you to be cautious about WP:MEAT. to him that it is his overall attitude and demeanor, towards Carol and towards the subject itself, that is at fault. So he's editing with a supposed POV, like everyone else on Wikipedia? Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And, yet again, you misrepresent what I said, now including what I said at the GGTF talk today. Are you ever going to stop? - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is called a "difference of opinion", obviously you have a different interpretation, but what I see is you undercutting and undermining the Gender Gap people with insinuations of coordinating off-wiki actions. You'e done it twice; once regarding the mailing list, the second time regarding the women.com registration site. We could allow for the possibility that you did not intend to be so insulting, but to the outside readers here, it comes across as precisely that. You really may want to tone down the "pseudo-admin bollocks again?" stuff, too. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of assuming that I am talking in code, assume that I mean what I say. It's far easier than trying to read what I deign to call my mind and, more, it is what I meant. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment to me above, you've given information about the criticisms from Tarc, and those criticisms are what the community should look at. Supplying diffs by CMDC would be meaningless. And whether I piss off Eric, CMDC, or you does nothing for your case here. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, the thing is, given the other examples of your poor attitude and demeanor (amply detailed above) towards the gender-gap members, I think my analysis is rather spot-on. Now, I am running back out before the thunderstorms come, engaging in the quaint New England art of haggling over other people's stuff. Until then, have some WP:TEA. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't give a fuck what you think any more, Tarc. You're obviously not prepared to respond to the point that was originally raised and you're obviously incapable of reading English. WP:CIR, I guess.. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush I'm not completely sure what this is all about, but please do not resort to insults and assuming things that may not be true. Remember to stay civil. :) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anyone, I've commented on my state of mind. As for assuming things that are not true, well, that was the entire point of me raising this issue here because that is exactly what Tarc was doing. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it ... - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been disruptive and nasty towards the GG task force, taking the side of the primary disruptors who an ANI was filed against above. I called you out on that after your insinuations that they could be up to meatpuppetry. The "do you understand English?" thing is getting a little stale by now, though, do you think you could kinda...knock that off? I'm an Apple-pie eating, love-my-momma type, and have been speaking the good ol' English for 40+ years now. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merely correcting a mistatement

Sitush wrote that I and Tarc have "suggested that they will ban me from their talk page". I don't know about Tarc, but in fact Dec 14, 2013 I did ban Sitush from my talk page for constant nitpicking comments I perceived as hostile harassment. (He responded here with "Do you think I really give a crap?"...why on earth you think that I might post on your page again is beyond me...") Nevertheless he has kept posting and I have kept reminding him he is banned: December 21, 2013, July 27, 2014, July 30, 2014. Need I say it again? Sitush has been banned from my talk page since December 14, 2013 [Later clarification: except, obviously for official notices of things that don't belong on article talk pages.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Someone else who cannot read. I never suggested that you would ban me; I said that Tarc had suggested they would ban me - you are among those who have been encouraging gender-neutral pronouns etc. As usual, you are turning all of this into a "this is me, let's rehash all the old stuff that I wasn't able to get support for before" history. And you are doing it with a point-y subheading, as is also typical of you, drawing attention to your usually pointless and tendentious "it's all about me" scenario. I've also suggested a solution to the forgetfulness of me and others regarding TP bans by censorsious, non-collaborative editors but Elaqueate has suggested that is inappropriate. The sooner you are banned from this place, the better because you are either not learning despite your many years experience, particularly stupid (unlikely) or deliberately anal. Anyways, I'm out of here. Bish knows why. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush wrote: Tarc has now adopted the same course as Carolmooredc adopts when faced with a problem of their own making. Instead of apologising or retracting, they've suggested that they will ban me from their talk page and accused me of yet more things. Whatever you meant, it sounds like you are saying both us us will ban you, future tense. Don't bring up my name in an irrelevant context and in poorly formed sentences and you wont have these problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To What problems do you refer? Is it just bad luck to utter your name, or were you making a threat? If so, could you be more explicit? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat on the Help desk

See [42], and note the IP's previous posts there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that previous posts on the subject, obviously from the same editor, came from 2 other IPs: 2605:A601:803:1401:8827:96A8:5D36:863B and 2605:A601:803:1401:C187:6BE4:73:EAF8. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In the link Andy has provided, the user explicitly states there is no threat of legal action ("Neither was a threat"). This appears to simply be a discussion of whether Wikipedia follows legal rules of evidence. I don't believe a block is necessary at this point. Mike V • Talk 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph in full: "As to legal, I simply told you the facts. Whether Wiki chooses to abide by common legal rules of evidence is Wikis choice as are the potential ramifications that one might point out. Neither was a threat. Just facts". How exactly does talk of "potential ramifications" cease to be an implied legal threat, just because the person claims that it isn't. No threat, no 'ramifications'. And note the IP's previous post: "...someone will eventually challenge that in a law suit..." [43] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think it is NLT violation at this point. I think the first was kind of an attempt make wave lawsuit threat and make people wary, but when faced with the WP:NLT, the second posting was an inelegant attempt to save face and back away. (However, a third attempt would be someone who clearly does not get the point.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, more a misunderstanding on his part that because he may be called in as an "expert witness" in a court case that it has any relevance on Wikipedia, such that he is exempt from Wikipedia's content policies like WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 14:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat. At worst it's an attempt to put people on edge or sound important by using legalese. But I'm assuming it's just someone trying to analogize. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And explaining Andy's second diff above... what the IP is saying is that because we don't follow the sourcing standards he suggests, Wikipedia will probably get sued by someone about some other article where we got the facts wrong. So it's more a case of sowing fear to win a dispute rather than actually threatening to sue. It's not an uncommon argumentative tactic off-wiki... and while probably not acceptable when used spuriously by established editors, with this editor it merits a warning at worst (and not a NLT warning). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat but repeatedly asking the same question -- annoying creating a new section every time -- is certainly tendentious. I've left a note attempting to firmly point that out and suggest they use the article talk page instead of the help desk. NE Ent 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies

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

---

Drmies (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring, NPOV issues and ownership behavior. He recently created an article on Jewish businessman Maup Caransa,[44] which had recently expanded to include a number of odd statements. These statements appeared to me to consist of unintentional, antisemitic tropes that appeared to be misrepresenting the sources, claiming this Jewish businessman had made a "killing" selling parts from a wrecked car (not in the source); that his parents and three brothers were simply "taken away" to "German camps", failing to note that the actual source said that his family died there; that he survived WWII because of his "non-Jewish appearance"; and that when he was kidnapped and held for ransom, he "continued to ply his trade, which was wheeling and dealing".[45] In combination, these are all known stereotypes of Jews, and combined with the playing down of the Holocaust and the death of Caransa's family, I began to take action.

I attempted to fix these problems,[46] and left a message on the talk page.[47] Instead of responding to the talk page discussion, Drmies partially reverted my edits, saying "no, this is what the sources say" in the edit summary.[48] I can handle that view, and not wanting to engage in any edit war, I visited his talk page and politely directed the user to the article talk page, as by now, there was still no response to my outstanding request.[49] Since I had already addressed this problem on the talk page, I made my way back to the article to look for additional problems. Because Drmies was very interested in sticking to "what the sources say", I noticed other problems right away.

For example, Drmies had added, "During World War II his parents and three brothers were taken away to the German camps." But the actual source says " After the war - his parents and three brothers died in concentration camps." There is a big difference between "taken away" and "died", so I added "During World War II his parents and three brothers were taken away to the concentration camps where they died."[50] This was again reverted by Drmies, with no mention of the revert in the edit summary.[51] After reverting, Drmies finally arrived on the talk page, not to discuss the problems, but to make baseless threats.[52] Further, he visited my talk page and accused me of "original research" simply for linking to Nazi concentration camps.[53] It was explained to Drmies that the previous term German concentration camp is a redirect to List of Nazi concentration camps, and as such, there is no original research.[54] I have no idea why Drmies is trying to play down the fact that these were Nazi concentration camps and that Caransa's family died there (both facts that he has deleted), but combined with the above edits about antisemitic stereotypes, I am concerned.

Please note, I have made every attempt to use the talk page, to politely contact the user, and to avoid all semblance of edit warring, and I have refrained from making a single revert. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You opened a talk page discussion a little over an hour ago and you're already here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree I don't know how this escalated so quickly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have exhausted every avenue available to me, which is why I filed this report. Instead of addressing the concerns I raised on the talk page, Drmies has made a series of threats and false accusations. This is in addition to his edit warring and addition of unsourced, problematic material. I have already been reverted twice, and I'm unable to edit. And as for the talk page, my attempt to discuss has been blocked. That's why I'm here. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. (Re)read WP:DR. Lots of avenues still open. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I chose to pursue this one. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not for DR the panda ₯’ 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The user didn't do anything even remotely politely--I reverted one of his changes because, well, they were wrong and I figured they didn't know since, well, I speak Dutch and they don't. Next thing you know I'm being accused of being an antisemite on the article talk page, of being an alcoholic on my own talk page (or gay--whatever "bender" means for this user), and I get an edit warring template slapped on my talk page. So yeah, I'm a bit pissed at this character, yes, who could have posted a nice note with a question on my talk page, rather than the passive-aggressive third-person insults in their edit summaries. You reckon I'm going to get an apology for the drunk, gay, antisemite comments? From someone who has templates at the ready after one single revert? Imagine if this person runs into a new editor--great advertising for the project. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I edited the article and made a comment on the talk page, complete with diffs, with no accusations against anyone. In response, you reverted me twice, and made threats and false accusations on the talk page. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Ahem **bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language"** **edit warring warning after one revert** **"We aren't transcription monkeys, as I'm sure you've heard"** **"you are on a bender"**. Cough. What threats? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scorecard:

Drmies -10 points for templating a regular

Viriditas -100 points for accusations of being "on a bender"

Drmies -2 points for "banning" someone from your talk page -- that's so lame.

Ent -1,000,000 points for falling off the wagon and reading ANI again ...

Perhaps --

Someone could wrap a close tag around this obvious content dispute admin action not required

A neutral, Dutch speaking editor -- perhaps from the list at Category:User_nl -- could be politely asked to review the sources?? NE Ent 04:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See talk page, Ent. Note they templated me first, so they should get those ten points too. Plus "Your disruptive edits" is a non-neutral heading. Also, don't be so hard on yourself; you're doing fine, and an occasional relapse is no biggie. Finally, does anyone get points for spending a few hours writing an article on someone who is eminently notable--someone who was certifiably tragic, heroic, and comic? Or does WP only do negative scorecards? Caransa played bridge, every week, in the Continental Club until 1 AM. I think he was a better sport than some of us. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is disruptive, and the heading was accurate, as is this report. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see this report going nowhere. Are you still calling me a drunk antisemite? or just an unintentional one? BTW, I retract my "get off my talk page", after Ent's wise words; please come by any time you like. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have interacted many times with Drmies over the years, and we have collaborated on a few articles. I happen to be a Jew, for whatever that is worth. Occasionally, we have disagreed, though far less often than we have agreed. I have found him to be responsive to any concern I raise, willing to correct errors (we all make them) and kind and thoughtful in every way. I see zero evidence of any malice on Drmies' part here. Zero. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Drmies could, I dunno, actually address the concerns about his editing choices instead of going on the offensive with the variant of the old "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR!?!" deflection. So, want to actually act like an editor discussing edits instead of exercising your fainting couch? --Calton | Talk 05:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, that both http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4/AMSTERDAM/article/detail/257579/2009/08/08/Ten-Slotte-Maup-Caransa-1916---2009.dhtml and http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/20489814/__Caransa_dwong_geluk_af__.html indeed literally says that he supposedly survived the second world war due to his non-Jewish appearance. ".., making a profit" is a huge understatement when you buy a car wreck for 1.5 gulden, and sell it piece-by-piece for 'een paar tientjes' (a couple of 10 gulden notes; which suggests at least 20 gulden): at least 13 times as much as what he bought the car wreck for. That is, indeed, a significant profit (I think the simple mathematics involved here far surpass the original research involved). Going on, our article already says that they were taken away and did not return, I think that the 'where they died' that Viriditas inserted is superfluous, it is mentioned clearly later. So maybe Viriditas here could, when they have concerns about writings referenced to other-language sources that they do not seem to be able to read themselves and at best use a translation for stick to talkpage discussion instead of implementing such changes themselves (or at the very least, not react like this when they get reverted by an editor who can read the original text without using a translation service? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, I must take serious issue with your defense of Drmies here. The NRC Handelsblad source cited in the article says, "Na de oorlog – zijn ouders en drie broers stierven in concentratiekampen" ("After the war - his parents and three brothers died in concentration camps").[55] Clearly, that is not superfluous. "Making a profit" is not an understatement at all, and the original wording added to the article was "killing", which isn't supported. In fact that source says he made a profit and uses the word "winst"[56] which means "profit"[57] so my edit was correct. Furthermore, the parool.nl source says nothing about a "non-Jewish appearance". It says "Dat hij overleefde, dankte hij, zei hij later, aan zijn gemengde huwelijk en zijn uiterlijk: blond, bijna rood, lichtblauwe ogen."[58]. According to that source, he said he survived due to his marriage to a Catholic woman and his blond hair and blue eyes. However, the source used to support this controversial wording De Telegraaf is clearly inappropriate and unreliable in a biography article.[59] According to our own article on this source, it "contains many "sensational" and sports-related articles, and one or more pages the content of which is supplied by the gossip-magazine Privé ("Private").... During World War II, the Telegraaf companies published pro-German papers, which led to a thirty-year ban on publishing after the war". I would say the use of this source to support the wording of a "non-Jewish appearance" is inappropriate. What do Jews look like? Do they have horns protruding out of their head? I stand by my comments on this matter. To recap, 1) his family died in the Nazi concentration camps. This should not have been removed and was fully supported. For Drmies to call this "original research" is unusual. 2) The word "profit" was entirely correct per the sources, and 3) the only source cited for his "non-Jewish appearance" was the unreliable sensationalist/gossip newspaper De Telegraaf. Lastly, at no time did Drmies attempt to discuss this before engaging in multiple reverts and making baseless threats and accusations. I was on the talk page trying to discuss this matter with no response from Drmies at any time, just reverts and threats. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies created Maup Caransa (1916–2009) seven hours before this report was created! If (that's if) Drmies used such problematic language in the article that a report to ANI is warranted, Viriditas should first spend some quality time explaining the issue (not in edit summaries, and not with sections titled "Your disruptive behavior", and not here). Drmies is well known as a good content creator and I have seen no previous suggestion of problematic language, so this report is amazingly premature and should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried explaining on the talk page, and invited Drmies to discuss. In return, my edits were reverted twice without discussion and I was threatened and accused of adding original research. At no time did I ever use edit summaries to explain the problem, and I proceeded directly to the talk page after I made my first edit to the page and before the reverts ever occurred. The section title of "Your disruptive behavior" was added to the user's talk page after two separate edits were reverted twice by Drmies without discussion, and after the user refused to discuss the problem after he was invited to do so. Edit warring is disruptive behavior, and my section title was accurate. At no time did I revert Drmies, nor have I added back any content that was removed. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just minutes after I filed this report, Drmies added additional controversial material, this time claiming that the actions of the Dutch Jews were directly to blame for the German invasion of their town. Drmies appears to be insisting on a false equivalency between the actions of the Dutch pro-Nazi movement and the Jews who fought back in self-defense, but places the blame squarely on the Jews for the subsequent actions of the German soldiers, writing "The killing of WA-man Koot by a Jewish knokploeg was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans".[60] I've assumed good faith that he isn't doing this on purpose, and this is mostly due to his poor translation, but even the source he cites doesn't say this. Drmies cites an opinion column (he shouldn't be doing that in a biography) that attributes that claim to the Nazis, which Drmies conveniently forgets to cite. ("De Duitse bezetter gebruikte dit incident als aanleiding om een razzia te houden en meer dan 400 Joodse jongemannen op te pakken.") I believe that NPOV means "Neutral Point of View", not "Nazi Point of View". Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are blatantly accusing Drmies of being an anti-Semite. This is a very serious personal attack on your part, and an egregious failure to AGF. Doc talk 09:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I quite blatantly said it was "unintentional" (exact word) and I wrote just above your comment, "I've assumed good faith that he isn't doing this on purpose, and this is mostly due to his poor translation". Is that clear enough for you to retract? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Retract what? You said just above he "conveniently forgets to cite" stuff; and that it should not be a "Nazi Point of View". Because... of someone else? Heh. No, I will not retract the observation that you are accusing him of what you plainly are. Doc talk 10:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into my comments, more than is actually there. If you bothered to read my report you would find that I have not accused anyone of being an antisemite or a Nazi. Furthermore, if you bothered to read the article on Maup Caransa, you would find that much of it is written in broken English as the result of a poor translation, hence the current problems up above. "Nazi Point of View" refers directly, in this instance, to the claim in the opinion column, which illustrates the Nazi POV. That's called attribution, and it did not find its way into the article when Drmies added it. Pretty simple, really. In other words, the claim, ""The killing of WA-man Koot by a Jewish knokploeg was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" was the claim made by the Nazis, per the source.[61] Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think you have strayed into the ridiculous (although thanks for the "broken English" comment!). "Impetus" does not mean "a valid excuse". You are the one who is reading that into the word, and now you are accusing me of a Nazi point of view? The absurd claim that this is based on a column is just that, absurd, and shows that you don't know your ass from your elbow. Yes, De Telegraaf was "wrong" during the war [GASP! another euphemism! NAZI POV! "wrong"! well, that's the word the Dutch use], which doesn't mean that they're automatically wrong sixty years later, and at any rate every reader of history knows that the death of Koot was the excuse the Germans were looking for, and led directly to the February strike. Here and everywhere else. But I'm saying this not for your benefit, but for the onlookers.

Last night I thought maybe you were misunderstanding things, and that you were going to stop digging in this silly hole of yours. Now that you have accused me of having a Nazi POV, I really have no words for you, and I don't know what to say to everyone else either. This is more character assassination than I know what to do with. Let someone who masters English better than me rewrite this article, and give Viriditas a barnstar for heroically fighting Nazi scum. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "These statements appeared to me to consist of unintentional, antisemitic tropes that appeared to be misrepresenting the sources..." That's how you start this thread. I don't care about your content dispute! If you weren't really accusing him of anti-semitism, you might not want to lead off with that... and then lamely try to explain it away as not actually accusing him of it. At the top you say, "I have no idea why Drmies is trying to play down the fact that these were Nazi concentration camps and that Caransa's family died there (both facts that he has deleted), but combined with the above edits about antisemitic stereotypes, I am concerned." Why are you "concerned"? Because of "Nazi POV? Doc talk 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you visit the talk page, you'll discover that I first described the problem as "highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language.[62] I believe this is due to a poor translation of the source material. Nobody has been accused of being an antisemite or a Nazi. I think there is a huge difference between identifying content that has problems and a problematic editor. I brought Drmies to this board because he refused to let me edit the material and he refused to respond to any discussion about it, and then he began making threats and accusations. I did not bring him here because he's an antisemite or because he's a Nazi. Unfortunately, it's quite late here (12:35 am) and past my bedtime, so I won't have any free time to address new comments. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• I propose a boomerang here. --John (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose away. I stand by every word I've written here. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On the one unfortunate occassion that I've found myself on the other side of a conflict dispute with Viriditis, I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of personal pointlessly insulting commentary such as:

"Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing."

Followed by additional comments such as

'Now you are clearly trolling" and "Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up"

Along with a fair bit of similar commentary. It's very difficult for me to believe his claims of being the innocent victim of a completely unprovided personal attack in this situation. His track record says otherwise. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I really fail to see what your comment has to do with this discussion. I have not claimed to be a victim of any personal attacks in this thread. Are you sure you're in the right thread, or even on the right noticeboard? The link you offer indicates a dispute from March about cannabis. I'm having trouble seeing how that fits in here. Is that what is known as thread hijacking? Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it looks like a pattern of the first response to any content conflict being to question the motives, intelligence, or good intent of the person on the other side of the issue.

"Just a note to say that I've removed highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language" may be what you consider "very diplomatic", but what I would call highly diplomatic would have been something more along the lines of "Drmies, I am concerned that the specific language that you used here ("quote")could be interpreted by some as inappropriately supporting stereotypes. I propose changing it as follows, or "For this reason I have changed it as follows". Initiating a discussion by calling another editors language "highly problematic" and informing them that you have changed it for this reason is not "very diplomatic" in most people's minds. And Mark Millers rant went completely off the charts. I'm not sure why he is not the topic of this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean discuss the issue? But ANI is more satisfying. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed. --John (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scuse me Viriditas, but you might have taken this slighty wrong. I know Drmies, we wrote articles about for example Jewish artists when he clearly expressed that he condamned and hated what happened in the concentration camps. This the playing down of the Holocaust ... well, must have been some kind of communication problem. Please seek WP:Conflict resolution instead, you don't want to put this on ANI, he was nice to you several times and deffended you, remember. Do not make this into a conflict, I am sure it can be resolved. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Above, Formerly 98 says "(On the one) unfortunate occassion that I've found myself on the other side of a conflict dispute with Viriditis, I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of personal pointlessly insulting commentary". Yup. This is exactly my experience as well. In additional to the personal pointlessly insulting commentary, it's usually mixed in with lots of subtle insinuations, weaselly insults and attacks (worded "just so" that if anyone points out that insults and attacks are being made, Viriditas can come back with some kind of "oh you're just being sensitive" excuse) and... just comments and assessments completely detached from reality, but made with a straight face as if repeating something over and over again made it true. That kind of behavior is plenty on display here it looks like. Not a pleasant person to have to run into. A boomerang is long overdue. Volunteer Marek  05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

For some insight as to why "Volunteer Marek" feels this way, see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list case from 2009, particularly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Viriditas. That's a long time to hold a grudge! Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• If someone called me an anti-Semite, I'd be pissed too. Technically Viridatias didn't call Dmries anti-Semitic. The question is does anyone think it was intentionally phrased not to call Dmries an anti-Semite, but rather to imply and provoke?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

• Propose warning to User:Viriditas for personal attacks and failure to follow prescribed avenues of DR, with a block to follow if repeated. --John (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have this quote on the article Talk page:
    • "I don't know what the fuck you are screaming at and I don't give a fucking shit. Don't patronize me either. Thanks. If you don't understand what my issue was...fine. But don't you dare try to make me the issue when you are the one that added the content. I actually DID give you credit and you actually did make a change to the content. So...what the fuck is the issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)"

How you are going to single out Drmie's behavior from the other incivil and escalating behavior in this interchange is beyond my imagination. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Meh; Viriditas is clearly upset by what is in the article, and we should try to understand that. The PAs and failure to follow DR are problematic, but "sanctioning" with a warning (is that even a sanction?) isn't really necessary. The failure of an ANI thread to attract useful attention is usually warning enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• i don't wish to see the editor sanctioned but I wish to see the hideous charges of antisemitism and inserting Nazi POV retracted. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, it's clear from the talk page that for whatever reason you quickly became very agitated and uncivil there. It's also clear that Viriditas was careful not to suggest that you personally endorsed any such POV. Where do you see such charges, the ones you wish retracted? SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the exact quote, emphasis mine Just a note to say that I've removed highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language. And a grammar ... expert like Drmies should -- and I believe would normally -- recognize that "wording," not "Drmies" is the subject of that sentence, and that, at the very beginning Viriditas was explicitly stating they did not believe there was any intent to be offensive. (To be explicitly clear here -- I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing that the original wording was offensive, only that I can easily see how it might strike editors of differing backgrounds that way.) NE Ent 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Additionally, of course we inserted Nazi POV into the article -- because the sources tell us it was historical fact Caransa survived because of how the Nazis perceived him, and I interpret Viriditas's comment -- as expanded up by Mark Miller -- as a concern that hewing too closely to the sources made it appear as if Wikipedia endorsed that viewpoint, not that they ever believed Drmies personally felt that way. And when Viriditas made the comment on Drmies user talk about a Bender, well, that was just acting like an ass. NE Ent 17:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The community has an overriding right to expect better behavior, civil, constructive, and collegial, from its Admins. Notwithstanding any miscommunication, good intentions, or anything else, Drmies failed in that respect. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it kick an admin day already? Drmies created an article, and 90 minutes later Viriditas removed "highly problematic wording" and wrote the above on the article talk—that's what we do when confronting a known anti-Semitic POV pusher. If people are going to edit in a collaborative environment they need to recognize when they are dealing with a known-good content creator and actually engage with them. Viriditas has stated as fact that Drmies is either anti-Semitic or stupid when what was needed was a frank exchange of views based on an assumption of good faith—something like "Hey Drmies, are you aware that what you wrote can be interpreted ... I think that has to go". Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen Viriditas state that anywhere, please provide a diff to support that contention ... or better yet, strike it. NE Ent 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe Drmies is an antisemite or stupid. However, Wikipedia is an international project, and editors from different parts of the world with unique cultures may not spot certain tropes. As an American who is sensitive to American issues, I might see something like "so and so loves fried chicken and watermelon" in an article about an African American, and I'll remove it as vandalism. But would someone from another country recognize that as problematic material? Even if it was sourced? In the same way, I can detect Jewish stereotypes on biography articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: All the information is in my comment, but to expand, "highly problematic wording" is an assertion of fact, and I'll leave it to you to interpret "bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language". There is no way to parse that statement without concluding that it asserts Drmies is stupid—what other good faith conclusion can be drawn? That Drmies might not read books and so is unaware of WWII history and its aftermath? My comment above explains what should have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I don't think Drmies failed in that respect. Viriditas got angry and called Drmies a bender (that would mean gay or alcoholic) - and Drmies got angry - because he did helped Viriditas quite a lot before. These dicussions about sensitive topics provoke often feelings that run higher than usual, - like minorities, women rights, and so on provoke often feelings that might run much higher than usual, and people misunderstand each other twice as fast as usual. And then somebody - tried to - well - do something, and posted a template on his page that he edited Easter European country related articles - and those are under Arb. Com. sanctions, probably as a warning so he should stop, but Amsterdam (the place this article is related to) is in Western Europe, so that not made him very happy either. Mark Miller tried to help - but then it was to late because Drmies was quite upset, so he made a sharp comment to him, - and - Well - Mark is a warrior. In soul and hart. But he and Dr Mies are friends in fact... so, here you have the whole mess. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right that we have a right to expect better behavior, civil, consturctive, and collegial

• Thus Viriditas should not have initiated the conversation with a confrontational post, referring to the language of the article as "highly problematic" and waving the "stereotyping" red flag.
• And Dmries should not have engaged in unexplained reverts.
• And of course Mark's comments were as over the top as anything one sees in a typical month on Wikipedia.

What is not clear is why the narrow focus on Dmries behavior, and zero on the behavior of the other participants in this escalation. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When I saw this thread, I figured it would be depressing, and it is. I've interacted with Drmies plenty of times, and I am very sure that they are responsible and reasonable about editing disputes. Open up a content dispute where antisemitism and Nazis are involved, and people are going to get upset easily. Edits in that area require extra effort to make sure that one is not being misunderstood. Instead of seeking understanding, this conflict escalated much too quickly. Someone said way above that this didn't need to come to ANI, and they were right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, where antisemitism and Nazis are involved people are going to get upset easily. That is the whole point, the whole tragic point, because they made those poor people suffer incredibly - and - sigh, it is still there. Will this never stop? Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The latest news is that Viriditas has decided that the article needs to be renamed, and has moved it to Maurits Caransa without talk page discussion or a by-your-leave--much to the surprise of Maup himself, no doubt. This is sour grapes, pure disruption, and without justification given the sources (which are roughly 50-50, though leaning toward Maup, which is also the title of the Dutch wiki article). Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you are being confrontational every time I edit the article? English sources refer to him by his formal name, not his nickname. Could you please look at the English language literature? Or are you saying we should base our article titles on the usage preferred by Dutch sensationalist gossip rags? Local media often chooses "pet" names for their local boys. We wouldn't, for example, move Barack Obama's page to "Bam", simply because the New York Post chooses to use that pet name. The Associated Press and other English sources refer to him by his formal name, as should we. I made a simple move. There's nothing controversial or disputed about it. Per WP:CRITERIA, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• And for the record, Drmies has just reverted for the third time, just over the 24 hour mark.[63] I have not made a single revert, yet I have been accused of edit warring on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Guilty as charged. I'm not accusing you of edit warring, by the way; I'm accusing you of pointy behavior, of grinding an axe. Go write an article yourself: this one seems to take up all your time and energy.

    In this case I'm accusing you of misreading the Dutch source (it was a series of raids--please don't minimize what the Nazis did) and of producing an English sentence that can't be parsed: does your "them" refer the members of the Jewish Action Group or to the Germans? So, sure, yeah, I reverted you. Cause you wuz wrong. Sorry, but I think there are more important issues than you getting your feelings hurt after you butcher a source--things like correctness, and respect for this man, and respect for the Amsterdam Jews, who weren't subjected to "a" raid but to a series of raids ("razzia's") that went on for days and then were ghettoized and subjected to a Judenrat. Those things are important. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • You are doing everything possible to be obnoxious (moving the article because you know best, and escalating at ANI with talk of 3RR). Why don't you give it a rest and return in a week? Is it really so important to win a war over what is essentially a good article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, I haven't made a single revert (Drmies has now made four in the last 24+ hours, three against me and one against an IP) and I haven't been obnoxious anywhere. I moved the article to the correct page title per our best practices, and I did so to improve Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you stick to the facts and avoid making comments about my intent. Admins are not exempt from the rules. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • And now we're at WP:ANEW as well. I note that Viriditas has spent all but two of their last 82 edits on this crusade, so I regret to say that we're really in HOUNDING territory. In the meantime I wrote up Oud-Strijders Legioen and Hendrik Koot (which I suggest Viriditas check for Nazi POV), wrote up a few DYK noms, reviewed a couple of them...in other words, I'm doing my best to not concentrate on this spat too much, but with three active threads and a bunch of talk page stuff that's hard. The latest: "thou shalt not use non-English sources", with the utterly false and preposterous claim that "There are more than enough English language sources that cover his life in detail". There aren't. Now, I'm pretty much done with Maup (that's his name, not "Maurits") and will happily try to forget all about this and the other forum threads. I wouldn't mind an IBAN though, if it meant Viriditas would leave me alone; I'm not very likely to bother him with his articles, though the last time I did it was to help him out with a harassing sock puppet. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • We're at ANEW beacuse you are still reverting me (and an IP) and you've made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours+. I really don't think an IBAN is appropriate here, as it seems like an attempt to game the system and avoid addressing the problematic edits I've described on the talk page. I feel that is highly disingenuous at best and an attempt to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I've closed the ANEW report as No action. Probably best to discuss this matter at one location at a time, and no 3RR is involved or alleged. --John (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, can I put this clearly enough? STOP this, stop this here and now. Take some deep breath, just take walk, go shopping, fishing, boxing, go to the church, synagogue, take a long walk on the beach - pick some flowers, sing a song - anything but this. It is hurting YOU, my friend. Stop it NOW. Please. We all understand that you are hurt - but don't don't hurt back, please. שלום־עליכם Hafspajen (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • (ec) As I stated on the 3RR noticeboard: Viriditas, Drmies instated an edit, you Boldly changed it (and started a Discussion), and got Reverted. Why are interested editors not at the Discussion on the talkpage (like with every BRD), but keep Reverting (against BRD), and going around on several noticeboards (it is also at WP:RS/N I understood, and I commented earlier at WP:3RR regarding this). Can some admin please close this thread, close the other threads on the other noticeboards with the strong suggestion to first try to come to a consensus on the talkpage (and not push reinstating the change or go to other dramahboards until that discussion has come to an end - failure to do so should likely need to result in some editors being sanctioned here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. Hafspajen (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IPUser 128.189.191.60

IPUser 128.189.191.60 (talk) posted persoanl attacks and insulting comments in a discussion[64], and he continued his personal attacks in his comments despite being asked to revert his offensive comments.[65] STSC (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP says they are withdrawing, but I don't understand the attempt to use reasoning to argue for city anthems, we depend upon reliable sources directly stating that the "national anthem of " HongKong, Beijing, etc "is...". Hm, that might put me on the side of the IP. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have used the RPT template to remove the personal attacks from the IP. Regarding the "national anthem", you might have misunderstood the issue. STSC (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper spamming livingselfsufficient YouTube channel

So far I've found 98.172.137.172 (talk · contribs), 190.198.148.91 (talk · contribs), User:91.238.146.30, 190.201.131.15 (talk · contribs) and User:190.204.106.127. Whoever it is quickly changes IP addresses. They are spamming [66]. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be addressed with an edit filter? The parameters for the {{youtube}} template used by the IP seem to change all the time, so I wouldn't know how to grab the actual output. Anyhow, we should put the full url on the WP:BLACKLIST. De728631 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment claim by conflict of interest editor

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

---

I reported User:Ruthjhendry at WP:COIN for her repeated attempts to add her name to the article Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) without appropriate references or verification. In her reply, she has made an accusation of harassment:

'I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'

I am elevating this here because of the seriousness of a harassment complaint, which should be investigated. Whilst I am here, I welcome editors to read the posts at WP:COIN. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should never have been raised at WP:COIN (or here for that matter). Ms Hendry saw a list on Wikipedia which she feels that she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and has offered what she considered to be a legitimate means to verify said claim. That such verification doesn't comply with WP:RS requirements doesn't make for a 'conflict of interest' at all - instead it is a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. A little more sympathy for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's bureaucratic labyrinth of policies and guidelines would assist greatly in avoiding such problems in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and I posted to the COIN page about it. 86.158.181.1 is being excessively confrontational. Dangerous Panda (at COIN) also should try to be more understanding if he decides to engage with an issue like this. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason it has been raised here is, despite having the policies explained by multiple users, Miss Hendry has not engaged in discussion and tried to force her edits through [67]. I have taken the time to provide details explanations for her. A conflict of interest is defined at WP:COI as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry's only edits have been problematic edits to include her name on the article that have avoided discussion. I hope you can see why a conflict of interest request was appropriate, considering the lack of discussion elsewhere. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw and commented on this issue at COIN discussion seen in this thread.I agree completely with AndyTheGrump's comment above. This is a legitimate request per our own article on Senior Wrangler. If there is a lack of understanding on how Wikipedia functions we should help and inform, kindly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

The article in question includes an incomplete list of Senior Wranglers. Wishing for the list to be as complete as possible does not constitute a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's objectives. And neither does failing to understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing constitute a conflict of interest. I can see no evidence whatsoever that IP 86.158.181.1 attempted to discuss the matter with Ms Hendry prior to escalating the matter at WP:COIN - and any complaint of a 'lack of discussion' works both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for banning user Mdann52

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

---

User Mdann52 is reverting page COMSATS Institute of Information Technology to its 'very' old version citing 'paraphrasing issues' as the reason. The truth is this that it's not true. The article has been written by myself using information from official and authentic websites. It's not copy-paste. This user seems to have some other issues involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master07420 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On another note every single revision between his current revert and the one it was reverted to appear to have been rev-deleted, any admin able to advise why? Scratch that, theyve be redacted as copyvio's. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC

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

Ravishyam Bangalore's disruptive editing continues

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846 § Disruptive edits by User:Ravishyam Bangalore, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821 § Aadhar, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819 § User:Ravishyam Bangalore issuing legal threats and disruption

He returned to edit the article Aadhaar, yesterday.[68] He was reminded,[69] but he continues to add promotional content.[70] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015 resubmission

Original ANI report here. Despite a 72 hour block from admin Go Phightins! for failing to adhere to MOS:TV by submitting ponderous Cast lists that duplicated existing content in the article, user Avenger2015 continues to be disruptive.

In these two edits he adds another redundant cast list. In these two edits he continues adding to a duplicate cast list that he started. I think once a reasonable person learns that their duplicate cast list is objectionable, he would think to remove them, but he certainly would not add to them. And in the following four edits, he starts to add a cast list, then removes it, then adds it again, then removes it again. Taunting? ([71][72][73][74]).

Then, he makes 34 consecutive edits adding more cast to yet another duplicate section that he started in June. User has not yet gotten the message, and seems to be deliberately disruptive. Compounding matters, the user has never participated in a discussion, so admin help is needed here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a seven day block might grab their attention, unless, by coincidence, they take an eight day editing break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to dissuade the anti-community behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 604,799 seconds. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Obamasstraight420 inserting obscenity into the sandbox

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

---

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

---

User:Obamasstraight420 has pasted an obscene image into the sandbox and also made a personal attack on Jimbo Wales. I have reverted the actions. What can be done about this? The diff contains obscene content. Here is the diff: diff 1999sportsfan (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The image was hardly obscene though. I do it that way all the time ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAH I KNEW someone was gonna say that ! KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Protected page without log entry

I'll try to keep this generalized, as it may be that I am not supposed to draw attention to the specific page...

There is a page with 84 deleted edits, without an entry in the logs, without an indication which user did the deletion, and so on. The page apparently is also fully protected, but again without any indication in the logs of who did this or why.

Can I undelete the page? Can I unprotect it? I can't contact the admin (bureaucrat, steward, ...) who did this, so how do I continue? It is a delicate BLP, so it's not as if think that something nefarious is going on (and I don't believe it is some software error either), but I think it should be at least a redirect to the event it is connected to. But am I allowed to create this?

How does one proceed in such a case? Fram (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's something you can't discuss publicly, the usual approach is email arbcom. It does sound weird. I thought log entries were made automatically when a page is deleted. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like some oversight action, but I would think that they would at least put some notice on the talk page indicating who to contact about it. The only result they can achieve in this way is that individuals will contact them, and they will have to reply over and over again the same thing. Not useful. It is not some stupid attack page but a high profile WP:BLP1E, so it gets lots of attention at the moment. Fram (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, chances are an oversighter will see this thread, or you can email oversight-l or arbcom-l. If the article is protected and cleaned up of problematic BLP content though (or if it's a protected redlink, if that's what you're saying about undeletion), I'd tend to treat it as non-urgent. So people can't edit the article for a while or maybe there's temporarily no visible article about the person. We'll be fine. If you're worried about people being confused by seeing a redlink, you could put up a protected info template saying the article is temporarily unavailable pending resolution of BLP issues, or something like that. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what the oversighter should have done, as he or she knew what the reason for the oversight was. I can't claim that it is temporary unavailable for whatever reason, when it may be that it is permanently unavailable for legal reasons for all I know. And it is relatively urgent as the page really gets many views, which means many readers currently not being served at all (not even by a redirect). The title of the page currently yields over 11,000 Google News results, so it is not some obscure thing or someone only mentioned by name once or twice... Fram (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's an article about the related incident, it's probably ok to make a protected redirect from the person's name to the incident article. With that many news results connecting the two, I don't see how the redirect can worsen things. The info template approach still seems ok with suitable wording, e.g. "this article is currently unavailable due to unresolved BLP issues, please try again later" leaves open that the status can change in any direction. I also wouldn't freak out about readers looking for an article and not getting one. They should get more used to that. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations after final warning

InfoDataMonger appears to persist in violating our copyright policy after a final warning. Dade William Moeller was listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2014-08-26; after finding copyright infringement there I looked at other contributions by InfoDataMonger, and immediately found problems at Eleanor J. MacDonald. The user's talk page already has numerous warnings from Voceditenore; User talk:InfoDataMonger#Copyright problems identifies a number of problem articles, and is followed by a final warning on 28 June 2014. I request that this editor's editing privileges be suspended until this is fully clarified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is very disappointing. InfoDataMonger is contributing articles on valuable topics here, but his continued copyright violation must be stopped. I attempted to work with this editor back in June and explained in some detail how to avoid his hitherto extensive copyvio and plagiarism. I accepted his explanation that editing WP was a steep learning curve (true!) and assumed he would take my advice and warnings on board. At the time, I asked him to go back over his remaining articles and remove any copyvio (I had already repaired 9 of them). Not only does he appear not to have done so, he has gone on to create yet more problematic articles. I was away all of August and had stopped following his contributions. Unless he voluntarily agrees to stop creating new articles or adding substantially to existing ones, at least until the CCI is complete, an indefinite block may be the only answer. I know from personal experience how incredibly time-consuming it is to find copyvio and repair it. We cannot allow him to continue consuming the time of multiple editors like this, not to mention causing potential legal problems for WP. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for blocking IPUser 213.224.50.154

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

---

After this IPUser received two "last warnings" at his/her userpage lately, today he/she made at least two more edits showing blatant vandalism, more specifically at Thibaut Courtois and Antwerp International School. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Schoolblocked for a week. For future reference, AIV is the correct venue in which to report this sort of thing. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing me. Kareldorado (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Trust Is All You Need and South Yemen

User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need is involved in multiple content disputes over the country article infoboxes. The South Yemen dispute (in which I'm not involved), seems to have got particularly nasty, culminating in:

• 26 Aug Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. (...) Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you.

And that, I think was that, until yesterday:

• This discussion does not make any fucking sense; its just four users who pretend they know something about something they clearly don't know anything about...
• And today wikipedia is not a democracy. Do whatever you want, but you stupid *****hole. Don't vote over nothing; just add the factual inaccurate statement in the article if you're stupid enough (you clearly are)
• [75] "I don't care, rape wikipedia. Go fuck it over. Add misinformation. Add information which doesn't fucking make sense. If you're stupid enough to think "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" is a real term (after living in South Yemen), fine add the fucking terms. I don't give a fuck. [...] But go rape Wikipedia, I don't care if you're stupid enough to add those descriptions [...] Again, go and rape Wikipedia and add inaccurate statement. [...] Go and rape wikipedia."

He has unilaterally closed the relevant talk page thread, struck others comments in the process and added the summary "Do whatever you will fools; add the description you like. Idiots do what idiots do best." He then took to a user's talk page to add the above. Somehow I don't think the current closed diff will be allowed to stand and it will probably escalate.

Pretty straightforward: an admin should probably warn him about egregious personal attacks and striking others comments; and block him if this goes any further. I'm not sure that others have been behaving impeccably (some attempted canvassing) but can't see anyone else there has lost the plot this badly. bridies (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, he obviously needs to calm down and observe consensus. It looks like he's getting parting shots in before he retires. If this continues, he definitely does need to be blocked to prevent further disruption. It's frustrating when you see consensus form around what you believe to be factually incorrect, but that's not a reason to disrupt the project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the 26 Aug diff above he said he was retiring, but then changed his mind [76] [77]. bridies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just remove/revert his disruption. If he continues, he can be blocked. This looks more like an isolated incident of blowing up, I doubt blocking here would prevent anything. Seems he's going to take his own break and hopefully he'll be refreshed when he comes back.--v/r - TP 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

block me. Who gives a shit. They add false information on Wikipedia, and I get blocked. Sounds reasonable. What about blocking me for a day, a week, a month, a year, maybe all eternity? Who gives a fucking rats ass; if the point with WP is that three editors are going to come together and make-up things (and then add on Wikipedia), I should be blocked for all eternity since it doesn't seem like I understood the encyclopaedia's agenda. Block me, who the fuck cares? Not them, of course, since they are adding false information (making up forms of government and so on). Go and fucking block me. I give up, I'm a good editor; but the discussion at Talk:South Yemen is literally making me crazy. If thats the point of WP , I certainly shouldn't participate . If you want to block me, 'block me'. The only winners are those who are misinformed! ... And yes, I'm a drama queen. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In his talk page he said to me: "Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. You're wrong, you're adding info on WP which you think make sense, but doesn't.. Marxist-Leninist state, what? Does a liberal state exist? Nope, Conservative state? Nope, but yes, a Marxist-Leninist state exists. Wow, who would have thought. Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you. Do I sound like an idiot? I don't care, why? I'm retiring (at least a very long "extended vacation")."

But he never took any break, he came back just a few hours later and is now active again.

This user page has been involved in anti-consensus edit warring, including violating 3RR, in multiple articles, to push his POVs. Just check his editor history. In every interaction he has several personal attacks. It is intolerable. Zozs (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since the filing, he has written https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624716502 this] on the ANI and this on the article talk page, and still presumes to carry on non-nuclear arguments on other talk pages. Suggest a temp block. bridies (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have watched some of this from the sidelines and without taking sides, I can see TIAYN's frustration. Clearly, he is here to build an encyclopedia based on his contribution history and from the comments shown above, is vehement in his belief that Wikipedia should contain factual information. That said, ranting and raving at other editors is unacceptable and is not going to solve anything, whatever the motivation. TIAYN please take a wikibreak, a walk, a vacation, paint a masterpiece or anything you like, just please walk away from this for a while. When you come back, act rationally and use the appropriate avenues to raise your concerns.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: OK. --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody close this please? Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No. He's said he's going to leave a thousand times already and then keeps violating guidelines. It means nothing. Zozs (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has violated WP:3RR in the Vietnam article (1, 2, 3, 4) along with other instances, in what was anti-consensus edit warring to push POV against what is standard, with no discussion in talk page. Zozs (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're raising a 2 week old edit war. Blocks are preventative. The question isn't what he did from this point back. It's what he is doing from this point forward and whether there is reason to believe he plans to continue being disruptive. This seems like a case of blowing up. It can happen over more than just an hour and can last for a couple weeks until someone gets their head straight. If he is edit warring now or he continues to be disruptive on talk pages, raise it here. But bringing up a 2 week old edit war is really hurting your case rather than making it. You're essentially saying there is nothing bad going on right now that would earn a block.--v/r - TP 18:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The continued suppression of <censored>

forum shopping. Nothing more to do here --Mdann52talk to me! 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently a topic is suppressed on Wikipedia. The suppression goes against all existing guidelines. A similar incident happened in the past, however it was deemed acceptable because there were no widely circulated reports of the incident. (see: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Wales-Denies-Censoring-Wikipedia-Over-Journalist-Rohdes-Kidnapping-497337/1/ and also http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments and also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059) In this case the deletion/suppression taking place is different, as the information has been widely circulated by highly reputable news sources world wide'. Suppressing an article from being created by locking out potential article names, removing the name from related content, suppressing Afd's and undelete requests, blocking users, and also removing references from articles because the name was used in the the title of the article goes against the all existing policies and guidelines in place about something that is world wide news and widely available and acknowledged world wide. The Oversight Committee has gone and created their own policy, instead of only acting within their established parameters. This erodes trust. Wikipedia needs to update their public guidelines/policies to disclose their position on censorship and that they do indeed censor/suppress based on the rejected principle of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm , or this topic ban/suppression needs to be released. The current topic ban destroys the credibility of the encyclopedia. MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) This is quite outside of AN/I's purview, IMO. You can't just keep forum-shopping a pet concern all over the project and expect favorable feedback. Actions were taken by the oversight team out of concern for a living person, per WP:BLP policy. I'd rather see them err on the side of caution, even over-caution, in situations like this. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy fanaticism by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This crosses several noticeboards (BLP and Edit Warring at least), hence why I'm posting this here. An issue has come to light by this particular User, but one that is repeated quite often on WP by others. That is using BLP policy as a blanket shield to revert endless times any content that they contest under the guise of protecting WP and/or the person the article is about. In this particular instance, the subject is not only upset over the perceived "gutting" of her article, but has since used her radio show and her Facebook page with over 10,000 followers to comment on this User and also to debase and degrade Wikipedia.

The specifics are as follows: Rebecca Bardoux, is a former adult film actress and currently an internet radio show host and a stand-up comedian. In July of last year, content began to be added (the expansion of a stub article) regarding her comedian work [78]. This went through various revisions, had references added, reworked, removed and re-added, but was left in the article until August of this year when the User in question removed it along with its cited reference [79]. It was subsequently re-added by several other Editors and then removed or reverted by this User [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] using various claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional".

Then the subject of the article noticed and commented publicly

It appears that new users where involved as well and my next point might explain why I believe this to be true. In the midst of this "BLP compliance allowed edit warring", the person who is the subject of this article took notice of what was happening to her article and she did not like it. She first commented on it on her Facebook page on August 27th [90](forgive me, I am unsure how to get that exact link, but its there now, just scroll down) and then again on her radio show on August 28th [91] at the 27:40 mark. The subject called for her listeners to go on this site and try to recover her article content which was seemingly attempted. Over these two days, Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways from being called unreliable to being "a bunch of bullshit" and calling Wikipedia Editors a "bunch of vigilantes". The subject even went to so far as to post Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' User name on her Facebook page. Others joined in and tried to update the article with additional sources, but this User just won't have it and continues to revert all of the material that has been recently added along with the associated references, see difs above.

The subject also mentioned on her radio show another adult film actress, Brittany Andrews, that she has similar problems with her article over several years. the other person also commented on the subjects Facebook page. The subject also questioned the legality of preventing accurate information from being posted on Wikipedia and speculated about what legal action would be required to prevent people from deleting accurate information about her.

Was this attention as damaging as this transpiring in a major newspaper or magazine, No, but my point is that a User who routinely uses BLP policy as a catch-all shield has not only obscured accurate information, but has caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and the image of its editors. Regardless of your opinion of the subject or her profession, past or present, what this User is doing is making all of us look bad. For the record, I did notify this User of the consequences of his actions here.

I don't know what corrective action to request, because I don't know how this problem should be addressed. We have Editors who use BLP policy to run roughshod over any article about a living person as they see fit regardless of what happens in the real world and/or seemingly without regard for accurate information that even the subject themselves actually want posted. I have heard about similar instances, but this is the first time I have seen it actually transpire as well as hear in the subject's own words about what they think of how their article is managed by the Wikipedia community. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The basic problem here is that PORNBIO is bullshit and these articles should be deleted, not edit warred over. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but this happens with all types of BLP articles. Another that comes to mind is for Robert Spitzer. This person has gone so far as to comment directly on their article's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those should probably mostly be deleted too. The reason we have all those restrictive BLP policies that screw up the articles' neutrality is our practice of writing BLP's against the subject's wishes. We should instead write them the same way we write other articles, but delete them if the subject asks us to. Anyway, yeah, it does look like HW is being POINTy and should back away. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I can find no evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, or commenting on that article's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, NO! That was NOT the intention or inference AT ALL. I was simply responding to the IP with an example of another BLP article where the had commented on their WP article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If we write only what the subject wants, we are not an encyclopedia. If we delete the article if the subject does not like it, we're no better than their PR shill. The policy of paying any attention to subject requests for deletion is a very dangerous one, and this and similar discussions have shown the dangers. (Yes, I oppose a broad interpretation current policy of doing it for non-famous by admin discretion--admin discretion at BLP is much too variable; the proper interpretation of our policy should permit it only in exceptional cases, where for one reason or another, it is not possible to write a fair article. (I have in fact closed a few AfDs as delete on that basis--my objection is to the overuse.0 DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If a person is notable, we don't delete their article just because they don't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways...being called unreliable" - well, that statement at least is correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think 50.0's main point is right, but his supporting argument is weak. If we had stronger notability standards, instead of standards that let us write articles on very marginally known people, then there would be far less problems with this sort of thing.

Notability should be a more or less iron clad answer to "Why do you have an article about me?" Achievement based SNGs are letting us write articles about people who, for some of them, Wikipedia is the only source of serious biographical coverage. That should not be the case. We should amend the GNG to require solid independent biographical coverage before we can write a biography, or amend all the achievement based SNGs to require biographical coverage (or just repeal all the achievement-based standards).

There are far too many cases of "notable work from non-notable people" that still merit an AfD-proof BLP under our current guidelines, which in turn often leads to marginal violations of our other core policies. Yes, the majority of the cases are benign, but this has become a systemic problem, a real flaw in our network of guidelines and policies that is slowly rotting our core mission. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Simply put, this is a crock.

Scalhotrod has saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he says that "several other Editors" added content to the article. There's no reason to believe this. Beginning on August 28, three SPA accounts -- User:Inyourhead4ever, User: Mosmos69 and User:Spottytina have been tag-team editing Rebecca Bardoux to add promotional content to the article. None of these accounts have edited any other articles. There is no significant variation between their edits. It's more than fair to infer sockpuppetry from this behavior pattern; at best, it's coordinated promotional editing in an attempt to evade WP:BLP standards.

Promotional content

The content involved (which can be seen here [92]) is highly promotional and dreadfully sourced. Using the reference numbers on that page, we have:

• (ref 3) An AVN article describing Bardoux as a "performer-cum-comedienne" and describing the audience as "barely aware" of her efforts at comedy. This is the closest to a reliable, independent source to be found in the disputed material.
• (ref 4) Promotionally phrased text taken from a promotional biography on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 5) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe, not really supporting the claim in the article, and inconsistent with other interviews.
• (ref 6) Grossly promotional text taken from a promotional page on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 7) Promotionally phrased text taken from a blog post promoting an appearance by Bardoux on behalf of the blogger's business. Neither reliable nor independent.
• (ref 8) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe.
• (ref 9) Audio recording of article subject posted under her name to youtube. Not independent, at best.
• (ref 10) Press release hawking future appearances by article subject. Not independent, not reliable, and as a report of future events doesn't support the claim that the appearances actually took place. It's particularly curious that the linked pages for the specific appearances (eg, the "Refried Comedy" page for the gig involved) don't even list Bardoux as a performer.

Extensive copyvios

The same disputed content is laced with obvious cut-and-paste copyvios. For example:

• Paragraph 1, "She broke into hardcore in 1992's 'Brother Act,' and soon was one of the hardest working women in the business" is word-for-word identical to the second sentence in the second paragraph of [93].
• Paragraph 3, "She is best known for her anal scenes that are showcased in many of the over 200 titles in which she performed. One of her most memorable scenes was a threesome with Peter North and Sean Michaels in Sodomania 2" is word-for-word identical to the closing sentences of the first paragraph of [94], except that the original begins "Bardoux is best known".
• Paragraph 4, a lengthy paragraph making up roughly half the body of the article, is cut-and pasted without change from [95].

There are 15 sentences in the article. At least eight of them are cut-and pasted from PR sources, in direct violation of both our BLP and copyright policies.

Scalhotrod's accusations

For all his invective, there's nothing to them. It's important to notice that he makes no claim that any of my edits are not justified by policy. It's even more important to notice that he misrepresents the events involved. Claims about Bardoux's putative standup career have been added to the article without proper sourcing since at least the beginning of this year, and I am neither the only nor even the first to remove them. (I believe the first removal was almost exactly a year ago when an editor using the name "Rbardoux" tried to spamlink her youtube channel and was reverted by a bot.) After multiple attempts to plug her as a stand-up comic without reliable, third-party sourcing were rejected, Bardoux used her Facebook page and podcast to inveigh against Wikipedia and. I guess, The Big Bad Wolfowitz. And then the dispute he describes really broke out.

And, really, who cares? This happens all the time. I don't think a day goes by without an article subject being pissed off that they can't turn "their" Wikipedia article into an advertisement or a promotional soapbox. Their wishes are not indulged. Their off-wiki complaints aren't taken as proof they've been mistreated. There's absolutely no reason to give Ms. Bardoux special treatment here.

So what's the bottom line here? Scalhotrod has repeatedly reinstated obvious, substantial violations of BLP and copyright policies to the Rebecca Bardoux article without any substantive explanation, just his standard "Wolfowitz bad" edit summaries. Removing such violations isn't "fanaticism"; it's applying very basic BLP and copyright policies in a situation where there is no reasonable doubt about their application.

Either Scalhotrod's failure to understand WP:BLP principles is so profound that WP:CIR means he shouldn't be editing BLPs at all, or he hasn't brought this complaint in good faith. As the comments made by User:Spartaz and User:Lightbreather in response to his comments about me here just a few days ago[96] underscore, he applies different standards to those he disagrees with than to himself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course HW, people that act like jerks, get treated like jerks, myself included. When I do something stupid, do I deserve to be scolded for it, of course. But the difference that I perceive between us is that I learn from my mistakes and make the effort to analyze, evolve, and modify my behavior. You... well, IMO you're kind of set in your ways and you're entitled to be that way, but the limits of WP:AGF shouldn't be tested (nor blindly invoked) every time someone wants to be a jerk. For example, Lightbreather and I have had our fair share of disagreements and as you've so keenly mentioned in various places, we've been subject to restrictions as a result. That said, I have learned such a ridiculous amount about the site's inner workings, processes, and procedures because of this interaction that I'll never be able to thank her enough. The most positive thing I have to say about our interactions is that the efforts (regardless of the intention) of yourself with regard to Porn related articles is that their collective quality is probably at an all-time high because so many have been inspired to research and cite sources that either were not cited or that were less than preferred. All we (the Editors who are OK with editing porn related articles) have to do is follow in your wake to see what needs fixing or improving. Thank you HW... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Though I'm not going to actually debate the merits of this case, HW's outright dismissal of any critique is completely anticipated. I brought a similar issue to ANI recently and while nothing happened, I did notice that HW's edit summaries had a lot less BITE to them once I reported. HW's style to other editors tends to always start with a BITE and get worse from there. The only exception is when he's writing to an admin, during which he assumes an obsequious tone so as to not raise attention to his normal communication style. It has inspired an essay I'm working to describe the "Eddie Haskell editor style" where one behaves politely only when the parents are around. All that said, the one thing I will add is that anyone's opinion that some BIOs should be deleted is completely meaningless to this discussion. If he (or anyone else) believes they ought to be deleted, take them to AfD for consensus. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself, because that opinion clouds the real issue here - of whether or not the edits are correct. I'm very thankful that HW spends so much time on PORNBIO pages, as it causes our paths to cross less frequently, as I don't spend any time there at all. Whether HW is gaming the system with all the red-letter fanaticism or not is for someone else to decide. I just know he needs to back off the personal attacks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed

Aren't discussions about content disputes supposed to START on the article talk pages? Please read what I wrote[97] on this disputed article's talk page. I suggest this discussion be closed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium raises some larger behavioral issues that might merit discussion here. That said, I don't particularly see this thread resulting in any useful outcome. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium appears to be another user with a grudge against HW and their comment is entirely diff free. That's character assassination not evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sophie.grothendieck

Sophie.grothendieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is extremely involved in topics related to high-frequency trading such as IEX, which is evidenced by the fact that he made six reverts within 17 hours, each time re-inserting the same criticism section:

02:21, 7 September 2014

15:01, 7 September 2014

17:03, 7 September 2014

17:59, 7 September 2014

18:13, 7 September 2014

19:14, 7 September 2014

The main issues here are however that this editor

1. has a conflict of interest with respect to topics related to high-frequency trading
2. made controversial edits in violation of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy
3. and finally, he has lied repeatedly about his conflict of interest.

Let's start with the first point. Using the information this editor disclosed himself, it is easy to find a video presentation about the trading firm that this editor himself called "his firm" and "his employer". In this recorded presentation at time index 04:25, a slide is shown with the following content:

XXX is a high-frequency trading hedge fund at the intersection of computer science and finance

I replaced the name of the firm with XXX for privacy reasons. If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that this editor did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves as "a high-frequency trading hedge fund" during a public presentation, which proves the first point.

The second point is obvious from the edit warring pointed out above and to add a bit of background, IEX is a financial trading venue that spoke out against certain predatory strategies employed by high-frequency traders.

The third point is proven by these quotes:

I cannot make a qualifed statement if we are "doing HFT" because I do not believe there is a general consensus on the definition of that term.

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that's an accurate description of what I consider to be "high-frequency trading" but if that is the definition that you go by, then no, we do not meet those criteria.

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified my position on the talk page that I have no conflict of interest

— Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very unfair to sincere editors who properly disclose their conflict of interest and go through the process of requested edits and the like, when this guy can just lie his way through and gets a pass on it. Kristina451 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Not an admin). I've given a 3RR warning on Sophie.grothendieck's talk since there doesn't seem to be one already. Stickee (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If somebody is called "Sophie" maybe we should call them "she", not "he" Spumuq (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or how about "they" until they self declare? SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Spumuq (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just an arbitrarily chosen alias and I know who he is with certainty. May an admin advise if I can say what role he executes at his high-frequency trading hedge fund? It is a very prominent one and relevant for the fact that he has lied so blatantly about his conflict of interest.

He also knows full well about policy and it would be naive to assume he was not familiar with 3RR. After all, it was him who eloquently requested the semi-protection of that HFT-related topic at 02:23, 7 September 2014 before he went on to violate 3RR by making another five reverts.

But the main issue here is really this guy's excessive abuse to push his vested interest in high-frequency trading, and that he has lied about it. His hedge fund takes other people's money and the public image of HFT affects his fund raising. Regulatory changes fueled by public opinion may also affect his HFT hedge fund. Kristina451 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kristina451, it's always been difficult for us to write policies for COI and disclosure that don't punish the honest while rewarding the dishonest. Have faith that generally in the long run it'll all sort out. This post is better suited for WP:COI/N than here though. Gigs (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Devi ever : fx

I'm having a bit of an issue with a slew of SPA IPs and accounts inserting what I consider to be incorrect and unacceptable material in this little article about a minor company. Further details are on Talk:Devi_ever_:_fx#.22Controversy.22, and I don't wish to repeat myself, but in brief, primary references represented keep getting reinserted into the article, and a manufactured "controversy" keeps getting put in our article, along with information about the former owner--information that, if not an outright BLP violation, is at least deeply problematic. I'd like for an admin or two to assess a. whether these are indeed BLP violations, b. whether the editor (who I believe to be the same as two IPs in the history, and see talk page) needs a warning or stern talking to, and c. whether perhaps the article needs some protection.

As a side note, perhaps editors can see if this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I'm all for supporting small manufacturers of boutique stuff, but this one is really quite minor and the sourcing is, well, meager. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let me add, real brief, that I think there's a COI here as well--related to the company ownership, or perhaps to the botched Kickstarter campaign. Why else these comments on the former owner? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• In the meantime the new account has found the talk page, so the pressure is off a little bit. I'm still interested in opinions, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The company comfortably fails WP:CORP, and a run-of-the-mill kickstarter controversy doesn't make it otherwise. It's neither our job to support small companies nor give a platform for unhappy kickstarter donors. We don't need to dissect which parts of this stuff belong in Wikipedia - none of it does. Off to AfD with it. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devi ever : fx. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism account

User:ZNaseer5's edit history seems to contain only baseless modifications, usually of numbers, without any source or explanation. Please stop them before more damage is done.

Place to report vandalism is thisaway. Amortias (T)(C) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy doxxing

Wikipediocracy doxxed a couple users, including myself (though who I am is no secret) and a minor. REDACTED NAMES PER ADMIN REQUEST. I'm not sure if they're Wikipedia editors, but if they are, their actions are wholly unacceptable. Is there any way to find out if these folks are Wikipedia editors? If so, I'd like to see action taken against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of them are current Wikipedia users. The Wikipediocracy is an external website not under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia in any manner. More often than not though, as in this situation, their editorial 100% nails it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that you've insulted everyone who was editing that article and trying to include information about the issue as misogynists, I'm not terribly surprised you agree with them. But your ill behavior is not at issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that misogynists feel insulted. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, one other thing we have in common is that, unlike the other users involved in the editing of those pages, we both specifically warned @NorthBySouthBaranof: about his/her behavior. Not sure if it is related. Do you know who these people are, North? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would warn you about your behavior in attempting to smear living people on the encyclopedia, but that's already been done numerous times by administrators who have had to repeatedly revision-delete your scurrilous nonsense about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Given your penchant for making unfounded accusations about them, I'm not surprised that you're making unfounded insinuations about me. The answer is no, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation, or at least implication. You are understandably upset about what happened, but maybe step back and think about what you are saying, and reserve your anger for the four individuals at Wikipediocracy, one of whom is already indef blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) who the other three are, but if any of them are still active editors here, I'd support blocks for them. The fact that we cannot regulate what happens at other websites does not mean that we have to put up with the consequences of those happenings, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not upset, more... grimly amused? I mean, I've never been doxxed before. Its like a rite of passage! People really hate me! Rather than the casual hatred they reserved for me in the past. I suppose I am somewhat annoyed at them on the other user's behalf, because, well, I'm an adult and used to such people on the internet, but they're a potentially vulnerable minority minor who now has their picture posted for the world to see in conjunction with their user name and some other personal information which could potentially lead to identification in real life (as opposed to the Internet, though it becomes more and more real every day, I suppose). I apologize for the implication; I just noticed it off-handedly while browsing user talk pages of people who were involved, in case the folk in question were users who had been on the page. Some people list their real life names on their Wikipedia profiles, or link to where they work or whatever. I'm glad to hear you weren't involved, North; thanks for your input, and I'm sorry I came off as accusatory. I have noticed you have been more civil recently, and I appreciate that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On this whole bit, since I am one of the individuals who was supposedly 'doxxed' in this article. It's not all that surprising that people--instead of wishing to conflate or actually dissent with actual arguments, have to refer to finding all the personal information about it. It's a bit weird of an obsession, honestly. I am a real person, you can talk to me, I'm not some robot being inputted some commands by some 'higher up' person, so why wouldn't they fight with an actual idea, a post on my talk page, 'Why did you do X' or 'Y' or 'Z' on this page, and get my real thoughts on it. Instead, they have to use bully tactics, doxxing me and posting information about me. That said, it's obviously more safe for me to not comment about the validity of the information posted, for my safety of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action can be taken here. Wikipedia cannot regulate offwiki attacks, per WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. KonveyorBelt 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can certainly block them here if they aren't already blocked, but unless someone is going to propose a specific on-wiki action, we should close this thread. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I propose that we block the ones who aren't already blocked, and then close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was all the action I could really expect/hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the logic of people who do stuff like this. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. People write My Little Pony fiction? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lots of them. FIMFiction has north of a billion (yes, with a b) words of pony fanfiction on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A link to some explanation of what the hell you all mean by "doxxing" would be helpful for those unfamiliar with this neologism. See Doxing. Otherwise we might assume it was related to "becoming a Doxy:" Floozy, prostitute, mistress. Edison (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't be such a luddite, Edison, with your old-fashioned "dictionary" full of dead, stupid words. Besides, you're wrong: a "doxy" is clearly a more economical version of User:Roxy the dog, with some metathesis or sumpin' thrown in for good measure. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't a doxy a little winged creature that Mrs. Weasley was cleaning out of Sirius' house? Btw, @Tryptofish:, you reverted my attempt to wrap this up nicely, so care to explain what you hope to accomplish by keeping this open? Tarc (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I trust that is no longer a serious question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Why isn't it a serious question? What administrative action are you seeking here? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, it's obvious to me. Take a look at my 23:26 comment. If you wanted to wrap it up, I wonder why you have continued to comment afterwards, and in any case, you were more than a wee bit "involved". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I resemble that remark. -Doxy the rog™ (resonate) 03:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• One of the editors involved in the GamerGate article dispute, Tarc, apparently commented this doxxing article in an edit summary when reverting one of the editors allegedly doxxed: "rv: Good for you to get together some editors who apparently squeezed a non-existent thing out of non-existent sources. It doesn't make t any more real, and it looks like outside eyes are finally getting in on this." I can't interpret that other than an endorsement or approval of the doxxing. Are these kind of shots at the editors mentioned in the article acceptable? --Pudeo' 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure he's just talking about other editors looking at the article; people often refer to getting "other eyes" on stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that Tarc deliberately said (On Wikipediocracy, with the same name) I had fun on Wikipediocracy for awhile pretending to be a black conservative. Can’t really say why or when it started, it just kind of came about during some discussion or other, that it’d be fun to be something else and argue as if that was important. So I rolled with it. “As a black man…” can be quite an argument-buster if wielded correctly.

We can smell our own; Tutelary is complexly, Grade-A full of shit.

As for the rest of the rabble at the Zoe Quinn and related articles, it’s a continuation of the original harassment she endured; the overlap of white, single 18-35 yr olds who are both gamers and Wikipedians is sizable. Since Tarc is a Wikipedia editor, can anything be done about this comment? Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that wasn't someone who used Tarc's name to get him into trouble on Wikipedia? If we rely on Wikipediocracy comments to block Wikipedia users then Reddit comments are grounds for blocking as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone made a point about this by imposing as me on Wikipediocracy and commenting about my blocks, and even calling Drmies a 'nutjob' and such and complaining about an apparent 'feminist dominance' on here. This is growing to be quick harassment, only thing that's missing is the harassing phone calls. Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with the anonymous comment section of a blog; anyone can be anyone, identity is not provable. Perhaps this will be one of those proverbial "teachable moments", and going forward you will be less dismissive of the harassment endured by Quinn, Sarkeesian, et al... Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I call BS. Every intentional violation of BLP is an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Ask around about what Qworty was doing: it was harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence suggests, TD, that you were outed because you attracted attention by behaving badly in public and by leaving a trail which made it easy to tie your behavior, good or bad, into a single identity with a real-world name. That's your fault, and in the real world, pointing over at Wikipediocracy and bellowing "they outed me!" is either a sign that you don't really care that they did that, or an act of colossal stupidity. Either way, the revenge you seek here is a childishness which should be disregarded in favor of a consideration of your sins at the articles in question, where you apparently are pursuing some sort of vendetta. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously blaming him for getting doxed? Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, I am. People who don't act like that don't motivate others to find out why they are acting that way, and those who are so promiscuous with their identity do not find such curiosity so easily satisfied. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting moral quandary, isn't it? On the one hand, WP:OUTING is strongly forbidden by site policy, and it causes people significant distress. Some "outings" appear to have served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy contributors have also successfully identified several cases of serious abuse of Wikipedia, where repellent behavior would have continued indefinitely if not for Wikipediocracy's "outing" (the cases I have in mind are those of Qworty (talk · contribs) and Little green rosetta (talk · contribs), although the latter seems to be active again now with an alternate account). We actually owe Wikipediocracy a debt of gratitude for calling attention to those cases, because these "outings" served a constructive purpose and likely reduced the real-life harm these individuals had caused. So... like most real-life ethical questions, it's not as black-and-white as one would like to believe. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who got doxxed for "behaving badly" by having opinions about BLPs, you can fuck right off with that. The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a response to me (based on the indenting, I'm guessing it's not), but in any case I'd put your "outing" firmly in the category of "served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer." I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. I was torn between just indenting for threading or pinging, but I figured it was less justifiable to "ping" someone and tell them to fuck off than it would be to just say it. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your comments that it isn't always black and white, that is true but in a really unpelasant way. To the person doing the doxxing, it's often completely black and white. Back in the day BLP apostasy was exactly that in the eyes of folks at WR and other places. BLPs were a struggle for the heart of the project and represented a real potential damage to humans based on anonymous work. We can look at them and say that this manichean view was unfounded, but they don't feel that way. The folks at Wikipediocracy are likewise concerned over sexism and harassment getting "justified" in the encyclopedia. Their concern "looks" better to us (after all, the gamer gate stuff is disgusting, but that's a story for another time), so we might be more inclined to view the outing as a necessary journalistic evil. But I don't think we need to dig too far into the piece to see that characterization as strained. The run down on TD from that article is basically "look at this fucking loser", which is par for the course with outing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that nothing besides a lot of talk is going to come of this, but "The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar." I couldn't put it any better than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that none of you are meant to be speechifying in relation to BLPs, either in articles or talkpages, then chilling of such speech would seem to be a good thing and in accordance with this site's principles. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is that-a-way. Doxxing people is not the way to correct BLP problems. In fact, the spirit of WP:BLP is that living persons should be treated with respect, and even Wikipedia editors are living persons. meta:Privacy is another of this site's principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs no one should be engaging in any form of agenda pushing. The talk page of Quinn is an object lesson in agenda pushing, attempts to get inappropriate sources accepted, character assassination, and wearisome arguing. Such speech has, according to the rules, no place here. If no one here will get the house in order and freeze it out don't complain when outside forces do the job for you all. John lilburne (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo?

Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp on...you have it wrong. "outside eyes are finally getting in on this" referred to other Wikipedians who had never been a part of older discussions at 2014 Isla Vista killings, not anyone off-site. It has nothing to do with "doxxing", and doesn't even have a connection to the Gamergate stuff we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Titanium Dragon already corrected me on that. And heh, don't be so confused if "unknown" editors comment here - that's the reason why issues are posted to ANI in the first place. --Pudeo' 14:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A question

If such an issue reveals that a Wikipedia user, through looking at their contributions to an external site, has a conflict of interest or other viewpoint that makes them incompatible with editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that sufficient reason to take action here? I'm not entirely sure if this has occurred before, but I'm sure it probably has. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

you're not sure but you're sure? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Typing at the same time as being harassed by daughter#1 to help with her Maths homework. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to ping/link and dredge up old drama, but yea, a year or so ago, Arbcom banned a user for edits made to Encyclopedia Dramatica regarding another Wikipedian. BTW, file an ANI on your kid for harassment, they'll send her to bed without supper. (in case there'a any confusion, yes, that is a joke) Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, a user was indef blocked for canvassing on the men's rights site antimisandry.com and for using WP:Socks. The SPI was inconclusive but the off-wiki canvassing was too obvious to ignore. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

I'm asking for help with Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. While there is some sniping back and forth, I think we can get around that. What I can't abide is being called a troll. I have asked him to take his trolling accusations to my user talk page, and he's not done so -- he's just continued on the article talk page.

I am not asking for any sanctions against Wdford. I'm only asking for administrator intervention, to prevent the situation from getting worse. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC? and while you are correct that people should not call each other trolls, nevertheless it would be accurate to describe your contributions there as indistinguishable from trolling. It's way-over-the-top for me to complain about that single section—the problem is the overall hammering of the issue with no discernible attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion. Fundamentally you are correct that "The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus", but you need to say that in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you just called me a troll. Nice. Here's a suggestion: Instead of calling me a troll, try telling me exactly what I'm doing that's "troll-like" (since I can't read your mind.)

You say no discernable attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion? You want me to say things in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion? Great. Here are some links to discussions I've started: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]. Feel free to review these, and tell me where I've *not* attempted to engage in reaching a conclusion, or said things in a way that doesn't further discussion?

Oh, and are you going to address the issue I actually came for? Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who came in late, the article in question has been subjected to a long-winded struggle over (a) what exactly the subject of the article is, and (b) whether various high profile people in the field (e.g. Bart Ehrman) can be disregarded when they state that the majority opinion is that there was a real Jesus, whatever else could be said about him. FoR's participation in this has been frustrating to a lot of people, and it times (in my opinion) has employed a style of arguing which could be interpreted as deliberately obstructive. Wdford's outbursts are a measure of his frustration at this; he of course should stop, but the FoR and the various detractors of the previous state of the article need to cut to the chase and not bury the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this incident is a fine example of how ANI is screwed up. I came here with a simple, distinct and clear cut problem, looking for help to work it out. The two admins who have responded so far have done more to complicate the issue than to clarify it. (Here's a video of a group of WP Admins discussing an ANI incident: [106])

This ANI issue is very simple. All you need do to resolve it is say this simple statement to Wdford: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." If that's too much, you can just point Wdford to WP:ASPERSIONS, where it says just that. Do that simple thing, and the incident is closed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri

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

---

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked for sockpuppeteering and one of his other accounts had also been blocked for edit warring. Now he's using a new account User:Lebanesetruth to make the same edits, by removing sourced content from an article and adding hagiographic material. He should be blocked indefinitely to avoid disrupting further.

Callsfortruth (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked once for sockpuppeteering, then he came up with User:Lebanesetruth which was blocked. Yet User:Talal.talal1 was not blocked again for his repeated violations. Now, User:Philanthropist1001 is making the same edits on the same article. I wish some admin other than User:Mr. Stradivarius could involve himself in this case, because Mr. Stradivarius' edits have been very dubious since he began involving himself in this case. Callsfortruth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing User:Mr. Stradivarius of doing? And you mean Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just coming here to make a post of my own when I saw this section. Let me give some background. The Nabih Berri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was protected on 25 August due to edit warring, and I have been watching the article since 30 August when I answered a protected edit request left on the talk page. I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talal.talal1 had not been processed, so I blocked some of the accounts involved, and I also removed unsourced/poorly sourced material from the "Wikileaks diplomatic cables" and "Corruption" sections to try to bring them in line with WP:BLP. There is some discussion about my edits at Talk:Nabih Berri#WikiLeaks and the corruption section. The protection expired today, and the edit war broke out again. Rather than fully protecting the article, I semi-protected it indefinitely and blocked User:Lebanesetruth, as the account looked suspiciously like a sleeper sockpuppet of Talal.talal1. I didn't block Talal.talal1 again though, as their previous sockpuppetry block expired yesterday, before Lebanesetruth's most recent edits. I chose to make the protection indefinite because there have been BLP problems with the article going back to 2008 - for those with access, there are more details in the OTRS ticket at otrs:2008092910055062. After reflecting on my actions at the article today, I think it would have probably been better to bring the matter up here sooner rather than going ahead with the blocks and protections, as it has become a little messy. I'd appreciate it if people could look into my actions here, particularly:

1. Whether the indefinite block of Lebanesetruth was justified.
2. If Lebanesetruth's block was justified, whether Talal.talal1 should be blocked too.
3. What should be done about the page protection. And,
4. Whether my admin actions violated WP:INVOLVED, or whether they were consistent with WP:BLPREMOVE.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Materialscientist has answered my questions one and two by processing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebanesetruth and indefinitely blocking User:Talal.talal1 and User:Philanthropist 1001. (@Materialscientist: thanks for looking into this.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is an established target of a well-paid Beirut-based PR firm (not to mention party members), so it would be better if a number/committee of admins tried to mediate and establish consensus as to what the content of the article should be, rather than someone who, from the start, has been suspiciously removing copious amounts of sourced material and replacing them with unreferenced, poorly-written hagiography. Callsfortruth (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that this morning Painting101 (talk · contribs) arrives, gets autoconfirmed in less than 2 hours and edits this article. Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs) also doing the same edits is a WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Vandalism at a Turkish Topic

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

---

Hello,

I see a page on Turkish Wikipedia its about Gospel of Barnabas but fully islamic sided and not trust sourced. Writer believe its lost bible of allah and its original bible, all article insulting christians. He resourced from not academical book and a Turkish news paper. Then i translated from English Gospel of Barnabas wikipedia topic and i added with university resources. Administrator Kibele returned sided topic again. After that i reported to Turkish admins they banned me. They are muslim and they are creating not sourced islamic views Turkish topics. Please help! --Bilnur (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that there is nothing administrators on English Wikipedia can do to address issues on other language Wikis.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP and WP:DUCK sock of blocked editor at Zoroaster

Resolved

 – Sock master and puppets all blocked, page semi-protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday for breaking 3RR. This morning Zostrianos007 (talk · contribs) arrives to restore Sabazius01's deleted edit. That's reverted and along comes 107.219.7.8 (talk · contribs) to restore it again. I'm involved but could someone please block the sock and IP and also do something about the puppetmaster, who doesn't seem interested in discussion. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming annoying. He just used another IP to revert [107] . Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Dealt with by Yunshui and I. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I hadn't noticed was Sabazius01's unblock request said "Futile attempts to block my sociohistorical relevant contributions are fueled by a Zionist who makes claims to be neutral. Moreover, this individual and his following should be aware that I will not allow such bias to have authority over the page in mention.Sabazius01 (talk) 10:20 am, Today (UTC+1)" Is it my imagination or is "Zionist" a code word for Jew? Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" term has been abused a lot, people often use this term where it is not needed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" is a codeword for Jew. It basically means pro-Israeli. Its use permits the person using it to appear not to be attacking a religion or people, only a foreign policy, and therefore not be seen as a bigot. To put this in Wikipedia context, it appears that the edit warrior is saying that he is here to right great wrongs, and so 3RR, the rule against sockpuppetry, and other rules should not apply. Maybe he should start a blog, where those rules won't apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you Robert, you put that very well. If no one indefinitely blocks him now I'm sure he will make sure it happens when he edits again. I'm obviously involved. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Nabih Berri

As noted before, the sockpuppeteer User:Talal.talal1 has returned as User:Painting101 to vandalize the article Nabih Berri once again by removing large amounts of sourced material, moments after being indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I suggest that the article be fully protected, and that any such edits be reverted, as this has been established to be the effort of a PR agency meaning to "clean up" the article before parliamentary elections later this year. Callsfortruth (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User worth a look

Abdurrahman Muslim (talk · contribs) has made a number of rather contentious edits, might be worth admins keeping an eye on. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• User now notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour such as (by implication) calling many editors "heathens, sinners and the fallen" in a "cesspool of filth", demanding that the women of Brighton and Hove be described as immoral in an article, and saying that certain people did the work of the devil in an article, suggest a lack of understanding that must be remedied, if possible... BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is right. Hangs out on talk pages to lecture people about his view of proper morality. Dougweller's given him the proper warning and if he doesn't heed it he should be indeffed unceremoniously. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You all fell for that trolling? I have no doubt that this was an impersonator making fun of Islam--and of some of us. Then again, "In this world of heathens, sinners and the fallen it is inspiring to find the occasional beacon of light in an otherwise benighted cesspool of filth"--that must be nice to hear, right Sjö? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I always like to give editors the benefit of the doubt. Or enough rope to hang themselves with. In any case, good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Being bullied and Ninja Tactics

Greetings , i try to abide by wikipedia rules to the maximum , and i believe i do so 100 % . So i woud like to report that 2 experienced users are bullying me ( Alexikoua and DR.K ) and are in fact not abiding by the wiki rules by applying ninja tactics.

I am refering to this > 3RR warning

I have not reverted anything more than twice . And his 3RR is coming because i am restoring a removal of multi sourced content of another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history , a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:REMOVAL .

Given their experience , one would assume that they would be the first one to have a civil and pleasant collaboration with other editors . So i am forced to report this because i do not want to be reported or something .

Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Are you sure about your revert count? I just looked at the history of Albania, and I count at least four reverts by you this afternoon (diffs: [108] [109] [110] [111]). —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually now they are 3 . But as you can see his 3RR warning when i had only 2 reverts . Please do see the matter thoroughly , 2 users are removing in collaboration multi sourced content because of WPidontlikeit . The other revert was adding a source , and a citation needed tag , irrelevant to the revert that i am talking about . Greetings , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjirokastra15 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: I'm not seeing anything to convince me that you or they are editing in bad faith. Thus, your edits do not fall under any of the exceptions to WP:3RR, and you did commit three reverts before the warning message was left. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the report at 3RRN regarding this user. He keeps inserting unsourced OR at Albania and does not respond in a substantive manner at the talkpage, arguing with personal attacks but without providing any proof that the sources support the OR he is edit-warring about. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 very easy way to prove that DR.K is lying , is to find a single word where i am insulting in the slightest form any of the involved parties . You will however find more than 2 sentences by Dr.K that he is implying that i do not have the required IQ for checking sources .... while i just asked that the sources to be put where the citation needed tags are needed . It is all there ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear more about these ninja tactics. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So Fred removing multi sourced ( 5 sources ) sentence is not reverting in bad faith ? I am not objecting your judgement , i am just trying to make sure that you have seen their revert .

They have removed this : Large parts of Albanians, similarly fear irredentist claims on northern Epirus following Albanians changing their nationality to Greek due to monetary and other benefits.

Regards ,Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps Gamaliel . If i am mistaken however , i apologize . I just ask that the sourced content to remain , because no one has removed any sourced sentence that they have written no matter how ridiculous some of their claims sometimes might be .

Alexikoua Revert n1 Alexikoua revert n2 Dr.K supporting alexikouas revert Dr.K issuing a 3RR warning when i had made only 2 reverts and it had nothing to do with him up until that moment

This was my case , i hope i did not use too much of your time . Thank you , and regards Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although this sentence and the sources have been splattered at ANI by Gjirokastra15, it may yet serve some useful purpose if other editors can verify that none of the sources support the sentence. Apparently Gjirokastra15 cannot understand this simple fact and is edit-warring to keep the sentence at the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is this: every editor agreed to edit according to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. Every single one. One of the best essays regarding that is WP:BRD which says, be bold, if it's reverted, then discuss. That's how to get consensus. Nobody gets to keep reverting for ANY reason (except for minor exceptions, none of which count here). Articles change; some sources are found to be non-reliable, and other situations occur that could result in what appears to be sourced-edits to be removed. That's where the discuss on the talkpage until you gain consensus happens. Nobody is entitled to 2 reverts...you can be blocked for edit-warring at 2. the panda ₯’ 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly now . I will be more cautious towards these kind of matters . Any decision here , will be totally respected by me and no further edit will be made regarding that article . I apologize for my inexperienced approach albeit i felt a bit bullied ( maybe my mistake ) . As i said any ruling will be more than respected by me , be that even a blocking of my account ( which i hope not lol ) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting new editors

CONFIQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently blocked a new account because of the involvement of the account in an edit war. The details can be seen on the user's talk page (link). I wish to end my involvement in the incident, so I would like other administrators to look at the incident and decide whether CONFIQ should be admonished for "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)