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

Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered

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

---

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently removing what appear to be all instances of File:Replace this image male.svg from articles using an automated tool. He uses the edit summary "rm image per discussion. See File:Replace this image male.svg", but I can find no discussion about this. He has not reacted to what I consider a reasonable request on his talk page to stop this until it is clear whether there is a consensus for the removal of these images. Because I believe our practice is to consider undiscussed and potentially controversial automated changes to hundreds of articles disruptive, I am considering blocking Alan Liefting until he agrees to (a) stop these removals and start a structured discussion, and (b) undo the removals he already made if there is no consensus in favor of them. What do others think about this?  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. From my standpoint, this sort of behaviour is becoming a recurring pattern for User:Alan Liefting. (See here, here, here for examples.) I know he is able to productively discuss things when approached because I have seen it happen. It just seems that more often than not he prefers not to stop after an editor or editors ask him to stop. There are several Wikipedia users that I know of that have lost all patience with Alan and are hoping that some sort of action is taken. I don't know what the right solution is. I blocked him on 14 May 2012 for vandalism of a reporting page and some personal attacks after he kind of lost it after being reported on an administrator's noticeboard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A templated note on the male placeholder says:

    Note to Wikipedia editors:

    From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

    There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

    66% seems quite significant to me, but then it's my opinion that the placeholders make us look totally amateur and should be deprecated. Why would 66% not be considered a consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion is the one the remover refers to, and it's five years old; moreover it does not seem to have resulted in consensus for actually removing the files. I don't think that a discussion that old that has since not been acted upon is now a reasonable basis for an otherwise undiscussed mass removal.  Sandstein  06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • According to the old discussion, 66% of participants were opposed to the use of those images, and if only a smaller percentage advocated immediate removal it was because they wished to first see a discussion about developing some alternative solution as a successor system. Since evidently no such successor system has been introduced in the four years since, I find it entirely reasonable to now take that as a justification for removal. My understanding has long been that these things were thoroughly deprecated and I'm astonished to see there were still so many of them around. Most seem to have been on minor, rarely-edited bios, where they probably were simply forgotten. Plus, in most of these cases the original introduction of the placeholder image was itself done through an undiscussed mass edit back in 2008, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A discussion involving only around 50 editors from four years ago is not a community consensus to remove this image across thousands of articles. I strongly oppose this action. A new discussion about removal should be conducted and then Alan can do his removals. But he should stop immediately until such a discussion is concluded. Silverseren^C 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And how many prompted the replacement by a useable image? Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Probably unknowable. Even if we had statistics about how many placeholders were replaced, we would still not know in how many cases the uploaders were prompted by the presence of the placeholder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on behavioural issues and the state of consensus, but ditching this image is an improvement. Editors were always aware that bio articles without masthead images could benefit by having such an image added. There was no reason to make the pages look untidy for readers too by adding this boilerplate.

Mind you, if this image is to go, then isn't that a 'bot task? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the removal of these amateurish images. Commend the editor who has done the work of removing them. They should never have been added in the first place, they look terrible, and our articles are the better for their removal. --John (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Number of times in my 6+ years here that I have seen an editor actually replace one of those 'replace this image' with a proper photo? Zero. They serve no real purpose and look grim. GiantSnowman 11:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good removals, no real consensus to implement it, and it is time that this is cleared. Sometimes it is good that someone takes initiative to clear out stuff, and I think it is very inappropriate that editors then directly start considering blocks - we are, clearly, not a bureaucracy where everything that is done needs a clear pre-established consensus (unless someone can show me significant opposition against removal that is ignored). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support removals and trout slap those coming after him. How is an old consensus invalid? Unreal. Yes, consensus can change but if there's no new consensus that overrides it, it's still valid regardless of subjective ideas of "old". Plus, looking at this discussion, coming after him for not having a bot do the work? I'm getting rather disgusted with this new-think idea that a repetitive task must be done by a bot, else not be done, and therefore any editor doing a repetitive task is by default 'wrong'. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal Even if we decided that the removals were incorrect, a block would be completely punitive as long as he agreed to whatever consensus was established here, but it seems like consensus is moving in his direction. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support the removal, never been a fan of the File:Replace this image male.svg and File:Replace this image female.svg. If there is no photograph then there should be no image stating it, it is clear that no free-use photograph exists and there is no need to state the obvious by using File:Replace this image fe/male.svg! Bidgee (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support getting rid of those ugly and unprofessional things! Alan Liefting deserves our thanks for taking on this job. Threatening a block for this is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and Sandstein should be admonished for starting off a discussion with a threat to block unless the party he is in dispute with complies with his demands. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule-Team Support: What the hell? Since when does consensus have a sell-by date? Hell, if Silver's bizarre contention that we can safely ignore any consensus that was reached too long ago holds true, I bet there are any number of policies and guidelines we can ignore, right? Has WP:N been currently ratified by the community? Ravenswing 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't so much how old the discussion is as the point that such a fundamental change to thousands of articles should have a Wiki-wide discussion before implementing. With a watchlist notice and the like. Silverseren^C 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then this should be a non-issue. There was a wiki-wide discussion, and it was duly posted at WP:CD ([1]). 2/3rds supported removal. No evidence has been provided by anyone that this consensus has been overridden by a new consensus. Given the amount of support Alan is getting here, it seems rather likely any new consensus would mirror the previous one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Plainly the age of the discussion is an issue - why else would you mention it? And, as Hammersoft points out, there WAS a notice and WAS a widespread discussion, and you know full well that a full fifty editors chiming in is quite a broad base by Wikipedia standards for such a technical discussion. If you didn't notice it at the time, that's scarcely Alan's fault, or our problem. That being said, come on: this is not a "fundamental" change. This is removing a placeholder few seem to like in favor of no image at all, a cosmetic alteration few Wikipedia users would even notice, let alone care about. If the impulse some folks have is "OMG we have to block him to STOP HIM!!!", that strikes me as much more trigger-happy than is fitting for an admin. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fine. I never said I was opposed to the idea anyways, just Alan's mass removal with no context. So long as there is still support, it's fine. I just wish he had obtained this reaffirmed support before starting. It's better to do that than to act on years old consensuses for removal without warning. Silverseren^C 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's plenty of things around here that we apply that gained consensus years and years ago. Sheer age of a consensus does not make it invalid. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about consensuses like policies or things that have been already implemented, but consensus for things that would require mass removals and haven't been implemented for years afterwards. At that point, it should be reaffirmed or at least announced that the person will be undertaking this consensus, rather than just starting to remove all of them and confusing a large number of people. An announcement of the intent to do so on AN would be the best option. Silverseren^C 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The removals have been done for years. It's not the case that consensus was achieved and nothing was done about it for four years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• 40-Mule-Team Support removal: The evidence at the time was these were not bringing in usable pictures and articles that still have them four years on is further proof of that. The rules for allowable pics are so Byzantine that it is a mistake to encourage uploading of pics that will get deleted anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• No strong opinion on the images, but Alan needs to communicate when his editing is questioned on his talk page. He appears to have completely ignored the first message on his talk page and only decided to stop editing at the moment the ANI thread was started, 18 hours later. This is not collaborative or cooperative behavior. Also, these edits are being done at a high rate by a semi-automated process, and clearly they're not completely uncontroversial edits. Therefore, per WP:BOTASSIST, Alan should submit a BRFA for this task. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with what he is doing, being unresponsive during a huge run of automated or semi-automated edits (for which you don't have explicit approval) is equivalent to begging for an immediate block. -Scottywong| communicate _ 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• In light of my support for his actions, I do agree with Scottywong that his communication during this ordeal has been subpar. If an editor is going to make 1000's of edits and someone questions them, the editor should make sure the concern is completely addressed before continuing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I might suggest that we "beef up" WP:Fait accompli, which is a decision that came out of a ArbCom case (TTN's?) on the impact of doing a large number of similar changes. I don't think we need to make it policy or even a guideline, but I would suggest that if anyone is planning on doing a wide range of a common action in a short period of time via a non-bot mechanism (whether manual, semi-automated, or automated), that one should (but absolutely not required to) validate those actions, and more importantly, if such actions are contested while being acted on, the actions should stop immediately (and that's more a requirement than a suggestion) to allow discussion to continue. Again, I do not want to make it anywhere enforceable as problems with fait accompli can be handled through standard admin action like we're discussing here (and knowing how both the Beta and RichF. Arbcom cases closed out, what exactly is "wide range of common action in a short period of time" is a poor definition and will be so gamed by editors with grudges), but it's a piece of advice that I think we want editors to follow and that we can remind them of if they are acting in this fashion in the face of obvious resistance. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alan did have validation for his actions. He responded promptly to queries about it as well. When the actions became contested via this thread on WP:AN/I, he stopped immediately. Alan's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I 100% agree he's done nothing actionable by AN or most other metrics (during or currently), but the only reason I point this out is that if he said, say, over at VPP that he was about to act on this past consensus, we wouldn't be here right now at ANI about it. Hence why beefing up the essay to suggest that announcing large scale non-bot efforts is highly recommended to avoid being in the line of fire later. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• On 29 May 2012 Alan was approached about the removal on a particular article. Alan responded 13 minutes later. Alan was approached on 31 May 2012 about the removals. Just two minutes later he responded, pointing to the relevant centralized discussion that gave consensus to deprecate the use. How is that not cooperative? Because Fram, who was party to the 31 May 2012 discussion, asked him yesterday to stop and he didn't respond or stop? Alan had already responded to Fram previously. Kudos to Alan for stopping when another editor notified him of this thread. Alan's done nothing wrong here. His edits have consensus and the summary is accurate and provides a link for further understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies for my earlier reply to Scottywong then, I didn't realize that Fram was part of the earlier discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I created the WP:IPH shortcut to the consensus decision supporting removal, and have suggested Alan include that shortcut in future edit summaries when he resumes removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just in case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I support the removal of the placeholders (and generally do so myself when I come across then, which is quite infrequently these days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Alan to finish

I propose that we allow Alan to finish making his improvements to the encyclopedia in relation to removing the placeholders. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. (Oppose A good point is made about automated edits below) I just hope he makes an announcement next time on AN or VPP before conducting something like this. There's been far too many ANI discussions regarding him in relation to his semi-automated edits that he really should announce things first at this point if he wants to avoid this stuff. Silverseren^C 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, I hope you do realise that we are 'again' here with Alan because Sandstein felt the necessity to immediately come to AN/I without talking to the editor first, where the editor was before already approached twice and already twice has shown that there was consensus for his tasks. I actually really wonder why Sandstein brought this thread here and not continued a discussion with the editor on their talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support of course. I think we already have done this above. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I felt like consensus was there, I just wanted to make it official. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until a consensus is obtained for an automated removal of the images. The discussion from 4 years ago seems to have resulted in a consensus that the images are ugly, and something should be done about them, but there was no discussion of having an automated tool remove all of them. For instance, perhaps it would be more useful to convert the image tags to something like Category:Biography articles needing images. A brief discussion at WP:VPP is not much to ask, and could result in a better outcome than blunt removal without discussion. In my opinion, a BRFA should be filed for a task of this magnitude. -Scottywong| speak _ 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cat'ing bio pages without infobox images is easy to do via the infobox template, so it could be done post-facto. And since its not a bot, BRFA is inappropriate (but that's why I bring up the idea of non-bot automated/manual repeated tasks being announced prior to the fact. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We should not be setting a precedent that it's ok to silently set up AWB to make thousands of edits based on discussions with a weak consensus that took place many years ago, which never discussed the possibility of automated action. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Knowing how editors that are affected by this demand wikilawyering-levels of resolution, this is a very bad precedent ("Oh, I disagree with this long-standing clear consensus from X years ago because consensus can change! Stop that task at once!") Is it a smart idea to check for support for a task? Heck yes. Required? Heck no, as long as you the editor doing those changes accept that if they are contested, you'd better stop, and if later found to be undesirable, work to fix it up. Refusing to do either of these with any type of mass editor (manual, AWB or something in between) is cruisin' for a block. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that there was no consensus for an automated tool to remove thousands of images. There was consensus that something needs to be done about the images, but no consensus that they all needed to be forcibly removed. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus against the use of automated tools either. If he was acting against that, then let's through the book at him. But we encourage bold actions when by good faith they are believed to improve the encyclopedia: he ran AWB on that assumption. I'd say we'd want to encourage giving fair warning or re-establishing consensus, but as long as there wasn't clear consensus against the action, being bold is nothing we should punish him form. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and also support the idea of creating a bot to do the work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would not try to do it by bot, many would go fine, but this is work that typically glitches for strange reasons. This needs to be done human-supervised with AWB, not automated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Plenty of websites use silhouette images in place of actual pictures. IMDB comes to mind immediately. Ancestry.com does too. The claim that they're "unprofessional" is funny, given the wretched quality of no small number of user-taken snapshots littering the bio's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is the unintended consequence of the "no fair use images for living people" policy. But regardless of where they're used otherwise, the placeholders here, at least, are some kind of ugly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ha. I had this debate with someone here, a few years ago, and when I said our multitude of snapshot-quality photos made us look amateurish - and they said it's supposed to be that way. Regardless, those silhouettes don't look any uglier than red-links to non-existent articles. And they're supposed to serve somewhat the same purpose: To maybe encourage someone to look for a picture. However, it would help if it were consistent: Either all or none, not "if we happen to think about it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Scottywong. Happy to start a more full RfC. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't see consensus against having a call to contribute images - just against the former image in terms of style (and that was marginal). James F. (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support makes articles better. Nobody Ent 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a small piece of text in the image slot or at the bottom of the infobox that requested images, but the placeholders are (sorry Bugs) amateurish and ugly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the eye of the beholder, I guess. This doesn't seem at all ugly and amateurish to me. The worst I would say about it is that it's mundane. I don't think it looks any worse than what IMDB uses.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, a matter of opinion. The IMDB star thing is marginally better than our placeholder -- but also, we're an encyclopedia (albeit a popular one) not a commercial website owned by Amazon.com. I'm a great believer in being as visually interesting and informative as possible, but those placeholder images are like nails on a blackboard to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying that what it looks like is not really a strong reason to delete it. Much better reasons include (1) that they are not consistently used, but only on a whim; (2) that they don't really serve any purpose (the fact that there's no picture is fairly obvious); and (3) that they might unwittingly encourage editors to post non-free content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • • I think it's fair to say that no one has any clue about whether they "work" or not, where "work" means "encourage people to upload legitimate free images". I guess what I'm saying, as someone who's focused a great deal on the visual aspects of WP articles, is that an article is better off with no image whatsoever rather than the placeholders, and that the lack of an image is as useful in nudging an editor to upload an image as the placeholders are. I also agree with the implications of your last remark: veteran WP editors will see either the lack of an image or a placeholder as an encouragement to look for a free image, while tyros will basically ignore the lack of an image, and will be encouraged by the placeholder to upload non-usable non-free images, because that's what are most easily available. (Finding free images is much more difficult, and the vast majority of people don't have personal snapshots of celebrities to contribute.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is tending towards opinion ("it's ugly/unprofessional" vs. "it isn't any uglier than empty space"), which doesn't take into account whether or not they actually work – the whole point. I'm wondering if (warning, about to sound like the WMF) we should try an A/B test to determine whether the placeholders actually encourage people to upload images. Remove all that are manually inserted, build a list of BLPs without an image, use some parser magic in infoboxes to give half of these articles a placeholder image and leave the other half empty, come back in some months, and see what percentage of articles gained a picture. Has anyone suggested this before? As Bugs said, the placeholders potentially encourage users to post non-free content that they wouldn't add otherwise. We can, of course, review what's uploaded and see if this is true. — The Earwig ^(talk) 04:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Alan is doing fine with AWB (I actually see no reason why we are !voting to have Alan continue - there is no reason he should not). Alan, please continue the removals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• We are !voting because an admin – the otherwise esteemed and perceptive Sandstein – told Alan to stop. When someone of that repute says to do something, a community override -- if that's what is wanted -- is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think that spurring on Alan to continue in the midst of a discussion about what he's doing, that is not providing a clear consensus for him to continue, is not showing the best judgment here. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Remove the last of these ill-considered and ugly place holders. It should have been done long ago. --John (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Semi-Support Not on the highly subjective grounds that they're "ugly", which I don't agree they are; but rather because they are at best useless and at worst might induce editors to post non-free photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Masem - it's a bad precedent to stop an editor from work that has consensus just because the consensus is old. There appears to be sufficient support for a removal here anyway. A short comment somewhere (e.g. VPP) by Alan before starting the work would have been better, but it is not required. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like ScottyWong said there's no consensus to use automated tools to remove these images wholesale. I also second The Earwig's suggestion -- there hasn't been any proper study as to whether these placeholder images lead to eventual improvement of the encyclopædia. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until a BRFA has been approved for this semi-automated task. — madman 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The consensus was only that the current PHs shouldn't be used, not what was to happen to them (either replacement with others or deletion). Until consensus has been reached on that issue wholesale automated deletion seems counterproductive. It also looks like most editors who have voiced disapproval of PHs seems to have done so for aesthetical reasons, and that opens up the possibility that there could be a consensus to replace them with newly designed images. I also agree with the editors suggesting that we find out if the PHs are actually having any effect before deciding to remove them completely.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is the next step then? Do we start an RfC on the status of the images? Do we have an in depth research study performed on the images and their effects? If we did, questions would need to be answered as to how many of the placeholders prompted image placements and how many placeholders prompted image placements that were later deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per reasons given by The Earwig and Saddhiyama. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ScottyWong. I don't have any particular objection to the idea, but we need to follow the process. We have BRFA for a reason. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to remind folks that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Consensus is that the existing images are undesirable. Saying "don't remove them until we !vote" is, well, bureaucracy that isn't needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until automated edits are approved I guess I don't need to dig up the links to the two recent arbcom cases to demonstrate the problem: there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will use an automated tool to implement a change on thousands of articles. It looks like consensus is to remove the images, but there should be no precedent that getting bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  And there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will squelch anything that looks automated. Sorry, I stand corrected, of course when an Arbitrator himself does something like that, the thread gets squelched, those 7,500 actions (for which no previous consensus existed!!) were just allowed, and an AN(/I) thread is silenced within no time. That is exactly the precedent that bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic (or whatever reason why then bot approval can be skipped), it is the precedent that bot approval for such edits should be skipped. WP:AWB is for mass editing on a user account, just like HUGGLE has parts which are for doing mass edits on a users acount - and editors using AWB will almost by definition do edits on multiple pages. But this is to be expected, this is exactly the precedent that the Arbitration Committee is setting, and this is exactly why editors drop their tools and walk away and work does simply not get done.

  More seriously .. this has to be done supervised, now tell me, we have an editor doing edits had consensus, and who seem to still have consensus, using AWB, on his own account, or we introduce an extra step to ask for a BRFA to do exactly the same (although maybe on a separate account), and you think that is not bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe the bot policy should formalize this if this is the bureaucracy that is needed for 'large scale tasks' - "Any editor wishing to perform similar actions which may involve more than 100 pages (e.g. using automated tools like WP:AWB, WP:HUGGLE or other scripts) must request for approval through a BRFA"? You are right, Johnuniq, there are two ArbCom cases which do set the precedent for that, and there are more discussions like this. That must mean that that is what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  My goodness, such cynical and pointy commentary! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Criticism of automation is being used as a bludgeoning tool. That would be fine if it was used fairly, and equally in all cases where appropriate. That's very far removed from the case, and there is a huge disparity between all of us pigs, with some pigs being more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be an impression among some that this thread is to garner consensus on whether to remove the images or not. That isn't the case. The prior consensus to remove the place holder images remains. If someone wants to see if consensus has changed on that point, please start an RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support ongoing removal. Endorsing the content objective. As for procedure, mass edits really ought to be vetted and approved beforehand lest we get into another Betacommand type situation. But in this case no harm was done. Here we are at AN/I, we can take care of this simply and informally, no need to run to RfC or the bot approval board. Best to continue, and a little more communication next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Removal. The "replace this image" placeholders look cheesy and unprofessional, serve no real purpose, and have already been deleted from the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. I delete the placeholders whenever I encounter them, which is increasingly infrequent, and I personally deleted them from over 2,000 articles on which I work. The major sports WikiProjects deleted them from athlete bios as a matter of project consensus two or more years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another subheading added by Alan Liefting

I have decided to break my self-imposted stop in editing to respond to this whole sorry saga. I took it upon myself to carry out out the removal of the placeholder images to improve WP (yes I know, a subjective thing). It was a judgement call on my part that they are better out than in.

Replies to comments:

• Fram, it is true that there was no consensus for removal of the images, but why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue? Please look at The Big Picture.
• Sandstein, why did you threaten me with a block and start an ANI discussion without attempting to get my side of the story? I had chosen not to reply to Fram because from the gist of the comments it appeared to be impeding progress toward improving WP. That may sound like "I am right and Fram is wrong" but it is was a judgement call on my part. While I am all for discussion on contentious or difficult to fathom issues, something that is of little consequence or something that improves WP for The Reader should be able to be done without any sort of impediment. Lets not forget the alphabet soup of things that need work: NPP, POV issues, AFDs, maint backlogs, gaps in coverage etc. So here I am, hauled in for another wiki-timewaster ANI discussion.
• Andy Dingley, Scottywong, madman and others, sure a bot can do it but a human using AWB can do a better job. AWB gives prompts for work that needs doing that only a human can do (e.g. missing brackets, dead links, out of place sections etc). And it should of course be realised that if it can be done with a BFRA (more discussion!) then it automatically would be acceptable for an actual human to do it.
• Hammersoft, you are right about the removals. The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008. When I started removing them it was used only about 5000 times. I would be difficult to find data on how many were replace with an actual image rather than outright removal.
• The replacement of placeholders with actual proper images back in 2008 was less than one percent.
• A big thanks to all the editors who gave supportive comments. "40-Mule-Team Support removal"

A few more points:

• I regularly look at my past edits as a means of self-appraisal. Apart from the reverts by Mattlore as mentioned in the earlier thread on my talk page I have not seen any reverts to keep the placeholder.
• Why did the male placeholder have 5000 odd links and the female only has one?
• I have no intention of doing anything with the remaining 2000 odd articles using the placeholder that I have not checked until there is a clear consensus.

While I don't what to imply that there is the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy this discussion illustrates what I have often seen on WP - the war between the wiki-liberals and the wiki-conservatives. Over to you lot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fram,[...] why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue?" I have responded to one thread on your user talk page about this issue, and have started a second one three weeks later. "Kicking up such a fuss" would at least involve threats of blocking, starting discussions at other venues, and so on. I did nothing of the sort, I didn't even participate in this ANI discussion until now. I have indicated at the discussion at your talk page that if it became clear from this ANI discussion that these removals are supported and that the 2008 consensus holds despite e.g. the 2009 opposition against it (on the talk page of the file), I have no problem with you continuing your removal of these. I have no objection to such tasks being done with AWB and without bot approval, by the way.

I have also asked you to make your edit summary better by linking directly to the discussion that supported your actions, since different people had difficulties finding it or seeing which discussion exactly was the one you meant. You have not replied to this request, and hadn't made this simple change.

Finally, I also asked you about anothet change you made while doing these removals, i.e. changing "references/" to "reflist". As far as I know, this isn't a standard AWB fix and doesn't have policy or guideline support (the general rule being that if two methods or styles are accepted, you shouldn't be changing one for the other). You haven't replied to this either. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The lack of communication on Alan's part is as much of a problem as the semi-automated edits without consensus. Semi-automated and automated editors should not be consciously choosing to not respond to legitimate objections on their talk page. This issue would not be at ANI right now if other means of communication hadn't failed. Editors who use AWB or run bots need to be highly communicative and responsive. If that's not possible, then perhaps Alan's access to AWB should be reconsidered. -Scottywong| comment _ 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amply demonstrated in the section above that Alan has been perfectly communicative regarding his edits and that there is a long-standing consensus that these images should be removed. In these circumstances the onus would be on an editor challenging the consensus to start a new RfC, as Hammersoft says. --John (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with John. Alan was quite communicative, and very rapid in his responses. Further, it's been demonstrated several times now that he had consensus for the actions. Please stop repeating this error, now that you know it is an error. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, thank you for your reply. I did not ask you before starting this thread because you did not reply to Fram's reasonable request. Your removals conflict with the policy WP:BOTASSIST: "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Such clear consensus (in favor of an active, large-scale removal) is not apparent to me in either the 2008 discussion linked to on the file page, or in this thread. It is particularly important because the file is in widespread use in articles, and that use seems to be a controversial issue. I therefore advise you to start a proper 30-day RfC, to be summarized and closed by an uninvolved admin, or a WP:BOTAPPROVAL request, to obtain a clear consensus for the removals. I also strongly recommend that you revert the removals you already made until such consensus exists. Should you continue removing the image without obtaining consensus, you remain at risk of being blocked.  Sandstein  18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sandstein, with respect, you are quite simply incorrect. Please look at the very first sentence underneath the heading at WP:IPH where it says "We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place". That proposal achieved a 66% consensus for passing through a "proper RfC". As noted earlier in this sub-thread, the image had been removed more than 30 THOUSAND times based on that RfC's decision before Alan undertook the task of removing the remaining ~5000 uses. That RfC is not invalid, it is not unsupported, and it is not vacated due to age. There was and is absolutely clear consensus, and Alan did nothing out of line. If you wish to change that consensus, the burden is on those opposing the removals to seek such a change in consensus, not on those completing the decision (which is now about 95% complete, of which Alan did only about 8%). Threatening, once again, to block Alan is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I can understand how one can interpret that discussion in this way, but I am not sure that the 66% in favor then constitute clear consensus. I can't find the place in the above discussion where it is established that the image has already been removed 30,000 times since then without opposition. If true, this would indeed be an argument in favor of an active consensus (as apposed to a five-year-old one) in favor of such action.  Sandstein  19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I also note that Wikipedia:Image placeholders says "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". It seems very clear the project as a whole made a decision to stop using these placeholder images, and they have been for the most part removed from use. As to the 30,000+ removals, note above where it says "The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008". According to the top of this archive, as of April 2008 there were 50,789. This isn't the only placeholder that was widely used. File:Nocover.png now has only three uses. File:Image is needed female.svg has just one. Their use is deprecated, and many editors have been removing them for years now. I'll also re-iterate; the age of a consensus has nothing to do with its validity. The consensus to not allow album covers in discographies is extremely old. Is that invalid because it is old? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• There's also the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is not, nor does it require, a supermajority (or even a majority at all, since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but that's neither here nor there). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the difficulties that ArbCom had in trying to define how to qualify automated edits for both Beta and RichF in recent cases, it's very hard to apply BOTASSIST or the idea of fait accompli as anything but essay-level advice because the line between good and bad usage is incredibly broad and attempts to narrow become filled with red tape to define specific acctions. Again, to stress the points I made in the previous section, if you are going to use an automated but non-bot (read: something like AWB) to make edits to something, you (the generic editor) are the one that is taking all responsibility by assuming the actions have consensus, you take responsibility in stopping the actions if they receive complaints, and you take responsibility in cleaning up the mess if either of these previous points were found in the wrong. As soon soon as you refuse to response to any aspect of those three areas, you can expect to have the community respond in a prohibitive manner. This makes BOTASSIST great advice: you avoid the first 2 points and through that, would never have to worry about the last, if you assure consensus first. But that can't be a requirement because otherwise we're going to have editors finding the smallest possible automated task to be a problem and requiring any such small repetitive changes to be approved first, which goes against our BOLD/IAR policies. It's merely the responsibility of using those tools properly, which is why AWB had several warnings about things you shouldn't do before you can accept the use of the tool. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Work being done anyway

While we've all been sitting here haggling about whether Alan should be doing this, whether semi-automated edits should do this, should it go through BRFA, threatening to block Alan, and blah blah blah...the work has been proceeding ahead anyway. More than 1300 removals have been done since this thread began (and Alan hasn't done a single once since the thread began). In fact, there's less than 600 articles now with this image on it. I.e., it's a moot point. Like it or not, the image use is deprecated. If you think placeholder should exist (not be kept...exist...they're virtually gone now), then start an RfC to that effect. The prevailing consensus from 2008 has held, and tens of thousands of these uses have been removed. In the end, Alan's work (for which he should be thanked, not twice threatened with a block) was only a very small part of this overall effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us that our guidelines are intended to be descriptive of what actual article editors actually do and not prescriptive based on a theory about what some folks think they ought to be. That's a valauable lesson often forgotten. Too often, editors ask "Does this adhere to the rules that must be followed?" instead of "Does it improve the article and the encyclopedia?" Although it's often sneered at, that's what IAR is meant to convey, that we shouldn't get so hamstrung by our (admittedly well-meaning) regulations that we forget that we're here to make the encyclopedia better, more informative, more accurate, and easier to use for the reader, not to put our minds on autopilot and slavishly follow rules meant to help us, not to hinder us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User Ronnie42 - Account used solely for disruptive editing

Ronnie42 (talk · contribs) I was really on the fence on whether to use this or just go straight to the incidents/vandalism noticeboard, but for the sake of discussion I'm bringing it here. Ronnie is an incredibly difficult user - he has a long history of editing against consensus and removing the same material from one article -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - before, during and after 1, 2,3,4 separate discussions to reach consensus. His methodology can be summed up by this edit; he'll do what he wants until someone proves him wrong. He's been told by numerous editors to read about various wikipedia policies and that his editing is disruptive but he dismissing all of this as trolling or vandalism (see this bewildering notice he left on one of the Noticeboards). In addition to this specific issue above, the vast majority of Ronnie's edits fall into two categories - Treating talk pages as forums (and this makes up the bulk of his usage, see his full edit history for a litany of examples; he's been cautioned and had edits reverted, only to be reverted back, several times by Ronnie) - and finally, outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. In fact, his entire first year was used for nothing but. Lastly, and most importantly, I can't find a single constructive edit that Ronnie has made. For five years this user has popped up every few weeks or months to soapbox, vandalize and disrupt, and I can't see any reason why we'd keep him around. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seems more a case for both WP:DRN and WP:WQA. His calling good faith edits as vandalism and throwing around the term "troll" is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give the a shot if you think I should, but given that he's been offered help, directed to Wikipedia policy pages, cautioned and warned throughout his Wiki career, only to completely ignore what anyone (and it's not just me) has to say, I don't expect a positive outcome. If you feel I should move this anyway, please let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think once you have a consensus at DRN, it becomes easier to see when someone is being disruptive by reverting against that consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and sorry for the delay. The consensus was the result of several discussions on the articles talk page; should I bring that up, or just the reverting? Also, should I just copy and paste it there?--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are usually enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just posted it here... if you could take a look and let me know if it looks alright I'd be most appreciative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Like to point this as slander. I have already pointed facts while User:Williamsburgland constantly attacks me directly, removes facts that have been mentioned, constantly. Example is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reliability_of_Wikipedia&action=history He has been going of his way to 'WikiHounding/User space harassment'. The member has been using the talk pages to force opinions, disrupts several talk pages, have already warned this member, have been ignored frequently. This thread itself proofs what I'm talking about by saying 'Account used solely for disruptive editing' which is a lie, used to help provoke more responses. I have this account for nearly 5 years, most times I have minor comments about things that need changing, have helped with the community like mention series like south park that needed updated informtion like here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mecha-Streisand I have over the years made consistent notes on wiki talk pages of missing information. I'm clearly offended, have asked previously about support being taken against this user, have not heard anything yet. For the record Forums are for a place to talk about 'opinions', all I have stated are facts, the User:Williamsburgland has consistently ignored the facts, tried to turn pages into flamewars.The page itself is an example of the harrasement I have to put up with it, follows my recent contributions without regard aka Wikihounding --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to concur entirely with Williamsburgland's summary above, it's unfortunate but Ronnie42 is impossible to communicate with, his responses are irrational, difficult to decipher, even contradictory at times, and he appears completely intent on continuing his or her disruptive editing with no regard to anything anyone says, or to consider wikipedia policy and guidelines.Number36 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the South Park reference is supposed to be, but anyone that clicks on the first link for the edit history of Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia can see that another user reverted Ronnie's soapboxing, which he then reverted. I simply reverted it back. Since he's done it a second time I've given up. At this point I'll likely open WQA case as well given Ronnie's tendency to throw the word 'troll' and 'slander' around.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the WQA discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again I added facts on Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia which had nothing directly aimed at User:Williamsburgland. 2ndly it was User:Williamsburgland who deleted my passage while 'trolling', going out of his way to attack/provoke, forcing control over talk pages. The only person who edited on Talk:Mecha-Streisand can clearly see someone accusing me of turning the page into the talk page while I only sourced actual episodes as the source. Its similar to the Evil Dead in the Talk:List_of_zombie_films which was ignored, I already stated there was no proof whatsoever of the 'Deadites' being zombies. Even read the wiki page: The_Evil_Dead_(franchise) It clearly says 'This time the evil creatures are explicitly referred to as deadites.' I have tried to repeat several times to give evidence, even stated the fact that nowhere in the films were they known as 'zombies', all I got was opinions, unreliable sources that weren't created as a joke. Here's a link I posted 'http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/' which even states very clearly 'Linda shouldn't be classified as a zombie attack, as her body has been repossessed by evil spirits', even this: wiki/Deadite clearly states that there "Deadites are creatures, most commonly people, that have become possessed by evil spirits (demons) in the Evil Dead universe". For the record I'm getting tired of user:Williamsburgland and its people like that question the reliability of Wikipedia. If something isn't done against user:Williamsburgland then I will be forced to petition against this site. I apologise if this offends but too many users like Williamsburgland forces their opinions on others, starting to sound like 'Fascism'. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "petition against this site"? Nobody Ent 23:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie42, first of all please read WP:NPA. Secondly, please carefully read WP:NLT, as your commnent about "to petition against this site" sounds like it could be intended to cause a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie, several upon several people agree that the films in question belong on the list, it ain't just me. The references used are indeed reliable, and you've never made any argument as to why they aren't. Meanwhile, as I've already pointed out to you, the link you've used is for a blog, which is not reliable. The fact that the word 'Zombie' does not appear in the original Night of the living dead has been pointed out to and summarily ignored by you. You dismiss statements made by anyone else as opinions while insisting that every bewildering statement you make is pure fact. Take your statement on the talk page you mentioned above - you state that you agree with the statement that Wikipedia is unreliable, and then post a link that purportedly backs up your statement. I'm shouldn't even bother pointing out that I wasn't the first person to remove your statement, but I will point out that the expressed purpose of both the Wiki article and the blog article that you posted is to debate whether or not wikipedia is reliable - and it's a debate because there are no definitive facts in the matter. There aren't any debates to determine if the ocean is salty, or if water is wet, because these concern known, demonstrable facts. Even more bizarre is this statement - where you insist that I'm making stuff up, saying "Stop making stuff up. I never mentioned 'Crazies' movie." Then how exactly do you explain this statement, where you very clearly do. Now you're talking about some south park episode, and while I can't even begin to understand what that has to do with this current debate, I'm sure it somehow demonstrates (to you) that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Well I'm done with it. From our first interaction I've done my best to be patient with you, to direct you to helpful links on Wikipedia policies and to explain why the consensus is what it is. From here on out I'm done - the consensus has been demonstrated half a dozen times and I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to consider further reverts as disruptive editing from here on out. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

Customary report to ANI regarding AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs); making a personal attack in response to a final warning is one of the silliest things you could do. As one of the targets of Andy's personal attacks, I first asked him to retract his attacks which was met by a reversion. Seeing as he is incapable of contributing to discussions without resorting to personal attacks (I, for one, was having a civil discussion with Collect (talk · contribs) before he came in and resumed the attacks), he needs at least a cluebatting, maybe even a block; I've felt somewhat uncomfortable editing because of his constant personal attacks on me (see from last month: [3][4][5][6]). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this was in response to Sceptre attempting to continue his ridiculous campaign to involuntarily 're-gender' Bradley Manning on my talk page. I suggest that given Sceptre's contempt for WP:BLP policy, and for the rights of a vulnerable individual to make his own decisions on a personal matter without being used as a convenient puppet for some bizarre campaign, it is time that Sceptre be topic-banned from any article concerning Bradley Manning, any article concerning trans-gender/transsexual issues, and any biography of any individual where gender identity is of any significance. Sceptre is clearly abusing Wikipedia facilities in an attempt to 'right a wrong' - though the only 'wrong' that is apparent is Sceptre's wrong-headed and obnoxious refusal to acknowledge Bradley Manning as an appropriate person to comment on Bradley Manning's gender identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None of which excuses this attack in any shape or form. Is there any particular reason (apart from it being five hours old) why that shouldn't result in a block? Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None that I can see... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is true? There are gross double standards here - I am supposed to be 'civil' to Sceptre, while he is free to use Manning (who is of course in no position to respond) as the scapegoat in some bizarre and unfathomable exercise in sexual politics. No. This is wrong. It is obnoxious. It should not be allowed to continue. If Wikipedia prefers agenda-pushing trolls to editors who actually have respect for the persons we write about, go ahead block me, and continue on the downhill path to a low grade tabloid gossip blog that some seem to desire... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers editors who have respect for the persons we write about. We also prefer editors who can follow Wikipedia's policies, and no matter what another editor, troll or not, has done, personal attacks are never acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that we should fight low-grade tabloid gossip, and I appreciate his willingness to do so, but it is entirely possible to fight to uphold BLP without saying things like "fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To claim it's scapegoating is to imply that being transgender is wrong. Besides, what stake do you have in this issue that you must make personal attacks to protect Manning? I'll admit that my own stake is that, as a feminist and a member of the LGBT community, it doesn't seem ethical to refer to Manning as we do in spite of our guidelines on gender identity and the sources given. Your behaviour does look quite similar to concern trolling seen elsewhere... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's completely wrong and you know it. It doesn't matter if it's your belief that it's true - whatever Sceptre is doing, if you've got an issue with another editor then there are a range of places to take that problem. What you don't do is tell them to "fuck off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot" which is utterly out of the range of mild incivility (which I think the other diffs were). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it would be highly punitive? A block isn't the answer in this case. You can look into interaction bans and various other options. ANI has become wickedly punitive recently. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is the only way to get someone's attention to prevent further invicivility, is it punitive? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe attention has been obtained. What is the expectation, that AndyTheGrump is going to start following Sceptre around dishing out personal attacks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When somebody has a history of personal attacks, and then makes an explicitly blatant one, are we supposed to just shrug and hide behind "oh, we can't do anything, it'd be punitive"? If the answer is yes we might as well nominate Wikipedia:No personal attacks for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the above diffs, he "started" doing that a while back. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you accusing me of 'following Sceptre' to my own talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the diffs above are on at least four different other pages. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The diffs in question are six weeks old, and the result of Sceptre's blatant misrepresentations in pursuit of his bizarre agenda. If Sceptre didn't like it at the time, he could have complained then - but he didn't, presumably because he expected to be told to stop what he was doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did. I was met with the boomerang because I made one personal attack compared to the dozen or so you made back. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy lives quite well up to his username. I should point out that I'm only one of the editors he's attacked; he's also been making attacks on BLP/N, probably against seasoned editors too. Re Ryan: yes. He did so on WT:LGBT six weeks ago, reverting a post I made there. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the blocking policy lists a "preventative block" as being (among others) one that "encourages a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Do I think that this will do that? No. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes,I got edit conflicted all over the place. My comment: Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire, Andy. That said, can I issue a strong request that the WP:BOOMERANG pay close scrutiny to Sceptre, too? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free; I've been very careful this time around, as my last complaint about Andy's conduct got threatened with the boomerang. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do expect you to get at least a trout for continuing this dispute (Andy probably deserves a bigger fish). Still, you've definitely gotten better than the last time. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Am I to understand that Sceptre has self confirmed that he is the writer of this off-wiki blog? Doesn't that look like a conflict of interest?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes that is some COI, which explains the POV pushing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think what you will find if you examine both the dictionary and Sceptre's behaviour you'll find that Andy used an accurate description.

• Any discomfort felt as a result of reading Andy's remarks are pretty much the result of the reader continuing to refuse to address the issue of Sceptre's ongoing unacceptable behaviour. For 90% of the editors reading those remarks, they have themselves to blame for it, for the 'innocent' reader who happens upon them, the 90% who are refusing to address the Sceptre issue need to take responsibility for their own part in the mess created. This is a bit like wikileaks, don't stop people getting away with murder, just silence the paper-boy instead.

• Andy needs to get with he program and anaesthetise his intellect, so like the rest of us, he can drift through the project blissfully unaware of his surroundings, he has to turn a blind mind to what is going on, rather than be focused on reality and using appropriate words from the dictionary that threaten to burst our bubbles of delusion. I suggest he takes up lying himself, rather than calling lies 'lies' he should use soft agreeable words like 'unusual view of reality' so we can read right past it without waking up. Yeah, like that Andy,

• tell us some lies, we want to believe. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to believe that one can be both productive, accurate and civil is disheartening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't make any secrets that that's my blog, yes. It's no different from other Wikipedians blogging on other matters; if you'll notice, even on that blog post I deliberately backed myself up with Wikipedia policy. Re: Penyulap, I suggest you retract that comment. It's a personal attack by proxy. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ? Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to get in trouble for personal attacks? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre does kind of need to drop the POV-pushing. I don't think Andy needs to be getting so grumpy, but slap the fish and move on. Bradley Manning doesn't need more negative POV stuff and I would venture to say it is more of a problem for people with personal agendas to push those into Wikipedia articles than a single immature blow up at another editor. Bradley Manning's life is not a plaything for us to decide controversial determinations of what gender someone ought to be addressed as. I can easily see how this has become very frustrating for some of the more involved editors, since they are having to push back constantly against what Sceptre sees as a personal crusade. While I can see a point of view that these underlying gender issues can inform the discussion about Bradley Manning, the sources aren't there to support Wikipedia being 'forward thinking' on this, and as such, the stick needs to be dropped because the horse is long dead. We are not here for people to push agendas, but to present articles in a thoughtful and neutral fashion. To make this person's gender choices front and center in the article is not a DUE presentation of the topic, which heavily is notable because of the Wikileaks connection (not for gender issues). -- Avanu (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV pushing COI users are the bane of the en project - defending living people against them is a difficult task - I do it and Andy does it too - the primary issue is with the COI POV pushing account - User:Sceptre needs topic banning from trans gender wiki content. Youreallycan 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - there are clearly two issues here. On the other hand, Andy seriously needs to tone down the attacks - as I said above, there are areas for dispute resolution (including POV and COI) and nothing is solved by swearing at people. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Andy lost it there and was overly attacking, agreed - he could easily say exactly the same thing without being rude and he should start doing that asap - Youreallycan 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • BTW, when did referring to trans women as women -- a practice backed up by the medical, academic, and journalistic communities, not to mention our own Manual of Style -- become "COI POV pushing"? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in looking at the diffs presented by Sceptre, it is even more clear that Sceptre is approaching this the wrong way. Forum shopping the idea around that Bradley Manning should be addressed only as Sceptre says isn't the right approach. I agree there should be a style guide on this, but just as it is considered impolite to "out" gay people, it should probably be equally inappropriate to label someone without unequivocal evidence of their choice on the matter. If Sceptre wants to have a real discussion, then it should be about bringing sources, not just opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: at risk of going off into a content dispute I'm basically agnostic on, since when did gender identity become "negative POV stuff"? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is about WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Among some people, Bradley Manning is reviled as a traitor already. While this might be a foreseeable consequence for leaking secret documents, it is the main reason that Bradley Manning has notability. Now comes Sceptre with the very relevant issues of gender identity. Such information is relevant because it provides the answer (in part) to why Bradley Manning might have felt isolated and willing to betray the trust of military superiors. However, to refactor the article where the gender choice of Bradley Manning becomes the central focus on the article simply is not cool UNLESS Bradley Manning makes it super super clear that this is his/her choice AND reliable sources back this up. Sceptre is continually pushing for a minority intrepretation against the greater consensus and while this is fine to a point, it could easily be perceived as disruptive if it is unceasing. I heard about this dispute several months ago and by the diffs presented above, it seems like Sceptre just isn't willing to let it be. Bradley Manning is a living person and there is no inherent disrespect or problematical editing by referring to him/her in the same manner as the preponderance of our sources. Choosing in a 'forward-thinking' way to push a POV about this person's gender, when it is not even the central theme of the article (which is about Wikileaks) just isn't good and encyclopedic editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought that involuntary gender re-assignment was self-evidently 'negative'. Or am I missing something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Failing to sanction editors who engage personal attacks because (e.g.) "Andy is right" is a path towards altering WP:NPA so that it means "it's okay to attack someone as long as you think you're right". Is that where we're headed here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really outing by me if the content was in the article eight months before I edited it, even before Manning's Article 32 hearing which effectively "outed" her by using GID as part of her defence. All I've been arguing for for the past month is changing the pronouns to female ones. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

...Against Manning's express wishes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When has Manning said "please don't refer to me as a woman"? You seem to be adamant that Manning has said something like that, when all she said was "ehh, Bradley's fine". Having a male name doesn't make your gender male, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've read this:

First, we should bear in mind the basis upon which some have made suppositions about Manning’s preferred gender identity. By and large, we are dealing with evidence that has not been established as fact. We can look at some Google searches found in forensic evidence, a smattering of late-night private chat logs, and potential testimony from those in whom Manning may have privately confided.

If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun. [7]

Clear as daylight - Manning has not asked to be identified as female, even in private. You have no right to act otherwise, in direct contradiction to his stated wishes. This is not only wrong, but obnoxious. I've no idea why you think this is appropriate anywhere, but it certainly isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Referring to someone who has made it entirely clear that they wish to be identified as male as "she" is a BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this ridiculous campaign to troll and harass Manning still going on; I though we'd blocked those responsible ages ago! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It got reignited when an anon posted on Talk:Bradley Manning using my blog post as an argument. I went there to explain what I meant by it, Andy jumps in and starts the personal attacks again. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, well can you just drop the stick and leave Manning alone. Seems the most sensible resolution. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that imply that if he doesn't "drop the stick" Andy can continue to call him a repulsive lying bigot? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Andy should stop calling Sceptre names. That's petty. Andy stop calling him names. If Sceptre doesn't drop the stick I'll just block him for BLP or something. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not non sequitur in a thread that raises the issue of Andy's personal attacks. If Andy doesn't stop with the personal attacks, will you block him? If not, why not? Is violation of WP:NPA really "petty"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be. What is a BLP violation is a campaign to harass Manning over gender issues. You made your case, it was rejected on BLP grounds (and others). Continuing the pressure the matter is a BLP issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's allowed and expected that, if your argument is used in a discussion, that you should be able to clarify the argument. I have blog analytics, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you pushing this change or not? If you are simply explaining some comment, then Andy has no basis for his frustration. But if you are picking up the horse again and pushing strongly for this change then I can imagine the frustration. Please understand, I am not excusing Andy's 'seasoned' language, but I don't think that a person poking a bear should be held entirely blameless either. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I support the change, yes, but I deliberately avoided the article after the last dust-up. Either Andy has appointed himself Manning's protector-on-Wikipedia, or he's stalking my contribs, neither of which are desireable. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is 'deliberately avoiding the article'? [8]. Really?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre one week block

• - User:Magog the Ogre has blocked Andy for a week - without joining the discussion at all - there is clearly no consensus for such a lengthy editing restriction here and I support a reduction to more like a day - Youreallycan 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that too. Kind of feel like Magog ought to have at least given a rationale on the TP first. Maybe it is forthcoming? -- Avanu (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

He probably does need the matter pressing on him eventually. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of one week. Andy has been warned enough, by me and by others. BLP certainly does not give anyone the right to act uncivilly. Nor does being right. Period. And if you guys could just chill out for a second, then maybe you can get my explanation (which I have just provided above). And, because admins can be unblock happy when they see something they are emotionally invested in, I unfortunately must say this: please note that I will consider any unblock of Andy which is outside process to be wheel-warring per WP:BLOCK#Block reviews, and I will deal with any administrator performing an unblock without community consensus as having committed such an action by bringing the issue before the community or ArbCom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to why Penyulap wasn't blocked for similar attacks made (rather deliberately, one assumes) right here on this page. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would have done so, but my phone doesn't appear to like the blocking page. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If the goal is to avoid disruption and drama, and return people to productive editing, a caution would suffice at this point, no? It's not an ongoing problem, is it? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's preventative. Pointy deliberate attacks like that are not acceptable, blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the last time Andy was blocked for similar behavior was a 72 hour block. The general understanding is that blocks for the same behavior one has been blocked for before get lengthened. Therefore a week is warrented. Note that this does not in any way sustain any support for whatever POV pushing Spectre might be involved in or prejudice any action with regards to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a good point, and I had typed that, although it seems to have gotten lost in the 542 (or so) edit conflicts. Sceptre POV pushing is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, but it should be addressed separately from Andy's consistent violation of community norms through personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Andy really gave us no choice. Now ... Sceptre and their BLP-violations/WP:TE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Magog the Ogre - You didn't discuss it at all - and your attempting to gold plate your undiscussed action when there is clear opposition to it is undue indeed - Youreallycan 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any 'clear opposition' to blocks being handed out for scathing personal attacks. Andy knew precisely what he was doing when he said what he did. → ROUX ₪ 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Another fine mess"
— Laurel Hardy

Clearly AndyTheGrump is an editor who understands encyclopedic policies and works hard at maintaining content integrity. On the other hand, he unnecessarily agressive; in addition to the above, he recently unnecessarily called a departing editor trying to put POV fringe science in an article a POV-pushing loon. (Given the "unworthiness" of the target, I saw little benefit to Wikipedia in pursuing the issue at the time.) He has been involved in WQA alerts many times. Good preventative block; the lack of meaningful sanctions for intentional repeated incivil behavior sends a signal to the community that, as long as you're correct on content and pick your "targets" well civil interaction isn't actually required. Nobody Ent 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. This level of incivility is, unfortunately, not something we haven't seen from Andy before. Talking to him hasn't helped, previous blocks have apparently failed to convince him that civility is important, and warning him didn't help earlier today - a block is the appropriate next step here. I would also strongly support a block of Penyulap for his "me too!"-style POINTy attack. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Fluffernutter - Can you please close the pending protection RFC rather than commenting here - Youreallycan 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    We're essentially finished with it, and we finally got input from the other admin. Closing statement is just a day or two away, it looks like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Ah - cool - thanks for the detail Northern Lights - Youreallycan 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 854000)@Youreallyan - unfortunately, I worded it very poorly, and it came across as harsh and self-serving. This is a function of the fact that I made the block before I typed my reasoning, so I rushed my wording and it didn't sound the way I wanted it to. I did not mean that no unblock can be made - no sirree bob - what I waa trying to avoid was the phenomenon wherein an admin sees his friend block and gets upset and undoes it because s/he feels it isn't right - despite the fact there is consensus to the opposite and/or without bothering to look into the original reason behind the block. Unfortunately, it came out as a threat from me about committing a legitimate unblock, when really it was an admonition against wheel-warring (which, if you frequent this board, you'll know is sadly common when admins become too involved). I've struck the unfortunate language. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Excessive in view of the background of the contretemps. Suggest that one day is a reasonable act as blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, and one week is clearly the latter. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that the last block he got for incivility was 72 hours. Repeated blocks for the same behavior are supposed to increase, not decrease. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This story again? Oy! Whether the block is justified on its own or not, it's important to keep in mind that BLP violation is on the list of things that could get the WMF into legal trouble, and as such it trumps editors' petty squabbles and name-calling. This stuff about Manning "identifying as female" was not supported by valid sources the last time this subject came up, hence it was a BLP violation. Has anything changed since then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can't really make sense of all this except that AtG was definitely not polite. However, it does seem that there is an underlying important blp issue that needs to be addressed and I hope that the block does not mean that the issue itself will go unaddressed. --regentspark (comment) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block - There's quite simply no reason to act like that (goes for Penyulap too). It's against policy, despite others calling it "small", "unimportant", or whatever. Either admins respect the policies here, or they don't. Picking and choosing, especially because "he started it" type of crap, is flat out wrong. Now deal with Sceptre's issue. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I hate to do this but - Support Block I have worked with Andy on many engineering topics and get along well with him - I like the cut of his jib. I have on several occasions encouraged him to be more civil, and I have specifically told him that "the other fellow misbehaved worse, so it is OK for me to misbehave" is an unacceptable argument. I really hate writing this, but perhaps seeing one of his buddies supporting a limited one week ban will help convince him to be more civil. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• um, no Not that I support Andy's intemperate language, but this is basically a reward for all the POV warriors who can keep it together long enough to drive the testier people on the right side of the conflict to lose their tempers. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Better go nominate Wikipedia:No personal attacks for deletion then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, ignoring Andy's vituperation, he seems to be to be entirely accurate about Sceptre's POV-grinding on this article, just as he has been about other people in other articles where there has been conflict. I'm old enough to where I wouldn't use "troll" in the way anyone else here is likely to use it, but I agree with him entirely that the attempt to re-gender Manning should have been abandoned right away, or better still never have been initiated. Also, the blog post seems to make it clear that, again modulo the lack of civility, Andy's characterization of Sceptre's part in this has been basically accurate, so the accusation of POV-pushing is to my mind justified and not a personal attack. So if people want to penalize Andy, I cannot see doing do outside a package of greater discipline against a variety of people whose contributions actually affect the content of the text, which Andy's rudeness has not. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Strongly agree. When I say that I have specifically told Andy that "the other fellow misbehaved worse, so it is OK for me to misbehave" is an unacceptable argument, I am not implying that he is factually incorrect -- in every case the other fellow really is misbehaving worse -- but rather that he should be civil no matter what the other fellow does. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. From what I have seen, this is pretty much Andy's standard MO. Regardless of whether he is (or thinks he is) right regarding Sceptre's editing, his own editing is not acceptable and the harm that he does to the project himself via his attacks should not be trivialized because of it. Resolute 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Shite block but not surprising given who gave it out. Andy may be a bit over the top at times, but at least he is honest about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Sceptre

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

---

• • Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

110% support doing so ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I too would support this. Regardless of Andy going apeshit with his keyboard, Sceptre is way out of line here too. Best if he stays away from the Manning article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With Andy already 'dealt with', I agree with some others above that Sceptre's behaviour also needs to be addressed. How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yup. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've refactored two concurrent ban discussions into a single location. Nobody Ent 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. My comment got edit-conflicted back about 10 minutes. This topic is a bit of an active one. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - without some indication from people here that they a) understand, and b) give a damn about transgender issues, and c) are able to therefore explain why exactly there is a problem with Sceptre's edits. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • • Was involved in transgender issues a long time ago, and am quite familiar with Benjamin Standards etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A long time ago that, as I mentioned on Andy's talk earlier, they haven't been known as that for several years. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • On GoogleScholar, 169 (70%) of 242 current results for "benjamin standards" refer to "harry benjamin standards". So flunking what? Since when did majority usage provide a special qualification to override WP:BLP principles protecting an individual's human rights? Support. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • But "WPATH Standards of Care", as they're now known, get 531 hits, despite that being the newer name for them. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • And the trans community still has many using that term (I suspect I am substantially older than Sceptre)- and referring to "dysphoria" and not "disorder" as you appear to prefer contrary to preferred usage. Cheers. BTW, most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time - which, in the case of Manning, absolutely is male in the present instance. Collect (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • "most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time" - patently untrue. → ROUX ₪ 15:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
                • • Oh? I suggest you talk to some then. Your "patently untrue" comment is totally non-utile. Cheers. (and your inisistence that only those who know exactly what you WP:KNOR about trans people is not valid in any case). Collect (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• See my statement below. I do give a damn, and this is something we shouldn't be putting on Wikipedia BLPs without solid sourcing. I fully support referring to by the gender assignment they align with, but not from something with as flimsy a source as this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support this is an ongoing problem to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fruit of the poisonous tree. An editor should be able to make a legit ANI posting regarding personal attacks. Nobody Ent 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Person A makes unacceptable POV edits, which are opposed by person B. Person A manages to goad Person B into a thermonuclear rage. Person B is blocked for personal attacks. Person A's edits are thereby condoned. Sorry, but that is a load of crap. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Reyk _YO! 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Person B is responsible for person's B actions. Not persons A, C, D, F or X. Nobody Ent 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Certainly, but when both people involved have behaved badly it's not appropriate to punish just one of them and reward the other for being first to come running to ANI. Reyk _YO! 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Reyk _YO! 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked deeply enough into this issue to be as 100% sure as I'd like to be, but my spidey senses are going regarding Sceptre's language. He is referring to Manning's alleged sexuality in a way which entirely ignores that, for right or wrong, many people would be offended to be named in the transgender group - just as many would be offended to be listed among other not-necessarily bad groups (e.g., religions, political preferences). I am very worried about the us vs. them type of thinking he's showing above, which is reminiscent of those with an agenda to uphold The Truth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • First, this has nothing to do with Manning's sexuality; this is about Manning's gender identity, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Conflating the two indicates to me that you simply do not have the experience or information necessary to even comment on the issue (as I, for example, don't know enough about the difference between e.g. koalas and kangaroos to comment on marsupialism). Second, it is far more offensive to refer to a transgendered person by their biological gender than to 'offend' someone by including them in a non-offensive group. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What an odd statement to make for someone insisting that others be well-versed in transgender issues before commenting. That you would state with objective certainty that one action is universally 'more offensive' than another suggests to me that you're clearly not well-versed enough in the counterview to make a truly objective assessment of the situation. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Odd? Hardly. Manning has publicly indicated that GID is a factor. If Manning has chosen to identify as female, it is not only grossly insulting but also grossly depersonalizing to refer to Manning by any gender other than the one they prefer, in much the same way that if someone of African descent prefers the term African-American over black, it is grossly insulting to call them the latter. The difference that I think you don't understand here is that when someone has chosen to be identified in a certain way, referring to them by the opposite is a deliberate insult. → ROUX ₪ 00:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • If Manning had clearly chosen to identify as female, then you could potentially argue that the likelihood of offense being taken is high (not necessarily higher than the opposite). But based on all the sources I've read, he has made conflicting gender identifications. The mere fact that a biological male is experiencing GID and bouncing between identities doesn't mean the outcome will automatically be for him to settle on female identity. Manning hasn't settled on a particular gender identity yet, and it's not our place to decide for him. It's entirely possible he'll settle on male identity and then be embarrassed that he'd considered the alternative. The point is, we don't know yet what his actual choice of identity is, and until strong evidence appears to support one or the other, we have dominant usage in reliable sources in favour of male identification. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits› 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for it, I'll voluntarily stay away. The only reason that I edited the talk page a few days ago in the first place was because I noticed it in my blog analytics. That said, I'm uncomfortable with how these discussions about the Manning article seem to have very few LGBT project editors, and those that do seem more willing to agree with my argument than those that don't. Perhaps because they agree that it's not me harassing Manning in any way; it's just ensuring that a living person (as Manning is) is referred to as people with gender identity disorder ethically should be. Roux seems to put it more succintly than I can. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, the fact that you and Roux insist that someone has to be part of the LGBT project to have a valid opinion is highly troubling. I understand the topics at hand, but have no interest in joining projects. That does not negate my ability to rationally discuss the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support You don't need to demonstrate particular appreciation of transgender issue to determine that you cannot reinterpret someone's gender identity based on subjective interpretations highly equivocal cues. Wikipedia does not redefine someone's identity until reliable sources clearly indicate that that is warranted, and anyone who pushes an agenda to do so is a liability to the project and should be restricted. And for what its worth - I don't think sceptre has demonstrated any appreciation of the possible nuances of the situation either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Gross BLP violation. Manning is notable solely for one thing, that being allegations of espionage. Unless the tabloid stuff somehow comes up at his trial, it's irrelevant and an invasion of privacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just so you know, it did come up at the Article 32 hearing. [9]. That's the angle that I've been discussing it from the past day or so. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Manning's gender identity has been widely reported on, and unless my memory is deceiving me, gender identity plays a role in Manning's publicized defence. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed that Manning's struggle with GID is relevant to the case and article, but I haven't seen any strong evidence indicating he has settled on either his male or female identity. There's a difference between mentioning GID in the article and recasting the article to female gender in the encyclopedic voice. In the absence of strong evidence, Wikipedia's standard behaviour is to fall back to usage in the majority of reliable sources, which at the moment is certainly male. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • • And those sources are, if Manning has self-identified as female, wrong in the way that mainstream media so often is. Thought experiment: if the preponderance of sources referred to Barack Obama as a nigger, would we be compelled to use the same nomenclature? Of course not, because it is inherently denigratory to do so. Just as it is inherently wrong to refer to someone by the gender they do not prefer to be known as. → ROUX ₪ 00:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, actually, although that's a pretty gross example, if Time and Newsweek routinely used that term instead of "African-American", and were considered valid sources, we might be kind of stuck. Regardless, it is not wikipedia's purpose to "right great wrongs". If the valid sources start referring to Manning routinely as "she", that will be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's a gross example. What you don't seem to understand is that for trans people, being referred to by their cis-gender is equally gross. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Actually, the comparison with your example would be if the media called him a "she-male". Regardless, we go by valid sourcing, not by what we suppose someone might by offended at. If the sources say "he", then that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If there are valid sources that bring that subject up in connection with the trial, then that fact would be fair game. But if the preponderance of sources call the subject "he", then it is "he", and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose as unnecessary and appearing vindictive. Tit-for-tat administrative sanctions aren't cool, and a bad direction to take WP:BOOMERANG. There's no indication of any ongoing trouble from Sceptre. His (her? their?) nonconsensus edits to the article on May 5 2012 went beyond WP:BOLD, particularly edit warring the page move and regendering (to 1RR), but that was well over a month ago and Sceptre hasn't edited the article since. Starting a conversation on the talk page, as they did today, is what they're supposed to do when they have a content point. As far as I can tell their proposal has very little to no chance of success, but making perennial proposals only merits a topic ban in the most extreme circumstances where it becomes disruptive. Here the disruption was entirely caused by ATG, a better response to the proposal would be to simply say that this has been discussed before, there isn't enough sourcing for it, and there's very little chance of it being adopted, and then after a day or so proposing to close it as no reasonable likelihood of reaching consensus (assuming there is none). Regarding the accusations of COI and POV pushing for taking one side of a dispute regarding gender pronouns ("homosexual agenda", anyone?), if it is a POV to call Manning a she, then it must be POV to call Manning a he. In other words, if you see it as a POV issue and you're taking the other side, you're POV too. It's a lot more appropriate to simply note whatever our sourcing standards and manual of style have to say, and calmly decide whether or not that burden has been met. Sceptre has agreed to stay away at this point (which is unnecessary), and could easily be warned and blocked if they try to regender or move the page again without consensus. We're at least five steps premature from ordering Scepre not to bring it up again on the talk page, something we would do rarely as chilling discussion is not a good thing. Those steps would be to establish strong consensus, note it, summarily deal with further attempts to bring it up again, and finally, give authoritative warning not to bring it up again. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just to clarify a point: an anon used my argument to argue for it, and I replied to explain what I meant by the argument. I didn't seek to re-open the debate this soon; I was waiting for the full court-martial. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for the exact same length of time as AtG's block. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Two different issues. The BLP violations are seperate from the PAs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - Manning clearly prefers to identify as he by the sources, but it seems there hasn't been any recent actual pushing of 'she', has there? Just discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons Wikidemon has outlined: it's currently unnecessary. Sceptre has agreed to not edit the article voluntarily. Give them a chance to live to that. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose. In my view Sceptre should have been topic banned when this whole thing exploded before, but to do it now on the basis of what recently happened seems unfair. I do think it would be wise of Sceptre to stay away from the Manning article and the Manning Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: really outrageous. This should never have happened. Sceptre didn't have the sources, didn't have consensus on talk, even had a COI, and wouldn't drop the stick. Andy was definitely out of line and rightly blocked, but can anyone honestly say that he wasn't baited... even a little bit? It appears Sceptre is so emotionally involved they can't help themself. Topic ban them and let's move on. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Egregious BLP violation and POV pushing, has no business editing in these fields. Heiro 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sceptre's been around the block enough times that he should know better by now. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary currently. Sceptre has not edited the article since 5 May. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Andy, which is indeed saying something. I've been observing the going-ons at the Bradley Manning article for a while now and it is quite clear that Sceptre cannot properly be involved in the subject, as he has far too strong of a POV in regards to the trans-gender issue. His actions in this regard have also been inexcusable and i'm quite surprised a topic ban wasn't enacted ages ago. Silverseren^C 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Editors should not be sanctioned for their personal POV but rather how this affects their editing. Sincere talk page discussions do not constitute disruptive editing, regardless of how objectionable a view is being expressed, and the article in question has not been touched for a while. Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors can and will be sanctioned for disrupting wikipedia. Per WP:DISRUPT, edits at talk pages can be disruptive, particularly when there is a case of WP:IDHT. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment How about a (Voluntary?) topic ban on Manning and Gender narrowly construed, unless there are multiple high quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and there is agreement from an admin that this is the case) before bringing it to the talk page? The continual repeating discussion of the issue is a case of WP:IDHT and is disruptive though. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'm not seeing any behavior that justifies a topic ban at this point. I don't agree that that we should be referring to B. Manning as a female at this time (most evidence of their preference points the opposite way at the moment from what I can tell), but I don't have a problem with someone civilly pushing for the change as it's not utterly unreasonable. If someone can provide diffs of Sceptre being over the top on this topic in the recent past, I'm willing to change. But I'm not seeing anything in my 10 minute search. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The issue is way more complicated than Sceptre makes it out to be. This is not about an article about a trans person who clearly identified as such. This is about a person who, in a private(!) chat, said they want to be identified as one gender, and then later through their lawyers said they want to be identified as another.[10] This is a complicated issue, and saying that it is blindingly obvious one way or the other is what is the problem here. And that's what would warrant a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Sceptre's entire thrust is that we can infer Manning's gender from leaked private documents. That's just so far out of line with BLP, I'm shocked something hasn't been done yet. It is not our place to decide if Manning is transgender or not based on this one source. If Manning or their representative made a statement confirming this, we should add it. Until then, it's far too contentious to be in a BLP, much less a high profile one like this. Sceptre has shown a willingness to dig in and spend weeks to add this in, despite legitimate objections. A topic ban is the best way to let the discussion get back on-track, and let us wait for reliable sources one way or the other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support That was some pretty ridiculous drama the editor caused and they clearly need a break, as do we all. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support The off-wiki blog would be enough to support a Conflict-of-Interest topic ban, but the fact that Sceptre continues to subtly POV push under whatever guise he sees fit, is probably the clincher. Especially when there is Bias and BLP issues. I read that posted blog and it seems that Sceptre should be topic banned from any and all LGBT articles and issues because it looked obvious to me that Sceptre's goals are agenda based, and he is not at all interested in building an encyclopedia, but trying to push a POV, despite the absence of reliable sources. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the best way to avoid future disruptions regarding this issue. I would also suggest blacklisting his blog because the latest episode seems designed to divert traffic there. This seems a publicity stunt.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Wikidemon. Sceptre hasn't edited the article in quite a while and has even said they will voluntarily stay away. A topic ban at this time is more punishment than it is anything else. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a POV warrior on the matter, which puts Sceptre into the position of BLP violation. Essential to topic ban to end disruption. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's not punishment to formalize an arrangement that Sceptre currently wants. I have seen earlier discussions on the issue, and they were totally unproductive and inappropriate needling and POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite and Johnuniq. Though Sceptre has promised to stay away, this will remove the temptation to again reply to any visitor directed to the article by Sceptre's blog. Kanguole 13:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed. Arcandam (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Sceptre for the Bradley Manning topic. The edits have been against consensus and gone on too long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Comment

This is an extremely poor showing. If I had made disruptive edits to the article itself since the last dust-up, then sure, the topic ban would've been justified, but this only serves to shut down discussion. In a sane world, we would discuss the sources and then make a judgement on that: for example, whether the ethical thing to do is to rely on the Lamo chat logs at all as a source. But here, we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity.

For example, the one source that has been brought up in favour of using male pronouns has been the Washington Blade column, specifically the quote "We do know [...] Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know [...] Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun". One's someone who hasn't come out as trans (which is hard if you're in the army); the other's someone who doesn't idetify as female at all. The pronoun issue is a digression from the identity issue anyway; did Laura Jane Grace specifically ask people to refer to her by female pronouns?

Roux's question was a very salient one and I'm dismayed that it was shut down. People really do need to know what they're talking about before contributing to sensitive areas. Would we be even discussing a topic ban if I, on Talk:Evolution, had been as adamant on the statement that "Evolution is a fact" from people who don't know the meaning of "scientific theory" and were saying it's "just a theory"? No, we wouldn't.

Worse still is that it sets a precedent that we can determine someone's gender identity by a consensus of people who don't even think about gender identity at all. That's a very dangerous path to go down. The discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?".

Oh, and on my blog? I made that post hours before the whole dust-up started last month. It was effectively a first-draft of the BLP/N post I made. I didn't do it for the fucking publicity; even I don't know what posts of mine will be popular or not (hell, I once got linked from Pharyngula, which was very surprising). All that happened is that en.wikipedia.org turned up in the referrer stats. It doesn't take that many hits to do that, and I haven't had an appreciable rise in hits at all.

In any case, I'll respect the topic ban and leave it be for the meanwhile, even though I disagree with both the topic ban (as it only serves to shut down discussion) and why it was applied (as a sense of victor's justice). However, I do hope that this'll lead to a serious discussion on how we handle transgender issues, because, from what I've seen, that's a discussion that really needs to happen. This'll be my last comment on the matter, as I don't want to waste any more energy on this issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

While I don't see eye-to-eye with you on your perspective about the Manning article (I prefer strict adherence to a preponderance of sources for a change like this), I do agree that this Topic Ban is a bit untimely and ill-conceived, and should be a time-limited topic ban, not a perpetual one. I am also very disappointed to see it implemented by Sarek-of-Vulcan of all people, who really doesn't strike me as a person who needs to be intervening in this at all. (Honestly needs to be de-admin-ed really.) The community did seemingly vote in favor of the topic ban, so to that extent, there should be a message that you should be careful in how you approach these topics, but considering that the last edit to the Manning article was weeks ago, a topic ban now seems heavy-handed, compared with the 'topic probation' idea that was also proposed. My only suggestion is to approach the board after some time for a reconsideration of the ban or its length. -- Avanu (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria -- file a recall, or strike the comment above, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? There's no personal attack; Avanu expressed an opinion. You don't like it, but that's hardly surprising. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarek never said there was a personal attack. What Avanu said was equivalent to accusing someone of being a sock puppet rather than filing a report at WP:SPI. If Avanu thinks an admin should be desysopped, he should follow the appropriate process, not drop it here like a poisoned balloon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, Sceptre, there are much better ways to argue against a topic ban than to blatantly violate it as you did above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I really hope you're not implying that meta-discussion falls under the topic ban. Regardless of my behaviour, there are several issues that do need to be addressed, namely the implication that you don't need an understanding of the issues before discussing such a sensitive topic, or that this topic ban is less about preventing disruption and more about using power to end a content dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See paragraph 2 of your first post -- that's not meta-discussion, that's continuing the argument that got you topic banned in the first place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind of proving my point for me, Sarek. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A question for everyone involved in this discussion

Seriously, this isn't helping at all. Please stick to the discussion at hand. Blackmane (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many of you actually know, let alone are friends/relatives/lovers of trans people? → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC) How is this relevant?--Atlan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Because it is blindingly obvious that the overwhelming majority of people in this discussion have no fucking clue about trans issues in general, let alone how incredibly fucking dehumanizing and insulting it is to refer to trans people by their cisgender when they have made it clear what their gender is. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It is irrelevant who people know. The reliable sources just don't exist to do such a bold move (as is shown in the numerous archived discussions at BLPN and the manning article). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It's hardly irrelevant to require that people have even a modicum of knowledge about a given subject before commenting on it. I am fucking sick and tired of cis/hetero privilege around here. → ROUX ₪ 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Please assume good faith and remain civil. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I don't think it's hugely relevant but I've worked with two TG folks, one closely (she was my boss when she changed how she identified). I think the question is of reliable sourcing. If there are reliable sources for the subject identifying as female and not male, that's one thing. I've not followed the issue for a while, but at last check the sources were extremely thin. I'll look it over again... Hobit (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Who gives a shit? WP:V who people know means nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) What people know, however, means everything. WP:V isn't enough; one must be able to evaluate the sources. If you don't know what you're talking about (as you, and many others here, clearly do not) then you are unable to do so. → ROUX ₪ 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC) What a load of bollocks, we use what the sources say. This is not a platform for political or any other form of beliefs. It is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a platform to push a point of view. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC) And if you don't have enough knowledge to evaluate whether what the sources say is accurate or not, you are the one spouting the load of bollocks here. → ROUX ₪ 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) First of all, Roux, your lack of good faith is disturbing. Secondly, "who" you know is irrelevant. If there are reliable sources that explicitly state that Manning does not want to be referred to as "she", that are not contraindicated by more recent reliable sources that indicate a change on that, to continue to do so is a BLP violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Topic probation for Sceptre

All in all, it seems to me that Sceptre has not done anything recently to merit a topic ban. As User:Wikidemon said above, Sceptre's involvement since the previous AN/I dispute has been minimal until today. That said, when Sceptre has veen involved in this area, their involvement has been, overall, highly questionable. So place Sceptre on probation: if Sceptre's future behavior in the area of Bradley Manning, broadly construed, becomes inappropriate, they shall receive a topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This probation idea seems to be one of the more reasonable suggestions. After all, any of us can get passionate about a topic and carry a crusade for a bit. Sceptre said that this was dropped and I will assume that is correct. On the idea of not being empathetic enough on the transgender issues, i.e. "give a damn about transgender issues", we don't need to know anything about an issue to know whether someone is following sources and provide a reasonable analysis of whether those sources are being faithful to their subject matter. Bradley Manning's reputation is already under attack for being an accused purveyor of secrets, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to be forward-thinking ahead of sources to re-classify a person's gender, who could then be attacked for that as well. This may be personally important to Bradley Manning, but that has not been made unequivocally clear in our sources. To move forward on this without that clarity is irresponsible to the truth as well as a launch beyond where our sources take us. While it also may be a personal issue to many of our editors, we are responsible for creating articles that reflect our subjects in a manner that is faithful more to the sources and subject of our article, not something that reflects our personal sensibilities. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on to it. He's too emotionally invested, and needs to stay miles away from that article for a lengthy period of time - during which, the issue might even be settled one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sceptre needs to be topic-banned to the moon on anything remotely with 20 miles of Bradley Manning or transexuality and interaction banned from AtG. Andy probably needs some sort of Wiki-whack for not being clever enough to get rid of a clear POV warrior (minimum interpretation) without resorting to personal attacks after being admonished previously for the same damned thing. Hello?!?! This is not so hard to understand, is it??? Carrite (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Dolphin51

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

---

User:Dolphin51 and I had a rather negative interaction in February over a GAN (in which he insisted I insert OR into the article to satisfy his opinions). I disengaged and walked away. He apparently has not. After inviting himself to my talkpage in March, I thought I told him he was not welcome on my talk page in no uncertain terms. The obvious implication was for him take my talkpage off of his watchlist and walk away. Apparently I was incorrect. He has since inserted his nose where it does not belong, and seems to have no intention of leaving me alone. I have no idea why he is fixated on me, but I would like it to stop. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No editor, more particularly an Admin, should not be stating that another editor "inserted his nose where it does not belong", especially when referring to a post on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor is clearly stalking me. If the argument was that he regularly volunteered at the noticeboard, that would be different, but these are his first edits there. He had no way of finding the discussion apart from my talk page, which he apparently has watchlisted. He has repeatedly ignored requests that he stay away from me. This is not an unreasonable request. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you asked this user to stay off your talk page which they have done. this edit was not to your talk page and does not seem unreasonable - unlike your description of it as inserting his nose somewhere... Are you asking for an interaction ban, and on what grounds? I don't see what Dolphin51 is currently doing as harrassment, I must say. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, what I said was "I do not want any further interaction with you." Wikipedia is a big place; he doesn't need to be following me around. Instead, all I get is a glib response that might as well be "fuck you". I want him to take my talkpage off his watchlist. If an IBAN is what it will take to keep him away from me, fine. I want to be left alone. I don't understand why Dolphin finds this so hard to do. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those times where, for me, there are different rules for admins and others. I think as a class we need to grow thicker skins than other users and have a higher tolerance for nuisance. I don't regard what Dolphin is doing as particularly problematic in any case, and I'd expect you as an admin to be able to shrug this off. However, you clearly don't agree and I may be way off beam. I'll bow out here and let others chip in if they have a view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't feel like its harassment? Isn't that great. Shucks, that makes me feel all better now.

All I want is for him to go find some other part of the project to do whatever it is that he does, and leave me in peace. There is absolutely no reason why he ever has to insinuate himself in my business. It clearly is not productive. And he obviously is unwilling to heed the simple request that he spend his time elsewhere, hence the reason for this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of requests to stay away from talk pages, but I understand they are accepted. Howver, interaction bans requested unilaterally are not permitted. And even if a mutual interaction ban is accepted, it doesn't mean that someone can be told not to post potentially relevant information on a noticeboard. (I wrote this before seeing the post above, but I concur with the thought.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me why he has to post anything? There's a difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. That Wikipedia happens in public does not mean everything on the site is your business, or that you have a right to do whatever you want, regardless of other people. If his intentions were as pure as you seem to think they are, why can't he accept a simple request to leave me alone? Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur Dolphin51 should not be inserting themselves into Parsecboy's business. However, DRN and the Tirpitz article are not "Parsecboys" business, they're Wikipedia's business, and Dolphin51 is perfectly justified in commenting on them. Nobody Ent 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just said? Being allowed to do something does not mean you have to do it. I have made clear that I do not want to interact with Dolphin. Why is his harassing behavior perfectly acceptable to all of you? It's this kind of ridiculous bullshit that drives content creators away from this site. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Parsec is trying to get at is that Dolphin is only posting to DRN, the Tirpitz article, etc. because Parsec has. I.E. WP:HOUNDING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm getting at. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then it seems to me the next thing to do is to ascertain whether Dolphin is actually hounding you. I don't doubt for a second that a) Dolphin is giving the superficial appearance of hounding you and b) that you are feeling hounded by Dolphin. The question is whether Dolphin is participating in the same discussions you are because you share interests, or because they are following you around. I'm making no assertion one way or the other, because I've only perused the diffs here, not gone deeper into the conflict's history. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My areas of activity are limited pretty much to warship-related articles, an area I have never seen Dolphin edit (apart from the GAN which marked our first interaction); I have no idea where he spends his time editing, nor do I really care. As far as I can tell, he has no interest in the Tirpitz dispute other than the fact that I am an involved party. As I noted above, he has never done anything at DRN previously in any capacity, which makes it seem obvious that his presence there is based solely on mine. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at Dolphin's contribs, and his area of interest seems to be airplanes, especially airplane crashes. That's not completely unrelated to your warships area of interest, although there's only limited overlap. The point about DRN is a good one. That said, I'm not sure what remedies would be appropriate. Has he been continuing the behavior since you made this report? If not, what remedy do you seek? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since this morning - I suspect he's in another time zone. Ideally, it would be nice if he would voluntarily agree to refrain from interacting with me directly. But since he seems to have no inclination to do so, perhaps the best option at this point would be a clearly-worded warning from an uninvolved admin along those same lines. In he continues to hound me after that, it will be a basis for further actions, whatever may be fit. I am more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie—something I've been trying to do since our initial encounter in February; I wish he would do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy, why don't you just stop editing? Then you will not have any interaction with said user? If Dolphin is stalking your edits and harrassing you, then Dolphin should be santioned by the community. If Dolphin is not found to be harrassing you, then it seems like you can't really say what he should and shouldn't be editing. This makes no judgement as to Dolphins actions. --Mollskman (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting I stop editing Wikipedia because he's stalking me? Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No. IF he is stalking you, he should be sanctioned. IF he isn't, then you need to move along. --Mollskman (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you actually looked into a situation before you comment on it... Parsecboy (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

...Mollskman, that's really not helping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Parsec came here for neutral editors to look into the matter, not just getting a regurgitation of policy. And "why don't you stop editing?" Really? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As a preface, I'm not neutral in this because I've collaborated with Parsec on quite a few articles. Still, I think my views will hold some merit. First, let me assure you that the area Dolphin edits in, civil air crashes, never overlaps with First World War-era warships. Military aviation in later time periods, yes, but non-military WWI aviation, no. Second, when an editor is feeling hounded by another, and there's a long-term pattern of subtle edits to anger said editor, how does that not meet WP:HOUNDING? As Nobody Ent says, Dolphin is free to comment on any DRN or the Tirpitz article, but when there's no pattern of engaging in similar discussions, that should tell you he's only there because Parsec is involved. There's my two cents, take it how you will. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy has provided only two incidents of unsolicited contact made by Dolphin (after that initial GAN), and these were three months apart. Is that all, or were there others? I find it hard to accept a total of two contacts as a pattern of "hounding". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, my thanks to everyone who has stopped by to read this thread and add a contribution. Your efforts are appreciated. Secondly, my apologies for the delay in responding. I have been working on several tasks today and none of them involved a computer!

It seems Parsecboy’s current issue with my behaviour is related to my participation in a request for dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details. This request for dispute resolution was not raised by Parsecboy. It was raised by User:Zh.Mike, a new user with fewer than 60 edits, and for whom English is not his first language. I was moved to take an interest in Zh.Mike’s request for dispute resolution because I could see that Zh.Mike was a newby who had been poorly treated by the Military History fraternity. If you don’t know what I mean when I say Zh.Mike has been poorly treated please see Zh.Mike’s TALK page.

I have made only two edits to Zh.Mike's dispute resolution thread. See diff1 and diff2. The first was intended to pour oil on troubled waters and to acknowledge that Zh.Mike had acted appropriately by seeking dispute resolution because he had been poorly treated. That first edit mentions an edit by Parsecboy, a highly experienced editor and sysop. The second edit makes no mention of Parsecboy, either explicitly or implicitly. If I am guilty of being a serial offender, it is my first edit, the one that mentioned one of Parsecboy’s edits, that constitutes the long trail of similar offences.

If Zh.Mike takes the view that my participation in the dispute resolution thread is inappropriate or unwanted I would most likely withdraw graciously because it is Zh.Mike’s thread; he is the plaintiff. Parsecboy is the defendant so when he takes the view that I have inserted my nose where it doesn’t belong that is not a view that I can accommodate. I see nothing to indicate that Zh.Mike regards my participation as inappropriate.

In the views expressed on this thread I see some that suggest I should not participate in Zh.Mike’s request for dispute resolution because I know nothing about the Tirpitz or German naval ships. Firstly, there is nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia to suggest that a User can only participate in mediation or dispute resolution if he is an acknowledged expert on the article around which the dispute is centered. Secondly, I am not without knowledge about German naval ships. Earlier this year Parsecboy nominated two similar articles for Good Article status. I volunteered to review them, and invested a substantial amount of my time in doing so. Have a look at my work at:

• Talk:SMS Nurnberg (1916)/GA1
• Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1

Regardless of all that has happened between Parsecboy and me, and regardless of the outcome of this thread, Parsecboy will always be welcome on my User Talk page. Dolphin (t) 14:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OOC, Parsec may be welcome on your talk page, but given your kindness above, would you agree to not interact with him so we save everyone involved from large amounts of unwanted drama? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Your observations, and your request, are reasonable. If Parsecboy was an ordinary User like me I would have no hesitation in doing as you suggest. But Parsecboy is no ordinary User - he is a sysop! Parsecboy is a sysop willing to indulge in inappropriate edits and to bite newbies, and I am a whistleblower. Don't ever imagine it will be a good solution to the problem of abuse of trust and power to silence the whistleblower - not for the Roman Catholic church and not for Wikipedia. If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions. Dolphin (t) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The last thing we need are more self-appointed wiki police. And you are not going to bully me into resigning the bit. If I were as abusive as you suggest, you would not be the only person to hold the opinion. But I have thus far received no complaints. I suggest you might be overreacting. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your response says more than I ever could have. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin, my problem with you is the fact that you seem to be fixated on me, not that you participated in a given discussion, per se. The Tirpitz issue is largely irrelevant in this discussion. You wouldn't even know about the Tirpitz dispute if you didn't have my talk page on your watchlist. I would not have a problem participating in a discussion with you if you had come to it out of mere coincidence. But this instance is a glaring demonstration of the fact that you seem intent on following me around. Why can you not honor the simple request to remove my talk page from your watchlist and leave me in peace?

Perhaps you intended to pour oil on troubled water, but to continue the metaphor, you poured gasoline on a fire instead. Your presence there is distracting from the actual issues and is not helpful. In any case, Zh.Mike doesn't own the thread any more or less than I or anyone else.

As for the Tirpitz issue itself, my comment on Zh.Mike's talk page came after several months of entertaining his attempts to insert what amounts to Soviet propaganda based on his own original research and faulty readings of secondary sources, and after he turned to trying to force the changes after Denniss and I abandoned the effort on the talk page.

No one said you shouldn't participate in the discussion because you don't know about German warships. I (and others) said you wouldn't have otherwise found out about the discussion based on your areas of activity. If you regularly edited articles on German warships, then you could conceivably have found out on your own. That was the point.

As an aside, I read this earlier today - you might find it interesting. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Space Invaders. I have had a quick look and I agree it is interesting. I will read it more closely tomorrow. Cheers. Dolphin (t) 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. If it is true that I am following you around it will be a simple matter to provide the diffs of my most recent edits. That will show the frequency of my interaction with you, and the nature of my comments. Just post the most recent diffs here on this thread and we can make progress from there. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 02:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the line about you finding the Tirpitz discussion only because you had my talk page watchlisted? QED. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just post the most recent diffs and we can make progress from there. Dolphin (t) 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think playing games is helpful? Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin51 writing If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions is very telling imho. Dolphin51, it is not up to you to hold anybody accountable with unreasonable demands,ie giving up admin status. That is worst than me telling Parseboy to avoid you by not editing. The communitty is the one that reviews editors actions and passes judgement, not yourself. --Mollskman (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mollskman. You have made a good point. My choice of wording was too brief I apologize for that. I will re-state my view more comprehensively and hopefully get it right second time: I hold all Users who are sysops to a higher standard of accountability than the standard I apply to Users who are not sysops. If Parsecboy relinquishes his adminship then naturally I will no longer hold him to account to the standard I apply to sysops. Dolphin (t) 07:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dolphin, stop WP:HOUNDING. Now. You're not the Wikipolice, and your declared intent to continue stalking Parsecboy's edits is troubling to the point that I'm wondering if a block to prevent the disruption that stalking causes is in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To all - just post the diffs and then we can make progress. Dolphin (t) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you retract your statement If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions, and all variations thereof, and agree that following their edits is behavior that is against the principles and spirit of Wikipedia and agree not to undertake such action? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I unreservedly retract the statement, and all variations thereof. It was meant to clarify but apparently it also offended. That was never my intention so I apologize for any distress or injury that has been caused. Dolphin (t) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. As long as you don't hound Parsecboy, ie, follow his edits and show up where you have never edited before to battle him, we are good to go. I would suggest taking his talk page off your watch list, if its on there, and any other articles that might be "problems" as well. Parsecboy, if you feel like you are still be hounded, please provide differences and let the communitty act. Can this small bit of wiki drama now be ended? Thnak you. --Mollskman (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go, then. Mollskman makes a good suggestion to go along with that, and that should resolve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mollskman and Bushranger. I agree the life has almost expired from this thread and we are close to a satisfactory end. I feel a little like the man who is asked if he will stop beating his wife. I need to word my response carefully so it doesn’t appear that I am confessing to something to which I cannot confess.

With all honesty I can write the following:

I have never hounded Parsecboy and no-one has supplied any evidence (diffs) to support any allegation that I have. I have no intention of beginning to hound Parsecboy or anyone else in the future.

I have never stalked or harassed Parsecboy and no-one has supplied any evidence (diffs) to support any allegation that I have. I have no intention of beginning to stalk or harass Parsecboy or anyone else in the future.

Much has been written here by Parsecboy and others to link Parsecboy’s Talk page with the concept of me following him around. If Parsecboy has a genuine fear of me using his Talk page for that purpose I can assure him his fears are unfounded. He need have no anxiety about that process and I will explain why. We write very little on our own Talk pages. It is others who write things on our Talk page. Sometimes we reply, but not always. It is not possible to look at a User’s Talk page and determine where that User is editing, what he is writing, how frequently he is editing or what topics interest him. That information is simply not available on a User’s Talk page. (It is only available at that User’s Contribution List.) So it is impossible for me or anyone else to use Parsecboy’s Talk page to mount unwanted activities such as stalking him, hounding him or following him around. If Parsecboy fears his Talk page is being used for such unwanted activities by me or others he can shed those fears because they are unfounded.

@Parsecboy: If there is a hatchet above ground between us, let’s bury it. I am willing. As I have written before, you are always welcome at my Talk page. (And please notice I have eliminated all the double spaces between sentences in this statement!) Cheers. Dolphin (t) 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to bury said hatchet. I'm not one for grudges. If we can both behave ourselves, you're welcome at my talkpage as well. I think we can put this thread to rest.

I'm glad you liked the Slate article (it won me the argument between my wife and I). Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)

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

---

There appears to be a dispute here with the article's title, a huge move request is on the talk page and a editor moved the article before it was closed, while some are claiming that a consensus was reached another editor is demanding that the name be changed back. In summary this needs an admin to intervene here as the article was moved before an official consensus could be reached it seems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Move back to original status A colleague has unilaterally moved the article to a civil war. This unilateral move by one individual is a matter of grave concern and contrary to all etiquette between colleagues. Very importantly, this goes contrary to general Wikipedia practice when a move is still in discussion. With widespread discussion going on, it is not the time to be BOLD. This is a very premature and ill-advised move that has been done. It should be immediately reverted until an admin closes all arguments for a concensus. I repeat that this is not a popularity contest nor an ideological agenda. We are not here to "create history ourselves" simply because we have rights to move an article according to our conception of what a situation is. Particularly when it has been subject to so much pro and con discussion, the status quo and the original title should prevail until closed by an administrator with a resume of all ideas taken into consideration. Until then, original status quo must prevail. werldwayd (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Permit the new status and close discussion: The discussion has already reached past the 7 day vote, to which 70% of the editors agreed that civil war is the correct title name. I7laseral (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide what is the concensus we have reached since you have an agenda here and bias to one side of the argument. Your edit history for one year and more is only for Syrian uprising-related matters and nearly nothing else. You have no general contributions to Wikipedia as such to decide on what a concensus we reached. You have come here with an agenda and your opinion is a very biased one. Until true concensus is reached and decided by an independent side, an admin of high ranking with an expertise in such moves, you have to limit yourself to taking part in discussion, and not behave unilaterally as is obvious from the way you have handled the page. werldwayd (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC).

In addition to it being pretty obvious that it's a civil war, sources are calling it such, more and more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not everyone thinks so, having the page moved before the move discussion could be closed through an uninvolved admin on the talk page was a powderkeg. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that USAToday still calls it an "uprising".[11] I suppose it doesn't become a "civil war" until the other side has a reasonable chance of winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you truly was a vote, as I7laseral says, and the UN also believes that this civil war, in this case the new title is correct. Doncsecz^talk 08:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I just closed the discussion as "no consensus". Suppose we might as well start the review of my actions now... Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Morgan Katarn

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

---

I've been casually monitoring the behavior of Morgan Katarn (talk · contribs) and I feel that his attitude as an editor is so disruptive he is a major detriment to the encyclopedia. He appears to lack basic competence as an editor - he is a native German speaker, and in English repeatedly makes serious grammatical errors [12] [13] (and often edit wars to maintain them [14] ). Other common editing patterns include adding trivial or non-notable information to articles [15] , original research [16] [17] , etc. He seems to have a fundemental misunderstanding of things like sourcing [18].

He has a significant pattern of edit warrings to maintain his poor-quality edits. You can just search his contributions for the word "reverted", but here is a recent example [19] .

He has a habit of threatening other users who try to revert his poor quality edits, and even inappropriately report them as vandals [20] . He also commits personal attacks [21] [22].

In general, I would say that the majority of Morgan Katarn's edits to articles are reverted, and in many cases this leads to edit warring. If more than half of his edits are counterproductive, he is a net detriment to the encyclopedia, and may not deserve editing privileges.

As a side note, he has indicated he was banned from the German Wikipedia, though he claims this was for no reason. Some guy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So what does it mean? Do you want me to get banned from the English Wikipedia too?! The German Wikipedia sucks because almost none of the German Wikipedia admins will follow the rules and they ban without warnings. But ok, the last time when I reported a user, I was simply not the one who was edit warring. That Mad-man guy continued adding deletion tags to a worked out article called Roland Düringer. I really don't see a specific reason why I'm always that guy who gets pissed off, whatever happens, I'm always guilty! M0RG@N (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir, you are missing the point. You are clearly not following both English grammatical rules and official Wikipedia policies. It doesn't even look like your following good faith. I believe the hammer must come down. But, since he claims to be banned for "no reason", I propose a ban and the community will vote. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually an administrator? Some guy (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No I am not. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm "That Mad-man guy" Morgan Katarn refers to. From my experience with Morgan he seems unable to admit when he's wrong, often threatening to have people banned when he doesn't get his own way. Case in point, the edit warring Morgan mentions above. He continually removed the proposed deletion I added to the unsourced BLP mentioned above, claiming that since the article has existed for a few months that it should be allowed to remain despite Wikipedia's policies. I pointed out that he fell afoul of the three-revert rule but he claims that as I was adding the proposed deletion the rule applied to me not him. I was willing to continue discussing the issue on my talk page but Morgan instead reported me on the vandalism noticeboard. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban Proposal

• Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not yet. The documented behavior by Morgan Katarn is clearly against WP policies (personal attacks, inappropriate AIV posts, edit warring). If they agree here and now not to:

• revert gramaticral corrections by other editors -- discussing on appropriate article talk page, instead
• immediately cease all negative characterizations of other editors (personal attacks)
• describing anything other than obvious malicious editing as vandalism

I think it would be appropriate to close this as a final warning. If they are brought back to ANI after closing having repeated the any of the above behaviors I'd advocate indef blocking. Does that should reasonable to all parties? Nobody Ent 23:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is both reasonable and appropriate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Nobody Ent. This is a final warning situation. Make sure they're aware that final is final and this is their absolute last chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree too but I won't agree with an indefinite block because I never really vandalized articles and if I make errors in future please give me several warnings before you'll ban me absolutely and I regret my personal attacks against any users. So please cooperate. M0RG@N (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the block isn't relevant. Wikipedia is a privately run website and the Wikimedia Foundation has delegated to individual sub communities the responsibility to self manage. If the consensus here is that you've not shown suitability for editing English Wikipedia than we're authorized to implement that. While I have no personal authority I don't see any editors expressing any support for anything other than a last chance as I've outlined above or ban (indefinitely blocking) you now. You've already received input from multiple editors and a block, so you can't expect to be entitled to more warnings. Nobody Ent 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but if I've never seen their name here or at RFC/U before, good chance I'll never !vote them off the island (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I must admit that my reaction to the first few diffs was "subtle troll...", but nevertheless it's not hammertime just yet. Jumping the gun to ban straight away; the editor just needs a stern talking to and a block if the disruption continues. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was originally going to oppose per the three reasonable conditions listed above. Then I looked a little further and could see that his behavior has been consistently disruptive and uncivil. This [23] is an example of removing a BLP Prod tag. Later, he introduces the subject's own website as a "reliable" source and then reacts with hostility when it is removed [24]. An old revision of his talk page at sections June 2012 and June 2012 (2), shows: several recent warnings (disruptive behavior, personal attacks, and edit warring), a recent block, and one of his responses where he refers to another editor as a "retard". This seems to be a purely disruptive account. Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bans are very long time disruptive editors. Don't see along time pattern here. Disruptive in some cases, but not a long time pattern that would require a ban.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind competency is also crucial and a major issue here. Some guy (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Were we all competent when we first started out? I don't think incompetence is an underlying threat to the sanity that is Wikipedia. We should reserve "bans" for the truly disruptive. People who for one reason or another have no business editing because their stated purpose is not to improve the site, but to disrupt it in their own way. I believe that the editor has good "intentions", but is just not going about it the same way. A block for disruption would be within the guidelines, but not a ban at this point.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. This guy is continuing to edit-war to insert his incorrect changes after I explained why they were wrong, and is continuing to make incorrect grammatical changes even while this ANI report is in progress. I have indef blocked him to stop the disruption - it is just not possible to make progress by talking to someone as stubborn as this who simply will not listen. Continuing the way he is going counts as willful disruption in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal I oppose an indef site ban because of the comments above and lack of warning to the user, instead of this I:

• Propose a ban from undoing or reverting any other user's edits whether obvious vandalism or not, as this is primarily where the problem is, for 12 months.
• Support a final and only warning for disruptive editing, which makes it clear that any further disruptive edits will result in a block.
• Propose a warning about civility to other users which makes it clear that further incivility may result in a block. Callanecc (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As a note, he has been in almost constant discussion with other editors trying in vain to explain how his behavior and edits in general are bad for weeks and doesn't seem to understand. He's been warned many times and had a 24 hour block recently. Some guy (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Further propose (in response to that Some guy's comment) that User:Morgan Katarn be adopted by an experienced and willing editor (preferably an administrator) who has the time to help with an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Primarily, who can talk Morgan through a discussion. Although this would be good, I don't think it as important (or will be as effective) as my above proposals. Callanecc (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support mentorship here - I've added detailed explanations of some of the problems with recent edits at User talk:Morgan Katarn#Your edits, and I think these are the things a mentor should be watching for - and I also note that the most recent of these problematic edits happened while this ANI discussion is in progress. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will comment above, in support of ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Standard offer. I do not think a site ban is necessary, but I also do not think this user has at present the competence to make a useful contribution, partly because of temperament and maturity (I guess he is quite young) and partly from language problems. I have declined his unblock request but made the WP:Standard offer and suggested that he come back in six months, preferably showing a record of constructive editing and a clear block log at :de, where he is not blocked but has few edits. I will not object if another admin is prepared to unblock on the basis of mentoring and edit restrictions, but my judgment is that we would just be back here in a week or two. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, that sounds good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me aswell. Callanecc (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• Comment What happened to the convention that ban proposals belong on AN, not ANI? If they now belong here, someone should edit the headers that say otherwise.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now there's a good question without a clear answer. First, the header at ANI says nothing about bans belonging here or not belonging here. Second, the header at AN has weasely language that says that ban proposals "could" be appropriate at AN. Third, WP:BAN says, "Community banning discussions generally take place at the [AN] or a subpage thereof." However, WP:BU says, "Community bans may arise from consensus at the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:ANI), the former community sanctions noticeboard (WP:CSN), or elsewhere." Maybe we need to be a wee bit clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly redirecting and self-reverting article without explanation

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

---

Resolved

 – Page deleted, accounts blocked. — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am seeking opinions on unusual behavior by Breezo057 (talk · contribs). I noticed through Recent Changes that a redirect of Nightclub (album) had been made to WWE. When I looked at the revision history I noticed that the same editor has been redirecting and subsequently self-reverting the same article for weeks. I asked him on his talk page [25] why he is doing this. I have not received a reply (and he has made the redirect again since I left the message [26], [27]). I also noticed on his talk page that he has written "Welcome to my official talk page, maintained by Puppy Love Entertainment" [28] at the top. So it appears the account has commercial interests: the article states in the intro [29] that the executive producer of the album and founder of Puppy Love Entertainment is Darrion Brown. Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've determined, being familiar with WWE, Eve Torres and the various content on the article, that the article is a hoax. The only references go back to a Facebook created by the author of the article and a generic iTunes download page with no relevant content. I'm reverting the redirect back to the WWE and tagging for speedy deletion as a hoax. — Moe ε 04:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, based on the content on his Facebook that he provided, Breezo057 (talk · contribs) is also BeanyFans (talk · contribs) who also edited the hoax article and left a similar talk page message on the "album"'s talk page. — Moe ε 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This does appear to be an elaborate hoax. I checked around half of the references and they are all dead links or if content does open it doesn't relate to the subject or support an inkling of claim. The editors conduct appears to be nefarious of the vandal only form. A report at WP:AIV would likely already have resulted in an indefinite block. From the editors history, we have every reason to expect the erratic practice to reoccur. The entire history of edits to the users talk page consists of the template warnings the user was issued for the times they were noticed and the remaining bulk of edits fell below radar but were just as disruptive. For sure this joke has gone on long enough; in fact way too long. My76Strat (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and blocked BeanyFans for disruption (Materialscientist already blocked Breezo057 for abusing multiple accounts). I think we're done here. — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

User User talk:Alainmoscoso (suspected Sock Puppets User talk:70.168.134.209 and User_talk:68.100.216.166) has made repeated disruptive unsubstantiated edits and reverts to the Competition between Airbus and Boeing despite efforts by other users to persuade him/her to stop on talk pages. The user has a history of bad behaviour towards the page. WatcherZero (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that bad behavior was to help improving a page. Please refer to the sources I provided before saying it is "unsubstantiated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I added "2011 Orders by Value" column and is being removed from the topic constantly. I already gave the sources being Airbus & Boeing own websites and proof where they mentioned those numbers and still seems not to be enough evidence. What better source than the own companies' websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No comment on your complaint, but to answer your question: company websites are usually considered primary sources, which are not preferred. A better source would be an industry trade-magazine, or an editorial reviewed media source, that contains the same info, except (hopefully) with some fact checking involved. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources; their own reports are primary self-published sources, and while almost certainly reliable in this area barring the occasional typo, do not establish the information as noteworthy that analysis be an uninvolved third party reliable source would. Kudos to you for wanting to and being even handed with both, but it really need to be externally referenced if it's going to be included. You should find those sources first, then try to develop consensus on the article's talk page. Dru of Id (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Weve had this discussion, the sources you provide dont actually support the claims you make, you keep on insisting on using original research to estimate the revenue based on aircraft list prices which are never actually paid by the airlines who often pay as little as half the list price. Neother company publically breaks down revenue by aircraft type because its a commercial secret and you even keep adding a positive revenue from the cancellation of an order. WatcherZero (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain me then why they talk that way when it comes to announce their orders: "Airbus had a record order intake of 1,608 (1,419 net) commercial aircraft, worth US$169 billion gross (US$140 billion net) at list prices"[30]. Yes, we've discussed this before and you still keep bringing revenue. This information has nothing to do with their revenue or the real prices they sell their airplanes for. This information is the value of their orders at their list prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want more proof "OSLO, Norway, Jan. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Norwegian have announced a firm order for 100 fuel-efficient 737 MAX airplanes and 22 Next-Generation 737-800s. The total order is valued at $11.4 billion at list prices and represents the largest-ever Boeing order from a European airline".[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You say you want third party reliable sources, here you have one explaining exactly what I've been trying to explain you: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-airbuss-late-push-sees-off-boeing-again-351934/ [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good source. I'd suggest that you link to that source on the article's talk page, and request discussion about what info from this new source should be incorporated into the article. I also think now this has become a content related issue, and can best be continued on the article's talk page. Perhaps a close is in order? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 03:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The order values calculated by Alainmoscoso are very different from the actual revenue reported by Airbus and BCA (and which is also reported by secondary sources). Attempts to discuss on the talkpage yielded no fruit but there has been a discussion on my talkpage... cut a long story short, customers don't actually pay "list price", so presenting calculations based on list prices would greatly mislead readers. Alainmoscoso calculates, using these fictitious "list prices", that Boeing took $133 Bn of orders last year. Reliable sources show that Boeing's actual revenue was $36Bn last year. Our article should reflect reality; it should say $36Bn. bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

bobrayner you are still talking about oranges when I'm talking about apples. The $36Bn reflects the deliveries of 477 airplanes at their arranged prices between Boeing and every client they have. How much did Boeing charged them individually? We don't know and I'm not mentioning it whatsoever in this article. Obviously you either have not read all the information I already gave or you don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual values of individual orders are rarely announced. That is not a license to fill in gaps with made-up values for sales of each product. One thing we can be confident of is A and B's revenue; this is widely and accurately reported, and it contradicts the numbers that you have calculated. Can't we take this to the article talkpage? Please? bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you talk about "made-up values" or "fictitious prices", etc., why do you still have articles like [9/11 conspiracy theories]? that's a made-up theory for most people but still you can read it and you know what you are reading because the title clearly states what it is. It is basically that same in the information I'm providing. I'm not misleading the public in any way because I'm stating very clearly what that information is about. bobrayner is exhausting dealing with you because you believe you have the absolute truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That article presents conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. We have articles on all kinds of hoaxes, conspiracies, and lies - as long as they're well-sourced and presented neutrally, it's fine. The content you've been adding takes a fictitious "list price" at face value. At no point does the article actually admit this problem (and there's no room to do so in a simple table). Readers will actually believe that Boeing is selling $133Bn of airliners each year but, in reality (and in reliable sources) it sells $36Bn of airliners per year. Telling readers something which isn't true is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Websites like www.flightglobal.com shows similar information I posted in the article as well as Boeing and Airbus own websites. Are you calling them misleading sources? One thing are orders and a different thing are deliveries. Revenue comes when deliveries are completed and again, I'm not talking anything about deliveries and/or revenue and you keep bringing that up. If you read the article I put of flightglobal.com you can read at the end of the table: "Notes: * Airbus and Boeing 2010 values have been estimated by Flightglobal using average list prices to enable like-for-like comparisons. Airbus values its 2010 net orders at over $74 billion and backlog at $480 billion. Airbus and Boeing 2009 values use the same methodology. Data includes A319CJ and Boeing BBJ." Is this a misleading, unsubstantiated and/or made-up information?Alainmoscoso (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if each vendor writes its own "list prices" but doesn't actually sell planes at that price, it allows us to make totally fair like-for-like comparisons and calculations. Readers will see the $133Bn in a table and just know that, err, BCA doesn't actually sell $133Bn of airliners each year. Can't we handle this on the article's talkpage? Please? bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe we won't find a common ground. Could I create a new article? that way you tell the truth and I put "made-up" information for the people who likes this kind of topics? Alainmoscoso (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't. And this is not something for AN/I - this is a content dispute, and thus it needs to be discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What about an "Analysis of orders, deliveries and backlog" then?68.100.216.166 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like something that would attract WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrator EncMstr

EncMstr (talk · contribs)

First off EncMstr blocked me giving one of his reasons as 'violating the spirit of WP:3RR' when the record[33] and the comments of administrators here[34] and here at least said no 3RR occurred.

EncMstr came to this board after he placed his block on me not before hand.

Now as for the violation of WP:INVOLVED. EncMstr made two contributions to the thread I am accused of edit warring over, one of which can't be called anything less than substantial. Only 5 editors were involved in the thread prior to my block[35], one of the five for just one edit, including EncMstr.

WP:INVOLVED reads 'In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.'

Read those bold words.Construed very broadly. Not broadly but Very Broadly. With his contributions being nothing less than substantial to the thread, he is involved.

One administrator concurred on that.[36] Many more didn't. 3RR is very clear cut, this editor and I were on opposite sides of the discussion, and he should known Involved too and he blocked before coming to a board.

This administrator has shown he doesn't know policy, and every administrator whether of 10 days experience or 10 years. The only other alternative is that lost objectivity and to shut me up, used his powers as an administrator to do so. Two mistakes on the same block even if its innocent call into question his ability as an administrator....William 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#request_block_review_of_WilliamJE, and note that I am not an administrator. Nobody Ent 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled off a very hasty close tag. Why doesn't the community address the editors' concerns and explain why they're incorrect rather than reactively respond with close tags and talks of boomerangs? Thus far all I've seen is argument by assertion: EncMstr wasn't involved because he wasn't involved. If no one wants to comment, no worries, ClueBot will take care of archiving. Nobody Ent 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of the editor, you will see much discussion on the matter, and the conditions that he was unblocked under. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried reading the user's talk page, but struggled when they started comparing their block to rape. Someone might want to tell this editor that creating large amounts of unnecessary drama can also lead to blocks, and comparing a block to, um, rape counts as creating large amounts of unnecessary drama. It's also highly offensive. In terms of WP:INVOLVED, it has been suggested that William doesn't understand that particular policy very well. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 has removed a great deal of the offensive material from his talk page, as well as soapboxing off of his user page, the history will have to be used if someone needs a better understanding of the current situation. I had previously notified BWilkins, since he had issued the conditional unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• William, contributing to the thread to explain what the policy being discussed actually means does not make one involved. You do not have to revert more than three times to be edit warring. You were in the wrong on the policy you were vehemently arguing about and refused to listen when told that you were. And with your actions after the block you should be counting yourself fortunate that the block was not lengthened. I'd strongly suggest for the good of everybody here, including yourself, that you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with The Bushranger - I understand your frustration and the feeling that you have to continue to press your point, but from my own personal experience on Wiki, I would encourage you to drop the matter. If you continue down this path, you will get blocked. Even if you are totally correct in your assessments, Wiki is guided by consensus, and if you are on the short side of the stick of the discussion, the best thing to do is tell yourself that this is not worth getting blocked over. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think I can add much more than I already did on the OP's talkpage. We don't expand or contract the meaning of WP:INVOLVED - we can ask for clarification. The blocking admin DID ask, and was found to have not contravened that policy. Point final. I don't think I've ever worked alongside the blocking admin, so this is certainly not a circling of the wagons. Drop the stick, back away from the ground-to-a-bloody-pulp carcass, and go and be a good editor. When you get valid interpretation of a policy from third party neutral people, accept it (even if you don't agree with it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• (Non admin comment) EncMstr quite rightly came to ANI after they blocked you for a admnin action review because they might have acted incorrectly per WP:INVOLVED. A number of editors, including myself, examined the circumstances leading up to the block and 'per that consensus, EncMstr was determined not to have used their admin privileges in a dispute. EncMstr made an WP:IAR judgement call and the consensus was that they acted correctly to prevent your edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody has explained why if 'construed very broadly' then why it isn't here. What is the threshhold for being involved?
• EncMstr came here, but he never disclosed he was part of the conversation. At least one of you up above has that wrong.
• EncMstr said I did violate 3RR when I didn't but The Bushranger dances around it. People rapped across the knuckles here or more for saying somebody's post was vandalism but the board disagrees.
• EncMstr also violated this policy 'You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.' He didn't do that.
• A circling of wagons is being done. A threat of WP:BOOMERANG was made clearly by GregJack above and can be reasonably implied by the writings of at least one other. You write everything off EncMster did and do nothing. Why do you think I've said repeatedly that this board is a joke....William 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you ever grasping at straws. This was your ANI notification (not a blockable offence anyway), so he did notify you. Note that WP:INVOLVED says "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor" ... there's the threshold. He ONLY acted in an administrative role to advise you that the other editor was editing according to policy, and you were not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@William: I had hoped you would divert the energy expended contesting redlinks in the nav template and protesting being blocked instead to good use—preferably in improving the encyclopedia or improving your personal life.

You were blocked for disruptive editing. In this case you were causing more work for others than you were contributing—a net reduction in progress of the project. Note that discouraging other editors to contribute is sufficient grounds for blocking. Since you have been mostly getting in the faces of administrators, you have been granted leeway—which is seems you are likely to hang yourself with.

You have been repeatedly told that your interpretation of WP:COI, WP:INVOLVE, WP:3RR, and WP:REDNOT are not in agreement with consensus. What is your reaction? To repeatedly quote the same chapter and verse

Now you have made three patently false statements:

• EncMstr ... never disclosed he was part of the conversation. False: I fully disclosed my comments on my second edit here.
• EncMstr said I did violate 3RR: False: I said you violated the spirit of 3RR.
• EncMstr also violated [the] policy 'You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.' . False: I notified you soon after requesting block review. While not instant notification, during the three hours' delay no discussion occurred, and I was unaware that an ANI block review discussion must notify the user. It took me several minutes to determine proper use of {{ANI-notice}}. (I tried to improve that, but it was reverted.) —EncMstr (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• @ William. I'm sorry if you misconstrued my comments. I am not an admin, nor do I think that admins should go after you for bringing up a concern about another admin. I was speaking from my personal experience on Wiki - I have recently been given a second chance after being indef blocked. I too have felt I was right in some cases, and continued to argue against consensus to the point of WP:BATTLEGROUND - and I paid the price. In some of the cases I still think that I was right, but it doesn't matter - the consensus of editors and admins felt differently, and I should have dropped the stick. I was merely trying to say that even if you're right, is it worth it? BTW, BWilkins tried to give me good advice at the time I kept pursuing the issue, but I ignored it to my regret - I hope that you will not make the mistake that I did. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There's a big backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Some requests have been sitting there for over a day. Zagalejo^^^ 07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just made my eyes (and fingers) bleed going through about 40 overdue AFD's...I think I'll pass on the RFPP's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of my closure of Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present)#Requested move to Syrian Civil War title

Per this edit it would appear that, unsurprisingly, my closure of this move request is controversial so I'm asking it to be reviewed here. I'm aware of WP:MRV but don't think that process is mature enough yet to handle this. I will also admit to my revert of the new RM being right on the edge of involved but felt it important that my closure be properly reviewed here rather than have another WP:POINTy RM which may have quickly developed. Dpmuk (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that in this case the administrator acted the way he did simply because he opposed personally the move and not because it was Wikipedia rules. Because there was a very big consensus (more than 70% of editors) agreeing on the move, he had to arbitrairily discount a lot of votes and opinions, under the false pretext of them not being "state of art" explanation of their opinion, voluntary ignoring the fact that at one point in a discussion with dozen of participants, it would just be repeting the same arguments than everyone else.

This decision of closing the request by "no consensus" while the consensus was so heavy seems borderline like an "I have all power and I will do how it please me" attitude, with no respect for the editors of Wikipedia.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reads like no consensus could easily have been the way to read it, based on policies, and the fact that this is not a vote. 70% won't get to the admin bits, and 70% doesn't get an article title changed. I can also see why some passionate individuals would believe 70% would pass - but 30% of the people did not agree - that's a pretty high number (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is consensus unanimity now? Even "Dpmuk" had to randomly cancel people opinions in order to defend its view of non consensus. If 30% gets a minority block now, there it is the definitive end of moving pages that have a big number of editors.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One single well-stated, policy-based argument can override a dozen arguments of "yes, let's change it". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see, admins protect and support other admins even against Wikipedia rules. Not surprising.--Maldonado91 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to see the forest instead of just trees. The article is reachable and editable using both variations of the name. At some point in the near future, it may make more sense to change the name. Right now, the overwhelming POLICY-BASED consensus was not to. I admire your ability to count !votes, but you're in no position to determine policy-based consensus at this time. As you have already been notified, your attempted re-creation of a move discussion has been closed as pointy and disruptive, and you have been warned against repeating it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonoado 91 (nice name, btw) is reminded that Wikipedia is not a democracy. As BWilkins points out, one well-thought-out, clearly-explained, policy-based argument trumps a dozen - or even a hundred - WP:JUSTAVOTEs. Consensus does not require unanimity, a supermajority, or even a majority - it requires that an issue be found to be conformant to Wikipedia policy, or to have one heck of a good reason not to conform. Also, "consensus" is not "agreeing with me", and (also as mentioned) attempts to immediately re-start a discussion that didn't end the way you liked are considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonado, although Dpmuk declined to take it to WP:MRV (move review), you have the option of doing so (as does anyone else). It won't become a tried-and-tested process until it's... tried and tested. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This was a good close, the type of close that can be used as an example of a good close. The majority of views in support of the move are not just outside of naming policy criteria but cut directly against policy based on an apparent politically motivated point of view. A large portion of the participants were not trying to decide what the proper name is for this article under Wikipedia's naming conventions but how to convince Wikipedia to choose a name they want or viscerally felt was more accurate, regardless of what the naming conventions say. The salient policy-based take-away is that the majority of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia do not describe this as a civil war, and of those that have used that term in conjunction, they do so in the content of saying "may become", "on the verge of becoming" "looming on a" civil war and similar phrases showing implicitly that per them, it is not yet a civil war. The nomination, unlike most of the supports, actually focused on what sources say in support of the move—it just turned out to be untrue. If the support had focused on that relevant matter, showing it was the case that most recent reliable sources call it a civil war, we would have some substance to discuss here. Instead most of the supports are based on trying to define whether the current situation in Syria meets some definition of civil war (irrelevant original research; we follow reliable sources) or pointed to single instances of sources using the term without addressing the fact that most were not using the term. There was nothing "arbitrary" about discounting such !votes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excellent close for appropriate reasons. We can all see where this nightmare is going, but so can the rulers in Syria; they may chose not to go there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. Policy and reliable sources beats counting !votes based on opinion and original research. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision to go back to Syrian uprising (2011–present) is well-explained and totally justifiable and I applaud Dpmuk for his methodology and decision. Titles are not a popularity contest. 70% for, 30% against, doesn't mean we change as 70% wants. The final and definitive say is to reliable outside sources who know better than the 40-50 individuals who come and comment subjectively on a page, many for ideological reasons, some just disgusted by the amount of bloodshed or disdain for a dictator like Assad. Even a 90% vote for a move doesn't satisfy me if outside reliable objective media sources overwhelmingly use a certain terminology to the unliking of the 90% voters. A certain UN official also used the term "civil war" and this became a huge basis for support to rename the page. A UN official is not the UN and its members. It is just an official. Another UN official may retract the other UN official's comments. We should rely on reports by AP, UPI, Reuters, New York Times etc, not a declarartion for day-to-day consumption. This talk page should lead to a solid rule (precedence) in which votes do not win against factual and reliable international reporting. werldwayd (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Another very grave matter that I want to put your attention to is that a long discussion was initiated. Yet one individual, a certain colleague Doncsecz bypassed all discussions and without having reached a closing of arguments by an independent and high-ranking administrator, went on to unilaterally change the title into Syrian Civil War without waiting for a decision. He just quoted a UN official that said in one of his declarations that this was a civil war, and title was changed. This infuriated colleague Tradedia who voiced his opposition and informed me of the situation and I had to intervene further, which made the task of Knowledgekid87 to establish some peace. I also do not appreciate the excessive and undue intervention of an editor like I7laseral who seemingly intervened at every comment throughout the talk with his wry method of putting down opposition just to create undue confusion based on some ideological concerns of his of seeing his way of dubbing it a "civil war". Every intervention by I7laseral was followed by more pro votes for him because of the huge amount of pro vote sentiments he aroused by his repetitive comments that show no will whatsoever of reconciliation except to have it his own way and nothing else. For the previous full year, almost all edits of this colleague have been on Syrian-uprisiong related issues and nothing else. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/I7laseral&offset=&limit=500&target=I7laseral This just proves he is here with a clear agenda, so all his comments are very biased and his edits should be more closely scrutinized everywhere regarding Syrian Uprising related articles. This sort of tactics on a talk page by very principled and ideological editors does tilt voting on talk pages and is very counter-productive and should be noted for future instances. I am requesting that opinions are not repeated continuously to create a certain change in sentiments as I7laseral has done and colleagues like Doncsecz should be severely restrained, cautioned and if need be suspended for changing titles prior to closing of discussions. His move created so much discomfort and lack of etiquette towards all of us still discussing on the talk page you cannot imagine. I can't emphasize further need to stop effecting changes unilaterally. Let us avoid such behavior in the future. werldwayd (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

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

---

user:109.145.226.227 Please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyright infringement

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

---

Resolved

 – Copyright status clarified, and image tagged to prevent further confusion. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For a few days I've been having some trouble with User:Alssa1 regarding the article about Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas. He has been adding over and over pictures which aren't in public domain. I warned him about it (see the article log here) but he has ignored me (see my message to him on his talk page). Since I've done pretty much all I could do about this I came here asking for someone to deal with him. --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

All the images you seem to have an issue over are on Commons and most of them appear to be appropriately licenced (some e.g. File:Propaganda do Estado Novo (Brasil).jpg do look dodgy as they claim pd-self for old photos) so all Alssa1 is doing is linking to them. If you think the licences are incorrect then you should take that up on Commons not here. NtheP (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

They are ok to be used in Portuguese Wiki, not here. The license given to File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg is the Brazilian law 9,610 of 19 February 1998. Obviously, Brazilian laws have no strength inside U.S. or Great Britain. The link given as source ("Galeria de presidents") is dead. --Lecen (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg is used on 6 wikis including this one. On all of those the image needs to be public domain in both Brazil and the US (copyright status in the UK is irrelevant) as WP servers are in the US. If you think the image is incorrectly or inadequately licenced then the forum to discuss that is the wiki where the image is hosted not the wikis where is it being used. In this case that is Commons. NtheP (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Commons, about French, German or Spanish Wikipedia. I'm talking about the English Wikipedia. The article about Getúlio Vargas in this Wikipedia can not have non-free pictures as it's considered copyright infringement. If you're not going to tell that user to stop adding them, then you should let another editor who can be of some actual help here do something. --Lecen (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Commons has a pretty restrictive image policy: they won't take any images that aren't free. So, if the image hasn't been deleted from Commons, it stands to reason that it's free to be used on en.wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that an image on Commons is necessarily free. I nominate images for deletion on Commons frequently, and, generally, they are deleted. The wonderful thing about Commons is the deletion process is intuitive, steamlined, and responsive (although they occasionally suffer from backlogs and under"staffing".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess the point I was getting at is, if there's a concern about the image, nominate it for deletion at Commons and let their processes handle it. If it passes the test there, we can use it here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it so hard to understand that a photo taken in 1940 is not free in the U.S. since the photographer certainly did not die more than 70 years ago? The license tags given are meant to be used in Portuguese wiki, where Brazilian law may be applied, but not in English Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's... not that simple. Commons has a (relatively) small fraction of files that are unambiguously free to use in some places, yet not in some others– this is most often the case when the same work has been published in two jurisdictions at different times. That said, those photographs were explicitly never copyrighted in the first place (they were in the public domain by virtue of having been published by the government under a law that stated as much), so unless the actual photographer published them independently in the United States (where they would then have acquired protection) they can be used there. There is no indication that this is the case and, given how unlikely that scenario is in the first place, I can't think of a reason why we'd assume as much. — Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I can garantee you that that article would never pass a FAC with those pictures. --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the FAC process as a reference for anything but the FAC process itself is almost certainly an error. Certainly, it gives no added information about the suitability of Wikipedia using that image on legal grounds – there is no question there: in the absence of evidence to independent publication in the United States by the photographer, those images are free for use on Wikipedia by virtue of having been released to the public domain on publication. — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Specifically, any work in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 is in the public domain in the United States – there are some subtleties about works whose copyright may have expired between 1923 and 1977 but they do not apply to works specifically given to the public domain as those pictures are). Copyright paranoia is very destructive; before you raise the spectre of copyright violations (which are taken very seriously here), you may want to familiarize yourself with the actual contents of the Berne Convention and the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, or at least defer to those who have. — Coren ^(talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The image has two copyright tags - one claiming 70 years since publication for an anonomous work - which would mean that the photo wold be pd in Brazil in 1930 + 70 = 2000, and one saying that it is pd because it is a work of the Brazilian government. Where is the evidence that the photo was released to the public domain on publication - apparently as a Brazilian Government work? Because if this is untrue, and we are relying on the first tag, then the image will run foul of URAA, and will still be under copyright in the US as it would still have been under copyright in Brazil in 1996.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, both tags are true really; the work is necessarily in the public domain in Brazil because of its age, and it was automatically in the public domain anyways because it was work of the government; the relevant Brazilian law is cited on the tag itself. Unless there is reason to believe that this wasn't a publication of the Government (which would be consistent with that clearly is an official portrait), the one that's important to use here is the latter. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the original source appears dead, but if you look at page 6 of the official brochure of the Palácio do Planalto, you can clearly see that portrait hanging on the wall of the gallery of presidents (14th of the top row) so there is no question this is an official portrait from the government itself. — Coren ^(talk) 14:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Unsurprisingly) Commons had a tag for that situation; I've added it to the page there, so that should prevent this mistake from reoccurring.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarred Land

Re-posting in light of most recent disruptions [37], [38], [39], [40]. AfD has already been discussed here, with numerous blocks of sock or meatpuppet accounts. Puerile campaign of intimidation continuing, with harassment of editor and attempts to pressure into changing or deleting comments, accusations of libel, etc. We went through the same crap at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was due to be closed momentarily, so I have done so. The puerile socks/involved people really shot themselves in their foot (note: not feet) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Studyukraine

The user Studyukraine has been making some edits which appear to be promotional in nature. Here is an example: [41] Here is another example: [42] This user has received a number of warnings on their talk page already. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious little spammy edits are fairly routine and perhaps not worth bringing to the AN/I drama-board unless somebody keeps ploughing on through final and/or handwritten warnings. However, when I looked more closely at this one, it seems like they've had string of warnings over the last few weeks, and some edits like this and this appear to be stealthily replacing a legitimate URL with a new URL for competing organisations which they're promoting - and that's a bit worse, IMHO. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that this editor is not anglophone, which could explain why they keep ploughing on through warnings. Does anybody here have sufficient language skills to give them a good hard "Stop it!" in Ukrainian/Russian? bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems this user is promoting a Ukrainian higher education company of some sort, and they are doing this by making edits on a number of college/university pages, including edits that replace URLs with a link to the company being promoted. I've tried to undo most of their work, but they don't seem to be stopping.Safehaven86 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:CoolKoon

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

---

There is a serious problem here, personal attacks from CoolKoon [43]

I'm sorry to say this to you Panonian, but obviously you're not only clueless, but paranoid as well. This user has received warning on their talk page.

--95.102.187.187 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks heated, but I wouldn't call that a personal attack; nevertheless, the discussion and conflict going on is not great. I've protected the page for 2 days to prevent an edit war, until a consensus can be reached. I'd encourage those involved to ignore any angry outbursts and focus on the content dispute, elevating it to the dispute resolution noticeboard if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually my note quoted above is in response to User:PANONIAN's taunting by saying I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". I think that such hate speech is absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and principles. Actually if I would've had more time earlier today I likely would've reported PANONIAN for this myself. Furthermore if you check out PANONIAN's block log you'll see that he's been blocked quite a few times already for POV pushing and revert wars.

The IP user making the report didn't come with good intentions either. Since the IP itself comes from Slovakia (unfortunately maxmind.com couldn't provide any more specific geolocation data) and the user's obviously quite knowledgeable of WP's policies, traditions and stuff (novices usually don't know of ANI let alone know the process for adding a new entry to it). This (and the lack of an edit log for this IP) leads me to believe that this user's probably an IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors. Since I'm the subject of the report, my guess would be User:Bizovne, who's posted numerous hateful posts on my talk page (in Slovak, hence the links are my translations) and once even registered a harassment account aimed against me (CoolKoon jebe svoji matku, meaning literally "CoolKoon fucks his mother"). So please take this into account when you react to reports by anonymous Slovak IP accounts. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two things, CoolKoon: 1. Do you have any evidence that I am "involved in revert warring here"? (I only had few original edits in several articles and after some other users reverted my edits I did not reverted further), 2. How exactly statement "to remind Slovaks about their former slavery" is example of a "hate speech"? "Hate speech" against whom exactly? I only pointed out that behavior of several Hungarian users in Wikipedia is tendentious, POV and insulting for Slovaks (Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia?). PANONIAN 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-read my post above as I haven't said anywhere that you're "involved in revert warring here". I said that you HAVE BEEN blocked for POV pushing (something you're doing right now at the Bratislava article's talk page) and revert wars.

Once again, the statement I've quoted is I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". and this is assuming bad faith at best (and hate speech at worst). First of all it's ill faith, because you assume that the only reason one would insert the Hungarian and German version is "to remind Slovaks about their former slavery". Second it's hate speech and heavy POV push, because you assert that Slovaks have been enslaved both by Hungarians and by Germans (or one after the other). Both of these assertions deeply offend me as a(n indigenous) Hungarian resident of Bratislava, because I know that nothing could be further from truth and yet you have the nerve to say it.

I only pointed out that behavior of several Hungarian users in Wikipedia is tendentious, POV and insulting for Slovaks <-- Oh really? What made you suddenly so sympathetic with the Slovaks? And why is it that you don't refrain from insulting others (perhaps a double standard)?

Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia? - I see. So you're protecting/supporting a banned user (a meatpuppet of User:Iaaasi and a sock master himself) who's been harassing me on a constant basis? I think that this needs no further explanation. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is an immediate need to sanction PANONIAN (talk · contribs) under WP:ARBEE rules. Panonian's posting that sparked that debate, arguing that certain names should not be used because they "remind Slovaks about their former slavery" is not just an instance of run-of-the-mill tendentiousness of the kind we've (unfortunately) got into the habit of accepting as normal. It is a brazen-faced, undisguised demand to subject the article's editing to his own POV preferences. As such, it constitutes deliberate refusal to adhere to NPOV, an act that is ipso facto sanctionable, and which in an editor of his experience and record of disruption is really unacceptable. What makes it worse is is behaviour here, right in the posting above: citing the fact that his opponent has been subjected to racist abuse by a banned sockpuppeter as evidence showing that he, the victim, is really at fault, is simply unbelievable, and a sign of a deep-seated ideologically motivated battleground mentality that we really ought not to be tolerating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I do not see that I made any disruption here. If you sanction me because I was free to provide analysis of behavior of certain user in certain articles that will be example of admin abuse and I will ask some higher level admins for protection. I am feed up with behavior of one sided admins that violating NPOV policy of Wikipedia and that fully supporting one side in the dispute. PANONIAN 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "higher level admins" on this project. In this instance, however, you may rest assured I won't take action on my own, because I have made a content-related comment on the dispute at the article talkpage (though I'd say it's pretty equidistant from both "parties" in the preceding discussion, and I certainly do consider myself neutral and uninvolved in Hungarian-Slovak issues in general.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That was not my point. I certainly have right to open an report about admin abuse if there is one. So, I will kindly ask you to say what exactly was my "abusive behavior" for which you accused me? Firstly, my words were pulled out of context from discussion on the mentioned talk page. Second, I did not insulted anybody, not a person or an ethnic group. This comment is nothing else but my observation why usage of these names there is POV and not in accordance with Wiki practice used in other articles and meaning of disputed sentence was that "I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead because of nationalism" (I used some figurative speech instead, but that was the point) - all I tried here was to support NPOV approach instead nationalist one. Please say if this is not correct, but (theoretical) spirit of Wikipedia would require that in the case of mentioned dispute, there should be some compromise solution or agreement between Slovak and Hungarian users. This article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. I am neither Slovak or Hungarian and, therefore, I represent a neutral third party in this as much as you claim you do. I also only provided an analysis of why User:CoolKoon was a "victim" of a personal insult - I did not said that I support that insult or that user who insulted him was right. Also, was there a checkuser case which concluded that user who posted that insult was a "IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors"? To conclude: 1. I did not insulted anybody, 2. I did not supported any insults against anybody, 3. I did not supported any sock of any blocked user and there is no evidence that we dealing here with such sock. So, again: what is the nature of my disruption? PANONIAN 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

When you were Arbmac'd from all Serbia history topics the other day [44] somebody gave you the good advice that "brevity is a virtue, and [...] admins don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count". Maybe you should take that to heart. (CoolKoon too.) Other than that, the answers to your questions are already in my earlier posting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm already making some mental exercises to get my point through in as few sentences as possible (e.g. the comments above are considerably shorter than my rant at the Bratislava talk page :)

@PANONIAN This previous post of yours would be true IF it won't be obvious to everybody (obviously even Fut.Perf. took notice) that you're trying to rationalize Bizovne's behavior and try to explain it away with some sort of "just anger"/wiki rage that has swept him because I've "provoked" him into it. If you'd take your time to do your homework, you'd find that I've never assaulted/provoked Bizovne verbally or by any means. Moreover I haven't even spoken to him before his very first unlogged post about some "Prof. Cavalli's genetical research". Hence I don't find it likely that anybody would side with you on this.

This article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. - another anti-Hungarian accusation without any proof. Besides, how do you know it's so? Are you completely familiar with Bratislava's past, present and future? Do you even happen to live there? Also, if "POV of Hungarian users" is bad, why would compensating it with "Slovak POV material" be better? Why won't the NPOV be the best?

I am neither Slovak or Hungarian and, therefore, I represent a neutral third party in this as much as you claim you do. - Yeah, right, except that this isn't (by far) the first occasion you've gotten into conflict with Hungarian editors. Your neutrality is hence more than questionable.

Also, was there a checkuser case which concluded that user who posted that insult was a "IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors" - Feel free to consult Bizovne's SPI archive for reference

To conclude: 1. I did not insulted anybody, 2. I did not supported any insults against anybody, - Yes, you did. You've asserted that Hungarians and Germans have enslaved Slovaks (yes, you LITERALLY used the "slave" word) and that Hungarian editors' point in reinstating the city's Hungarian and German name would be to remind them this (you've even provided an example by comparing this to Moscow's Tatar rule, which's absurd and an insult on its own). That single sentence is insulting to all the Hungarians (not only the ones editing Wikipedia) and probably Germans as well (especially since the area's been ruled by Austrians).

I did not supported any sock of any blocked user vs. Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia? - we call this an "own goal" in Hungarian. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

CoolKoon, I can give you long answer to this since it is obvious that you trashing my name and twisting my words here with a single goal to chase me away from this talk page and to ensure your Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I did not had any intention to have long term involvement in issues about that article, so you wasted your time here. And this is only a (friendly) advice: you also wasting your time in Wikipedia in general: your edits are obviously POV and there are obviously other people who do not agree with such edits and due to that, I am sure that such people will revert or delete your edits as soon as they get chance. So, the only way in which you can keep your POV here would be to fight over it for many years, but even that would not be guarantee of success: just imagine that in the near future Slovak users ensure numerical superiority in Wikipedia. Where your POV would be then? In Recycle Bin, of course. You do not have to worry about me in "your owned article" anymore since I certainly have something better to do in my life, but my concerns about POV nature of "your article" might be the smallest of your worries in not so distant future if larger number of Slovak users decide to come here. PANONIAN 09:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In the past year (since I have been on Wikipedia), I participated in some discussions in which PANONIAN also did. We frequently had different opinions, so I might not be neutral in this question, but I often found PANONIAN's statements disruptive. During our last discussion (before the talk on the Bratislava article), (s)he wrote that "Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago (and contrary to Pan-Slavic movement which advocated liberation of Slavs from foreign rule, Greater Hungarian idea is and always was an idea of imposition of such foreign rule on other nations). [45] Don't take me wrong, I do not say that "Greater Hungarian nationalism" is good, either. I just find the approach that nationalists of people X are (and always were) "evil" and aim at imposing "foreign rule on other nations", while nationalists of people Y are (and were) good, since they fight (and fought) for a good cause, a bit black-and-white point of view. This may lead to a battleground mentality, but certainly does not help to resolve those ethnic/historic disputes which are so common in the articles related to East-Central Europe. Regards, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaaah, Pan-Slavism, my favorite WP:FRINGE theory. Say PANONIAN, why don't you ask your Croatian or Bosnian "brethren" that what do they think about it? I'm sure that (since you've killed each other during the early 1990) they wholeheartedly support it too.

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but PANONIAN's obvious bias against Hungarian editors is becoming more and more apparent from every single post he's made even at this ANI entry. In my previous comments I've mostly tried to confront him with the logic flaws in his own words. Yet he just keeps attacking me and comes up with brand new groundless accusations in every single comment (e.g. my "POV", which is purportedly "reinstated" by the "Hungarian dominance", otherwise it'd be removed - if all of this would have even a tiny bit of truth in it, then >90% of my edit log wouldn't consist of properly sourced material). This leads me to think that PANONIAN has a very strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which he'll presumably take advantage of in Hungarian history-related articles now that he's been topic banned from Serbian history articles. The previous posts also show that he's ready to defend anybody who's on "his side" in this "crusade" against Hungarians, no matter how twisted and wicked the person in question is (yes, I'm talking about Bizovne).

I did not had any intention to have long term involvement in issues about that article, so you wasted your time here. - Of course not, I can see the big picture: since you've been ousted of Serbian history topics, your long-term involvement will be aimed at history articles that deal with Hungary and former lands of Kingdom of Hungary that have been ceded to foreign nations after 1920. With the tone of your first post on the Bratislava article's talk page you've shown everybody the tone and style we can expect from you in the future.

@Fut. Perf. thanks for clearing up for me the reason PANONIAN came to stir up tensions in the Bratislava article. Up until I read your entry I didn't know the reason of its sudden appearance there. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda responsible for opening this gateway to hell, and I don't see a need for sanctioning yet. I saw Panonian removing Hungarian names from Slovak city article leads, asked for discussion, he discussed. Yes some comments in that discussion were completely unhelpful, but I think ItsZippy's advice (ignore irrelevant commentary) is best. - filelakeshoe 09:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is unbelievable how CoolKoon and KœrteFa are trying to present that I am some "Hungarian-heater", not to mention that CoolKoon obviously attempting to defend himself in this thread that was opened against him in the way to transform this thread into thread against another user (i.e. against me). So, let me elaborate my political views: I do support all existing and historical independence movements in this World and I do think that people whose aims to independence are not fulfilled are indeed enslaved. Therefore, Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved, as well as Kurds are enslaved in modern Turkey or as Uyghurs are enslaved in modern China. These are facts and one who thinks that these facts are insulting is obviously the follower of retrograde political ideas about "God-given authoritative state that is allowed to oppress whom ever it wants". I have full right to express my liberal political views here and it certainly would not be good that liberal views in Wikipedia are suppressed in order to make space for retrograde ideas of rightfulness of oppression. According to CoolKoon, if one says that Slovaks were enslaved in Austria-Hungary that is "insulting" and when one says that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was "good" or "rightful" that is not not insulting. As far as my edits are concerned, here you can see me removing category "Serbian communities in Hungary" from article about town in Hungary with Hungarian ethnic majority or here you can see me adding Hungarian name to the infobox of an article about village in Serbia with Hungarian ethnic majority. So much about accusations for my "anti-Hungarian POV". It is obvious that I only support liberal ideas and that I only oppose political and ethnic oppression anywhere. In the case of Slovakia, I did not removed Hugarian name from article about any town in Slovakia where Hungarians are in majority - I only removed these names from some articles about towns with Slovak majority where these names were obviously misused against NPOV policy of Wikipedia and against Wiki practice that was implemented in articles about towns in some other countries. PANONIAN 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe Nah, don't blame yourself for this (unless you're behind User:95.102.187.187 or you've instructed PANONIAN to engage in all of this of course :P). Sometimes fecal matter hits the fan no matter how hard you're trying to avoid it.

@PANONIAN Like I've written above I would've likely opened an ANI entry for your comment without this IP sock's orchestrations either, so you won't be much better off with that either.

Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved - So does this mean that the Hungarians were enslaved too? Because they had to abide by the Habsburgs in foreign and monetary politics too. Also, this concept of Austria-Hungary being a "prison of nations" isn't new either. It's been spread by haters of Austria-Hungary ever since Trianon in order to legitimize the fact that they've been awarded territories with exclusively Hungarian population too (I can cite you dozens of sources of this too if you want).

These are facts and one who thinks that these facts are insulting is obviously the follower of retrograde political ideas about "God-given authoritative state that is allowed to oppress whom ever it wants". - you forgot to add and should burn in hell/at a stake for questioning the crusade against Hungarian "nationalists".

when one says that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was "good" or "rightful" that is not not insulting. - I've never seen anybody (Hungarian or otherwise) say that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was rightful. But saying that the Austro-Hungarian rule was "good" or "bad" is simply an opinion, whereas stating that minorities of Austria-Hungary were enslaved is an assertion that's not only offensive, but unsubstantiable with any proof either. And that's the difference between freedom of opinion and libel. Saying that "the Slovaks were enslaved" is akin to saying that "Scots/Welsh are enslaved in Great Britain up to this day". I can't be more specific than this. Yet if you still think that it's ok to say the latter, something's definitely wrong with you.

I only removed these names from some articles about towns with Slovak majority where these names were obviously misused against NPOV policy of Wikipedia - why would the presence of a Hungarian name of a town (i.e. the name that was official before 1920 and thus it's the only form that can be found in sources before 1920) consitute a "misuse of the NPOV policy"?

here you can see me adding Hungarian name to the infobox of an article about village in Serbia with Hungarian ethnic majority vs. Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago - just how many more times would you like to WP:SHOT yourself in the foot? -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading through that thread and looking again at the Bratislava talk page, I'm left feeling that this whole discussion and escalation to ANI is a little bit pointless. The only reason that this has erupted here, rather than been calmly discussed at the article's talk page, is that people have forgotten to assume good faith and are making very unhelpful accusations about the motives of other editors. If this is going to be resolved, we must assume that everyone who edits the article, unless blatantly vandalising, is trying to improve the article for the good of Wikipedia. As soon as we start to think that someone has some other agenda, we get nowhere. This means that only the content should be discussed: talk about the merits of the arguments, and what should and should not be in the article - keep that as the focus of discussion and do not accuse any editor of having a hidden agenda. I see that some better discussion has started on the talk page and editors have begun to focus on the content again - this is good and, if it continues, should lead to resolutions. If people get stuck on content issues - if there is an unresolvable disagreement about content - that I suggest dispute resolution. I will continue to watch the discussion unfold, and will block any users who continue to make comments about other users, rather than the content of the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed restrictions for User:Crzyclarks

Crzyclarks (talk · contribs) has now obtained 3 blocks for edit warring across a series of articles related to sexuality and marriage - based on the latest report against them on WP:AN/3RR, they are likely about to get their fourth. They show significant ownership issues, and WP:TE on these topics as a whole.

After their last block, it was suggested that they "self-ban from any article related to marriage or sexuality, broadly construed. You should also restrict yourself to WP:1RR for a few months. If not, I highly expect your next block to be indefinite". Of course, they went right back to those topics AND edit-warring

In order to prevent the obvious indef, I propose a 6 months editing restriction as follows:

User:Crzyclarks may not edit any article related to sexuality or marriage (broadly construed) for 6 months. In addition, they are restricted to to WP:1RR on all Wikipedia pages for the same 6 months. Any violations will lead to an indefinite block

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per [46] --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I honestly wonder if even 6 months is enough considering how the user in question acts. >_> --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the only way the editor is not going to end up indef blocked, which is where my finger has been hovering for much of today - the two further warnings on their talk page have been ignored. Black Kite (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as one last chance for an editor who refuses to listen - though I expect it will only delay their indef block by 6 months. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Am I allowed to do that lol? If it wasn't for the lack of neutrality in some of the edits I was reverting, I wouldn't be editing these articles as I have no interest in them. I think it would be best to look at the content of my edits and decide if I am biased when it comes to these articles. I was reverting one editor that caused this block discussion which doesn't seem right. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well in that case, if you don't have any interest in those topics, a ban from them won't be a problem for you. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If the topics had more neutral editors it wouldn't be a problem. Again, if you compare what I was reverting or adding, I think it's pretty obvious. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Your comments show a fundamental misunderstanding about policy. Edit-warring is not permitted. Therefore, your content justifications, even if true, are of no assistance to you. Just out of curiosity, which would you prefer, an indefinite block or the proposed topic ban? Your three blocks for edit-warring have been of increasing durations (24h, 48h, one week), which is normal, and as BWilkins stated above, you're headed for an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well my main defence is that this block discussion is a result of 3 reverts against a single editor, which was justified based on content. He's not facing an edit warring discussion, even though neither of us broke the 3RR and were only reverting each other. Topic ban would be better. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are two ways for being blocked per 3RR, one is to literally breach it by doing 4 reverts in 24 hours, and the other is to edit-war but without a technical breach based on number. In addition, once you've been blocked for edit-warring, if you come back and resume your activity, even without a breach, you'll probably be blocked (you didn't learn your lesson the first time). I looked at the June 14 marriage block, and you did more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, so that block was a technical breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• You appear to have forgotten that you have also been edit-warring today at Homosexual recruitment. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• So far, three reverts of the same material despite being reverted by two different editors. And over something really small. You have made about 250 edits to article space since your first edit in March of this year. Perhaps you should be editing less controversial articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Re "my main defence is that this block discussion is a result of 3 reverts against a single editor, which was justified based on content." - "My content version is right" is never a valid justification for edit-warring over a content dispute, and if you keep insisting that it is despite being told otherwise by a number of people and having been blocked 3 times for edit warring, then one way or another you will not be editing here. It really is that simple. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per proposer and stated preference of Crzyclarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I propose adding to the ban the following language: "Crzyclarks shall maintain the text of the ban and a link to the discussion at the top of his user page until the ban has expired." We did that in a recent ban (I suggested it) because we don't do a good job keeping track of bans. This makes it clear to any other editor what's going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was working on some common restrictions-notification templates at one time ... I've always forced agree-to restrictions to be posted at the top of their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by "agree-to restrictions" - I assume you mean a voluntary ban? If so, I don't see why it should be so limited. In any event, it'd be great if you resurrected your template work so we could have something standardized. I prefer posting it on the editor's user page, but I can see arguments in favor of the Talk page (maybe both?). Best would be a technical implementation to track bans, but that's a bigger change. I have it on my list to propose it, but I haven't gotten to it yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• We'll take it offline, but there is a simple solution, and it has to do with creating a fully-protected page called User:WhateverName/Restrictions, and adding categories such as "Users under imposed restrictions" or "Users under voluntary restrictions" where needed :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support — per Bwilkins and I recommend that Crzyclarks keep the ban notice visible, as Bbb23 suggests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This block discussion is from my reverts against one editor, not two. The current wording is different to the edits of both of us, so not really reverting my edit. I thought I may as well add that the content is clearly valid, but it is really that the reverts were against only one editor, not just that I'm right. I haven't been edit-warring at homosexual recruitment. There was a consensus until he decided to chime in after I reverted his revert. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The number of editors you are edit warring against is irrelevant - you must not edit war against even one editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Crzyclarks does not seem to get it at all. They appear unwilling to stop the edit warring on their own so we need to stop them. GB fan 19:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why my reverts are evil, but his are perfectly justified. His edit was the one that changed content from the stable version. I reverted that, then he reverted me, so I left the content in that he wanted, but also added another sourced statistic. He decided to revert...etc, and now we're here. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yours are worse because it is quite apparent that your previous blocks haven't taught you to stop edit warring. Regardless of the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of others' actions, would you say that your recent behavior constitutes edit warring? CityOfSilver 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. His edit warring is not OK either - but the reason you are here facing a ban and he isn't is because he is not the one who has had three blocks for edit warring and come back from each one to immediately resume edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Ban as proposed (though I would prefer indef) and notice as proposed by Bbb23. Severe case of IDHT and DEADHORSE despite three blocks and numerous warnings indicates that Crzyclarks is unable to constructively collaborate with other editors in this subject area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call this edit warring, as it was with just one editor and I stuck to the 3RR. But the reason why it's at this level and the other editor's reverts doesn't seem to matter is because of the previous blocks. The first block doesn't seem valid, as I was reverting OR, specifically synthesising sources. The second block, yes. The third block, no. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As was stated earlier, the number of editors that are on the other side does not matter it is still edit warring whther it it is one or three. Reverting OR is not one of the the exceptions to edit warring in policy. GB fan 21:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic concepts is bold, revert, discuss not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert... You're simply being held to that requirement. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for this conflict that I'm being held into account for, the other person did the bold and I did the revert, then he just did a revert. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but if you're not going to actually read the policy on edit-warring, then you're probably better off just shutting the fuck up, as you're not helping yourself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that so many editors at ANI insist on shooting themselves in the foot? Instead of repeatedly trying to avoid responsibility and shift the blame onto others, why not just accept responsibility for your actions? You're not going to avoid a topic ban at this point, but you might avoid convincing us that Dominus Vodisdu is correct and that you should be blocked indefinitely now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - the editor's continuing WP:IDHT just makes the need for this all the more pressing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because you brought up bold, revert, discuss. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"the other person did the bold and I did the revert, then he just did a revert" - that does not entitle you to yet another revert. Two wrongs don't make a right; it's not BRRRD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change my position to support. I can't wait and deal with POV pushers on the discussion page for each biased edit; and there are a lot of those on this topic. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what your second sentence means. That said, can someone please impose the ban and close this?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he's saying that he is not prepared to follow Wikipedia's requirement that he discuss disputed content on the talk page and wait for consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I can't edit these articles if I get banned for every two reverts I do. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Even a quick look at the editor's talk page indicates change is unlikely. Taroaldo (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the pages part of the topic from my watchlist and I won't edit them anymore. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• (note to closing admin: please don't forget to log the community-placed restrictions here) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This is a new editor who is having obvious difficulty navigating the labyrinth of WP policies. He has stepped on a few landmines in trying to understand 3RR and EW. And now the Draconian injustice of ANI is about to fall on his neck. To mistreat yet another newbie does nothing for editor retention. The issues identified here could be easily remedied by guidance from an experienced editor--not a kick in the ass--but it is much easier to crucify him than to invest time in developing them. This editor should be offered mentorship instead of onerous oppression. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then you'll be quite welcome to mentor him during the 6 months :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. To classify this activist as a confused newbie, needing time to learn to navigate the wiki better, is to ignore his non-neutral approach to Wikipedia—his effort to promote one viewpoint and push down any other. We do not need this kind of editor, ever. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to provide some examples in which I haven't been neutral in my editing. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this matters, but I'd like to extend that offer to everybody else. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

African National Congress - Legal threat

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

---

Please see African National Congress at this edit. The editor asserts a legal issue. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP address (for a month - it's dynamic) for WP:NLT and semi-protected the article, but I've also removed a large amount of out-of-date, unsourced and BLP-dubious material from it. If anyone with more knowledge wishes to tidy it up further, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I also left an additional note on the editor's talk page with instructions to further discuss the issue there if needed, as well as a link to WP:FEFS. I will watch that talk page and respond as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on User talk:Ben Ben

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

---

diff "Please do not call my edits lies hen they are tue − Thi is libel. Thnks " I reverted the addition. Jim1138 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rouoetyjsjabdb (talk · contribs) had not been warned about WP:NLT. I just left him a message—after this thread was started. Suggest no action unless threats continue, in which case he's been advised that he'll be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summaries used and comments made don't seem to constitute a legal threat. They do however constitute serious incivility and if continued should definitely result in a block QU ^TalkQu 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And he is now indefinitely blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Third attempt to add - for the record now): diff "I was static a fact not threatening. Oops I mean stating. But his too is not − A threat just a statement of fact. Nevertheless you have lied libeled and slandered again." Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those words do, in fact, qualify as a "legal threat" the way wikipedia uses the term - that is, raising the notion that the editor is in violation of some law, and thus trying to intimidate the editor. Good indef block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Now they've been deciphered I agree! QU ^TalkQu 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Nangparbat

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

---

user:86.128.244.149 Please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Use WP:AIV to report vandalism, not WP:ANI.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruption at user:Leontopodium alpinum

I say there are IP's trolling at Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs). What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing disruptive with the edit. I felt that to remove it was not for you to do...so I restored it. Thank you. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll let the admins decide what to do, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess is the IP's trolling of personal attacks on another editor are a result of that editor's own talk page being semi-protected. Edelweiss, meanwhile, has been inactive for almost a week, so removing IPs' trolling from his page seemed courteous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your canvassing isn't helping, please let the matter be resolved here. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I reported your other IP at AIV first, then you started disrupting things. So I reported y'all here as well, and meanwhile asked for protection of Edelweiss' page, to prevent you and the the other IP from trying to rekindle an argument from a week ago. Various admins patrol those various pages, so whichever runs across this first will hopefully semi-protect the page, and maybe put your IP's on ice as a bonus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The IPs very civil, but pointy, pleas for help regarding assistance need to stop. At some some point it will take on the appearance of harrasment. The matter has already been brought up here. It may not have been addressed to your satisfaction and that's a shame, but there you have it. Tiderolls 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• The IP is trying to restart an argument from a week ago. That qualifies as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have restored a comment to a user page, which I think was the correct thing to do. I did not see anything "Trolling" about it. I have also tried to talk with Baseball Bugs about it, but he keeps jumping from page to page with his complaint. This is confusing, I will watch only comments here for now. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments are pretty obviously trolling, bringing up a long-dead argument and filing frivolous admin board claims. And 2605, Bugs removed the talk page comment, then came to ANI as he should have done. Your accusations he's "jumping from page to page" are not correct. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that the IP in question is being patently dishonest in his commentary. I got pinged by him here, and you'll note the comment includes "...reverting valid, sourced information..." (emphasis added) in his civil but pointy (good term, Tide) comments. But let's go look at the diffs in question. If there's a source in there, my Magic Eye can't find it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical question: I have to figure those two IP's are the same guy. How does one jump for a "classic" IP style to the new style? Or is that even possible? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Different ISPs is my uneducated guess. Tiderolls 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For example one may have an IPV6 IP on your desktop, and a "standard" IP when you pick up your smartphone. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One seems to be in Poland and one in Canada according to whois - this suggests it may not be the same person.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And there appears to be a difference in level of knowledge of English. It's just odd that the IPv6 jumped into this as if he had some personal interest in it. Dave1185 and I kind of watch out for each other. No telling where the IPv6 guy figures into this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, do we know that this editor is male? It seems common around here to assume that other editors are male. Where gender is not certain, "they" is a perfectly good pronoun. bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LOTA dislikes your puny pronouns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, that's just like a young Tuetun! Dreadstar ☥ 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate to not bring up old ANI stuff, but please don't remove comments from my talk page. The IP editor made a civil comment in any case. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And please don't semi-protect my talk page. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It might surprise you to know that registered editors will watch out for each other - even ones they have disagreements with. As regards the IP's comment - no, it was not civil; it was nothing but trolling, an attempt at baiting; and in case you hadn't noticed, that IP has since been put on ice for the next 3 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the history of this user before I made my comment. Still I would prefer not to be semi-protected and to not have comments removed from my page, but I see you had a positive intent in cleaning up my talk space now. Thanks for the look-out. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They had already denied my request for page protection - and even if they had granted it, you could easily have had it rescinded. In any case, you're currently unprotected. And if the skeeters start to get to you, or if the IP's continue to try to provoke an edit war on your page, you can always go to WP:RFPP and ask for protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Intent to commit Sockpuppetry

Troll

Dear Administrators, I hereby notify you of my intention to use the IP range provided to me by my current ISP in its entirety, as a sockfarm in order to produce an obscene volume of sockpuppet accounts over an extended duration. You should note furthermore, that it is my intention for these sockpuppet accounts to be extremely disruptive, and to be used only for the puposes of vandalism and trolling. You should note that my accessible range covers a vast number of distinct IP addresses, and as such any range block you attempt will either be insufficient, or cause collateral damage of immense proportions. Yours sincerely, Mr N J White esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.117.100 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

rDNS for 94.6.117.100 is 5e067564.bb.sky.com. Edit time was as per this diff. Please send all abuse reports to the usual place... -- The Anome (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

Acadēmica_Orientālis has a history as an SPA pushing a pov that has it that certain races are biologically inferior than others regarding intelligence and propensity to commit crimes. Following an editing restriction he expanded his scope to articles generally related to question of biological influence on criminal behavior and intelligence. In the past month or so I have looked at his contributions to three different articles (two had him as main contributor) in which it has been painfully clear that he is not working neutrally but selectively choosing those sources that argue in favor of the the viewpoint that social behavior is determined by biology - completely ignoring opposing viewpoints (of which there are always many as the nature/nurture question is generally contentious, and particularly in the case of crime and psychopathology). The articles are Racism, Biology and political orientation, Biosocial criminology (also note the relative weightinh og "environmental" and biological/genetic in the other article he has recently worked on Psychopathy) (see also his past contributions to Race and crime, Correlates of crime, Imprinted brain theory and the related talkpages). I am not arguing that this bio-centric viewpoint should not be represented in wikipedia, because it obviously should. But I don't think it is in the interest of wikipedia to allow Academic Orientalis to repeatedly create lopsided biased content related to this topic. I would like to assume good faith, for example assuming that Academica Orientalis is not familiar with the fact that the literature he repeatedly inserts into articles is only one side of a large debate, but unfortunately at this point this would not make sense since he has been told multiple times, and even sanctioned for tendentious editing. I think the only sensible course of action is to restrict him from editing in nature/nurture related articles broadly construed (his other recent interest is science and technology in China - I haven't heard of problems with his editing there). In my mind the issue is comparable to the time when a user had the unfortunate habit of writing articles about antisemitic canards without being able to write those articles neutrally. He was stopped from doing that and he was encouraged to start editing in other areas and has since been a useful contributor. I have hope that the same could be the same for Acadēmica_Orientālis if he is restricted from writing about the particular topic regarding which he is clearly incapable of giving a balanced coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus's argument is rather unclear. But I have repeatedly stated that I will avoid race and intelligence articles except some occasional talk page comments and so I have for many months. Maunus's strangely takes up a few not objectionable talk page comments on the racism page a long time ago as evidence for something. What is unclear. The question of nature/nuture in various other articles I have contributed significantly to is a content dispute where Maunus has a strong personal POV. It is unfortunate that Maunus tries to "win" his content dispute with me this way. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been presented by Maunus. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to "win a content dispute" - I am trying to avoid having to follow you around balancing your articles in the future, in effect preempting future content disputes, except its not really a dispute since you usually don't try to resist your articles becoming neutral you just don't help doing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing are content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

First, talk pages count. Second, what about this edit, which actually succeeded a tug of war with others about your previous edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. My talk page comments contained nothing objectionable. I have avoided editing R&I article contents for more than half a year now. Your diff is about a content dispute unrelated to R&I. The content dispute is currently discussed on the talk page and elsewhere. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston [47] and by Aprock here at WP:AE. Not much seems to have changed. The problems are not specifically with R&I. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When accused of violating the ban, there appears to be a refrain (then and now) by AC that the material he is editing is not related to R&I. His response that Talk pages are irrelevant is similarly ban-evasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not under any topic ban. As stated I do not want to participate anymore in the R&I dispute with Maunus, Mathsci, and other, and have voluntarily avoided these articles for more than half a year except some occasional talk page comments. Mathsci's links are almost a year old. I repeat that no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented. This is an attempt to use ANI to win a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are currently under a ban is only relevant in terms of the sanctions that may be imposed on you through this discussion. Your arguments are evasive and sly and don't really address the issues. If I, without any previous knowledge of you, can see that, you can imagine what others more familiar with your history will think. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you try a different approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdJohnston wrote, "Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing." Nothing to do with R&I, just WP:DE. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are linking to one person's view which is almost one year old. I have not wish to be further involved in the R&I dispute with you and Mathsci which is why I have voluntarily avoided the topic. I will do so also in the future. I have instead contributed to many other articles for which I have received praise. I repeat. No evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. This is a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am not accusing Academica Orientalis of evading a ban, I don't think he is currently under one. I am accusing him of tendentious editing, which is very difficult to support with difs. But I have demonstrated on the talkpages of Racism, Biosocial criminology and Biology and political orientation that Academica Orientalis repeatedly selects only sources representeing a single viewpoint, frequently twists sources, and sometimes uses weasel phrasing to avoid describing critical views ("there has been criticism of this viewpoint" without describing the criticism or who made it). It really means that it is a huge job for other editors to supply the other half of the argument and rewrite articles to reflect all of the available scholarship. Civil tendentious editing is a huge time drain for other editors, especially when confronted with repetitive IDHT type arguments and total unwillngness to address the problems.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not shown that. I cite sources accurately and include opposing views when I find them including describing the criticisms. You on the other hand have admitted claiming there are problems by citing sources you have not even read! [48]. You have not produced any diff showing wrongdoing. Please do not use ANI for content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs

• In this edit Academica Orientalis includes a statement that "Other see twin studies as reliable.". The context is that AO based the heritability section of the article on a single article by Alford, Funk and Hibbing that used twin studies to determine heritability of political orientation. He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used. There is in fact a large body of literature criticizing twin studies as a source of heritability estimates. I included several sources arguing specifically that Alford et al's conclusions were untenable because of methdological problems - two of them stating unequivocally that twin studies have been abandonded as a source of heritability estimates. When I looked in the article provided by AO in support of twin studies as a source of heritability estimates it said this: "Twin studies of heritability are suggestive of genetic factors in social and political attitudes, but they do not specify the biological or psychological mechanisms that could give rise to ideological differences. Recently, researchers have turned to molecular genetics approaches, which involve sampling subjects’ DNA from blood or saliva, and identifying individual differences, or polymorphisms, in a particular gene (Canli 2009)". Here the authors say the opposite of what AO make them say - they state that twin studies may be suggestive of genetic differences but that they are no longer used by serious researchers to provide heritability estimates. This shows two kinds of problematic behavior by AO 1. failure to attempt to provide a balanced view of the topic he writes about (he cannot claim that he didn't know of the problems with twin studies, or that he didn't know it had been criticized - he knows this very well from his time in R&I) (in essence cherry picking) 2. misrepresentation of sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A complicated content dispute. Regarding heritability and twin studies in general I linked to the heritability article which discusses the subject in great detail. To replicate all the arguments for and against in every article mentioning heritability is of course not possible. I added a secondary literature review to the section. I agreed on the talk page that some researchers argued twin studies are not accurate for exact numbers but they do have been important for showing that genetics play a role. My source started with "The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies." I therefore subsequently changed my text to reflect this which you do not mention.[49] See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: [50]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is not the issue of content - the point is that: 1. you were aware that the study was controversial and did not state so untill someone made you. 2. you misrepresented the source you did present. If this was a single standing incident it would not be a problem, and i would assume that you would have learned that you ned to include also the opposing view in a major scholarly dispute like this, but unfortunately it isn't. It is a persistent pattern over several years. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what I was aware of. Regarding the heritability source, see what I wrote previously. Your unsourced claim of persistent pattern is incorrect. I could just as well claim that you have a persistent pattern of being biased in your editing on these subjects. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to be more aware. Especially since people have been making you aware of literature that disagrees with the basic viewpoint expressed in the source for the past several years. I don't buy that excuse -but if I were to assume good faith it would still be an issue of basic WP:COMPETENCE. A wikipedia editor needs to be able to have the mind to realize when a viewpoint is controversial nad requires a balanced treatment. Especially one who has spent so much effort editing controversial topics as you have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a link the Heritability article discussing the arguments for and against in great detail. To replicate this in every article mentioning heritability is not possible. Regarding competence, how about you actually reading the sources you claim contain important information supporting you. Which you have admitted not doing: [51]]. That would seem to be a minimum requirement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop lying about those two sources. I have not claimed they support me. I have not cited them. I have suggested you read them since they might provide you with a more nuanced view of the fact, and might enable you to actually cite some of the criticism that your source mentions, but apparently doesn't cite.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You were listing sources that supposedly should provide information that was supposedly missing in my source without actually having read your own sources! Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was providing you a service since you apparently suffer from some kind of handicap when it comes to finding sources that contain information you may disagree with. And I would do it again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice tactic. So if you disagree with an article you will start filling the talk page with sources which you yourself have not read and demand that the other side must read them since there is a possibility that there may be something in the sources you have not read that will support your views? Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You refused to provide citations for the criticisms that your own article mentioned, I found articles that are clearly critical of biosocial criminology (indeed the title of one of them is "a critique of biosocial criminology"). But yes, if I happen to know that an article is leaving out significant viewpoints then I will at times provide sources that I believe express those missing viewpoints on the talkpage so that other editors may use them to improve the article, if I don't have time myself. That's not "a tactic" that is called writing a collaborative encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have certainly stated which review source I have used for my statements. You personally "think" that there are missing criticisms and you "think" that these missing criticisms may be in some sources you have actually not read. Since you do not have the "time" yourself to control your speculations, you demand that someone else should do the work for you. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit AO adds a mention of the fact that "has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences". This is of course correct and it would be very useful for the reader to know who made this criticism and where, and based on what arguments. Instead of giving this basic information AO writes: "Biosocial argues that this is incorrect but that on the other hand many sociologically influenced criminological approaches completely ignores the potential role of genetic which means that the results is likely confounded by genetic factors." That is the criticism is only mentioned so that it can be debunked, without giving the reader a chance to even know who is being debunked. When I placed a tag asking for who made the criticism AO said that it was already sourced (to the source debunking the criticism that is), and he did not offer to find it for me. When I googled crtitiques of Biosocial criminology I quickly found a few studies which I presented on the talkpage so that AO could use them to improve the article. Instead he argued that because I hadn't read them my assertation that the article lacked criticism was unfounded (in spite of the fact that he himself had mentioned the existence of criticism, and refused to provide the citation of the critique)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another content dispute. I have on the talk page given the exact quote from which the statement was made.[52] The source does not give further information than what I stated in the article. Have you not read what I wrote on the talk page? Regarding the sources you gave and claim contain relevant critical information, you yourself have admitted that you have not read them! [53]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not the specific content here that is the problem, but that fact that you knowlingly did not adequately represent opposing (mainstream) viewpoints. If you don't have access to mainstream sources about a topic don't edit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what the source stated on the subject. I have not "knowingly" excluded anything. I have read sources unlike you who have admitted claiming there are arguments missing by citing sources you have not even read! Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So now you are verging into plain untruths. I admitted that I had not read two sources that I added on the talkpage - I have not cited those sources anywhere. Your own source mentioned there was criticisms - that didn't motivate you to look for it. That is at best a competence issue and at worst knowingly omitting the contrary view. You have not admitted to not reading the sources you cite, but if you read the review you introduced then you certainly read it very superficially.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The diff speaks for itself. You mentioned these sources you admit not having read as supporting for your views. I have read the Biosocial Crime source I cited carefully and not stated otherwise. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is similar to the above, in that he gratuitously mentions that there has "been various criticisms", but does not mention who made these critiques orexplain what they are, but instead sources[54] the entire paragraph to an article in which the original authors of the controversial study make a rebuttal of criticisms (The study has been shown to be based on flawed data and statistical methods by Buller, David (2005). "The Emperor is Still Under-dressed". Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 508–510.) - but Ao doesn't think this is relevant for this article.

Content dispute. I did not mention any of the specific arguments either for or against since there is a very long Wikipedia article (Cinderella effect) dedicated to the subject which was linked to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This edit is just blatant POV peacockery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. What the sources states. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here AO removes the only mention of the fact that the mainstream view in criminology still is that most of the causality behind crime is explained by environmental factors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. In fact, the article starts by stating "contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories". This with a source unlike the completely unsourced material I removed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems odd that the claim that noone would have contradicted this claim "Traditional sociologically oriented theories explain relatively little of the variance" which basically states that all other criminologists have got it all wrong. Where is the "traditional" view (also known as mainstyream) represented? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is what the given source states. There was no "traditional" view there on this that I did not include. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing a neutral article requires looking at sources written by...gasp... the other point of view. Basing an article on a single biase source as you routinely have done producess... biased articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to write a POV article I would not have mentioned this criticism at all. Your are assuming that there are counter-arguments without proof. Just like you assume that sources you Google contain relevant information without reading them. If there are in fact opposing view, then state them so they can be included. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here we're back to race again (but not IQ). Apparently religious Black people tend to vote liberal. It's probably in their genes. (Ok, this isn't really misconduct since its on a talkpage and he's actually using a maisntream source (but cherry picking a factoid out of table))·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. Secondary source. No mention of IQ. No mention of genes. Talk page comment. No cherry picking.Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Look at this article edited by AO recently. Notice how anthropology and sociology account for a paragraph each, whereas - evolutionary explanations account for something closer to three screens. One would think that social sciences would have more to say about altruism (of course they do). Ok, AO is not interested in social science and probably shouldn't be forced to write extensively about stuff he's not interested in. But then again isn't every editor responsible at least for maintaining articles in some kind of reasonable weight between viewpoints according to prominence? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. I edited the area regarding which I have most knowledge. Your description is misleading, there is also a long section on social psychology in the article. If more social science is needed, then please add this. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I could find a lot of similar stuff if i go a few months further back. For example AO's article on Race and crime was stubbified a year ago after the consensus in an afd found the topic notable but the coverage completely lopsided. This apparently didn't deter Ao from writing a bunch of similar ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See no concrete arguments here. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question "He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used." This is more than a solid screenful of text at ANI suggesting we should ban all newbies who don't write at FA or above ? serious ? how do these arguments about an experienced editor not also apply to every new editor that walks through the door ? Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Support an indefinite topic ban of Acadēmica Orientālis from all nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed. There has been a relentless push by Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that many differences between groups can be explained by the biology of certain races. The relentless WP:CPUSH based on a commitment to use sources from only one side of the debate means it is not possible to sum up the situation with a couple of diffs. One of the many examples can be seen at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#NPOV dispute: Some opposing views removed (and following) to coatrack some R&I views into an article about a book that is only peripherally connected with hereditary effects (search for my comment dated "10:45, 23 February 2012" on that talk page for a quick overview of the book). The above was started by Miradre in July 2011, but related attempts were made by Acadēmica Orientālis in February 2012, see Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#Criticism by Rushton removed. There are many other articles where the above is repeated. This editor is interested in only one side of a complex issue, and is damaging articles by introducing POV. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An infinite topic ban based on what? Some many months old talk page comments in one article? What exactly was objectionable except that I dared disagree with you in that discussion? Should not you also be banned since you were also involved in that talk page discussion if that is a crime? Yet another example of using ANI as a way of winning content disputes.Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I would have been biased regarding the Psychopathy article as stated by Maunus in the initial post is completely ridiculous and outright offensive. Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And no change in behavior since the criticism of your actions 23 months ago.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss that I have stated that I voluntarily avoid editing R%I articles and have not done so for many months except some talk page comments such as the above several months ago. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, based on Miradre/AO's fixed POV and attempt to foist this POV on the encyclopedia, per Johnuniq. We cannot allow such POV-pushers to warp our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wikipedia must be neutral, and those who continually seek to subvert that are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support There don't seem to be any problems with his edits related to China. But his addition of content related to biological differences/evolutionary psychology in a vast range of articles (eg Honor killings) too often seems biased, unbalanced and undue. He argues interminably in circles on talk pages over these issues and that is a drain on volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost every comment in the thread[55] is an example. I explained that your single source relating to evolutionary psychology was written by somebody without academic qualifications in the subject (he is a lawyer outside academia). You responded that my statement was an ad hominem attack on the author. You exhaust editors with this kind of circular WP:IDHT argument. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and ignoring the many different arguments I made in this talk page content dispute. Again, show the diffs showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are examples from threads on talk pages of multiple articles covered by or related to WP:ARBR&I (I have not picked out individual diffs):[56] [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have not showed any diff and explained what is supposed to be objectionable with it. You are simply linking to talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy. Again, show the diff you think show objectionable behavior violating Wikipedia policies. You seem to be arguing for a purely political ban for disagreeing with your own POV.Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The pattern of repetitive WP:IDHT edits seems clear enough, as others have written. It cannot be described by individual diffs. In the example from Honor killings, one article by a non-expert in the subject was used to produce the content. AO did not concede that there might have been a problem with the source. He. continued arguing in circles, as seems to be happening here. Mathsci (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? Regarding the content dispute with you regarding Honor killings, see the Honor killings talk page discussion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Academica Orientalis dismisses all criticism. Not so long ago—barely a month—Roger Davies already commented that Academica Orientalis had spent a considerable amount of time vociferously supporting a blatant sock troll (Alessandra Napolitano) of a banned user.[65] Their contributions here should be viewed in the light of that. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not supported anyone I knew was sock troll. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I became aware of the topic Biology and political orientation based on a post by another editor to WP:FTN. The editor Acadēmica Orientālis appears determined to push biased content which violates core policies (such as the section discussed here Wikipedia:RSN#Biology_and_political_orientation which is clearly based on unreliable sources, but which has not been removed Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#Unreliable_section because the editor Academica wants the content to stay and "point out that there is controversy and refer to the main article") and to frustrate other editors into submission. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has produced any diffs showing any objectionable things I have done in recent months but are making accusations without backing. Seems to be a purely political topical ban for my views on a topic I have not edited for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can transform the above links into diff form if that is preferable. Considering I have not edited in this topic area before now, I don't see how my support could be political (I'm not sure what you mean by that). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please show the diffs showing anything I have done in recent months showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only respond with diffs corresponding to when I observed your interaction with me and another editor You have resisted the removal of a section based on a primary study of dubious quality (there is agreement in RSN that it's not reliable) based on some dubious arguments:

Bringing in arguments that were never made: "Do you have any evidence for scientific misconduct?" [66]

Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics [67].

Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. [68]

Denial that the topic is controversial [69]

Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized [70] the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: [71][72]

Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: [73][74]

Still want the section kept even though there is a "large and complex controversy" [75]

Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: [76] but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: [77][78], despite exact figures been given in the section.

In summary it's clear you are intent on pushing the source on to the article despite it not being reliable for the claims given. But I think reading the full discussion on the article and RSN demonstrates the point better. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting my talk page arguments as anyone can see by reading the diffs and the whole talk page discussion. You are NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section. I have not denied that the subject is controversial but claims of a large literature of scientific opposing views needed to be backed up by sources which is what I asked for. Notable scientific controversies are not disallowed from being discussed by any policy as you seem to be arguing. Talk page disagreements on contents are not disallowed. Thanks for making it clear that you want to ban me indefinitely for disagreeing with your own POV on what is a talk page content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also covered in the diffs that I have shown and the link to the article, the journal article itself also mentions why it's not suitable as well (as was already pointed out to you but you appear to have ignored WP:IDHT). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have shown no such things. You seem to think that "original paper" = "primary source". That is of course not the case. The peer-reviewed secondary literature reviews I added to the section does no primary research but is reviewing the existing literature. Thanks for again demonstrating that this is about a content dispute and not about violating any Wikipedia policies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The review article from nature defends the concept of heritability, not the method of twin studies. In fact it mostly argues that heritability estimates should be based on genetic data even though "classical twin studies" have been useful. It is quite clear that they consider twin studies to be a pre-genomic era kind of method. So why you would include that to support twin studies is odd, and why you seem to think that you deserve praise for having added one more source in defense of the same controversial viewpoint without adding any for the opposite view is even odder.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about a completely different review article: [79] Regarding the Nature article cannot see any criticisms of twin studies. Do you have a quote? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question where is the disruption ? certainly the editor has an opinion on the topic, this is perfectly ordinary, so they discuss and promote their opinion, this is also quite normal. Where is the edit warring, where is the disruption of process, in short, why is this even at ANI, is there a problem on wikipedia now that no editor may have an opinion ? Please be kind enough to diff some disruptive behavior, so we can all get to the point please. Penyulap ☏ 13:23, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming "disruption" I am claiming persistant failure to edit neutrally. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, but when editing we are expected to edit neutrally and balancedly, not merely promote one view on a topic (even though perhaps it is a common occurrence - which doesn't legitimize it). Ani is not just for disruption, it ios also for making decisions about how best to direct community resources, in this case a lot of community resurces will be spent patrolling AO's pages for neutrality if he is allowed to continue editing in this field. Whereas if he is allowed to edit only on other topics community reseources (including AO's efforts) will be directed at something more productive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, promoting your own opinion is not what wikipedia is for. The disruption is evident in the links I have shown and has effected the articles in real terms, the heritability section has been kept in the article despite the study being completely unreliable and unsuitable. Also see Mathsci's link for example. The editors substantial edits, based on primary studies and newspaper coverage of the studies, pertaining to his POV [80] are clear evidence of actual damage to the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Having an opinion is to be human, being surrounded by people with the same opinion leads to a lack of awareness that you do, indeed, have an opinion. Tolerating other people's opinions when they are civil, articulate, and following the rules is what wiki is about. Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, throwing your opinions out the window and deferring to reliable sources is what wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are still NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section and you are grossly distorting my talk comments. There is not policy against discussing notable scientific controversies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You added a peer reviewed source supporting your original view after you had been shown that you had failed to include a large body of contradictory views. In short your adding the review article after the initial artciel had been challenged only continued the same biased direction that you had begun. At no point did you say "Oh, I guess its right I left out important criticism, let me correct that" what you said was "but I have a counter criticism to all those critical studies". The tendency is clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not leave out any important criticisms of which I was aware. I linked to heritability article which discusses the concept in great detail including arguments for and against. Replicating this long article everytime heritability is mentioned is not possible. Since the source was challenged, I added a secondary review source I had used elsewhere in the article but not in this particular section. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban. Despite the queasiness I feel in supporting an editor whose views so strongly conflict with my own, I cannot see anything in the diffs so far provided which give grounds for a ban. Civilly arguing a point, however fringe or oddball, is only disruptive when it moves into repetitive, wall 'o' text trolling which this has not. I see no evidence of unjustified edits to articles, no incivility, no vandalism. This editor may be annoying and frustrating to the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, but that's not sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not his views but the fact that he persistently writes biased articles that do not take into account opposite viewpoints. This kind of persistent tendentious editing is very difficult to show in diffs, but I'll be posting a collection of interpreted diffs. Also no one is talking about a block, but about a topic ban so that the fact that he is unable to edit neutrally n this topic will not create problems for the encyclopedia's coverage of this sensitive issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. Arguing a point beyond what is reasonable, and onwards is disruptive and does effect article content (the section based on the unreliable source on heritability is still there, he reverted it back in twice without consensus, his POV push has retained it despite no editors agreeing with his edits). Only after another editor performed significant research did academica indicate there actually was a controversy with the section, his original edits mention none: [81]. All his edits to the page are of this type and will take a lot of work to try and fix, made the more difficult by the editor himself. Topics bans aren't given out just for incivility and vandalism. Civil POV pushers also face topic bans. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, as usual, lots of claims most of which are not supported by any diffs. Sweeping claims regarding all my editing based on a single edit. You are still trying to ignore the reliable secondary review source I added. Heritability is by no means dead today, see this review article in Nature Reviews Genetics: [82] Heritability is controversial, but so is also, say, other scientific debates or political views on various issues and there is no need and possibility to repeat the whole controversy every time the issue is mentioned since we have wikilinks to the main articles. Heritability, including both the general arguments for and against, are discussed in the Heritability article I linked to. Regarding claims that I would generally be biased I will repeat my earlier comments regarding the psychopathy article: Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. I urge those interested to examine the article before and after I edited it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Miradre/Academica Orientalis is sort of the canonical soup-spitter. That sort of behavior isn't obvious in a diff, or even in a single thread, so it's hardly ever deemed "disruptive" in an AN/I setting. I disagree with Kim: I think that if an editor is consistently annoying and frustrating the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, then s/he needs to stop editing those articles. This is a collaborative project, and we don't have unlimited reserves of constructive, cheerful editors to step in and replace those burnt out by dealing with this sort of behavior. I don't see a loss to Wikipedia if AO stops editing the topic in question, and I do see a benefit: namely, decreasing the burnout rate among the constructive editors dealing with him/her in that topic area. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? It seems like a purely politically motivated ban. I have added a very large amount of material, sourced to secondary academic sources, to numerous evolutionary psychology related articles these past months. Without any objections except on a small minority of them. I deeply resent the claim, given without any evidence, that my editing on the whole is not constructive.Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a indefinite ban and a topic ban. Also, it's entirely possible to be a disruptive influence without breaking a single policy, guideline, law, or anything. For instance: let's say that your neighbour buys a shotgun and then sits on his front porch every day holding it, right next to your house and yard where your dog and kids play every afternoon. He hasn't broken a single law, but he's clearly creating a rather uncomfortable environment... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not holding a shotgun. Another comparison would be a dictatorship where people with opposing views are punished without any evidence of wrongdoing. If you have any concrete evidence of misdoing, then please give the diffs. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is is a purely political ban without any supporting evidence for other wrongdoing, should not this be stated clearly in the policies? Like "genetical/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology views are not allowed regarding certain topics such as politics or crime"? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Shotgun ? could we please remain on planet Earth, this is civilized editing, not even socking or reverting, it appears more a case of someone who doesn't look like 'we' do, and, on a worldwide project, that is hardly in harmony with policy. Can anyone show me a disruptive diff, such as reverting or some such ? Penyulap ☏ 20:45, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a civil POV pusher with someone who engages in edit wars, see a description here of the characteristics: Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing. That's why he is constantly asking for diffs, because it's hard to impossible to show civil POV pushing in a diff, you need to look at the long term behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please look at my long term behavior regarding articles such as the Psychopathy article where I have as stated above greatly reduced the genetic arguments. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I take very seriously the careful arguments against my oppose above. I completely concede the point that this editor is tendentious and uncollaborative, but manages to stay well on this side of the line of civility, edit warring etc. A good example is the set of exchanges here wherein AO stonewalls all attempts at discussion. In all the talk pages I've viewed, I don't see AO acknowledging that s/he is doing anything wrong or could in any way improve their approach. The same is true of this discussion, wherein AO characterises the whole problem as an extended content dispute. So I fully accept the facts of what folks are complaining about here. I guess my problem is with the remedy. I've had occasional brushes with similar editors and have longed for them to become abusive or start to edit war, just so we can reasonably block them. Usually they do, but what if they don't? Others here are arguing that the disruption AO causes is sufficient to merit a topic ban. I'd take the view that AO's nuisance value is the price we pay for accepting a wide diversity of views here, but if the consensus is that the price is not worth paying I will quite understand. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a very well argued deliberation, and I find your oppose on those grounds to be entirely reasonable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like that I have added a great deal of evolutionary psychology material to many articles and there have been no opposition to this except in a small minority. The Biology and Political Orientation article seems to have caused an enormous controversy considering the AfD and this ban proposal. If it would help I promise to avoid this article and concentrate on other articles where I think I have added much valuable material without opposition. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you were to admit that you have failed to give a balanced coverage of topics related to nature/nurture, and that you will take steps to remedy that in the future. And no, I see the same problems with your EP edits - EP is a similar controversial field where a large body of critical literature exists, which I have never seen you take steps to include in your writings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations without giving evidence. I could just as well argue that you biased in your edits regarding these topics. See the Psychopathy article which I thinks is much better after my edits and which, yes, includes evolutionary psychology criticisms added by me and from which I removed much incorrect pro-biology material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All of the diffs above show content problems, but AO seems unable to stop adding questionable material supporting his POV, and deemphasizing material opposing his POV. or to understand what he's doing wrong. All his statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation show this problem, although there, the entire article represents nothing that does not support his POV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you give a diff and explain what was unacceptable? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I couldn't find one that was acceptable, I see no need for additional diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you do not produce any diffs and explain what policy is violated, then how do we know there is a problem and how do I defend myself. An absurd situation. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all topics remotely relevant to human biology. This user has consistently supported an extreme point of view which can be usefully described as pseudo-scientific racism -- attempting to import into numerous articles material which is favorable to the view that human races exist and that there is some scientific backing for a notion of racial superiority. This point of view cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. Ordinary editing mechanisms are not adequate to address this issue, and otherwise productive editors are exhausted by the prolific and incessant POV-pushing. One editor alone, User:Mathsci, has had to follow this user to Talk:Honor killing, Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel, Talk:Problem of evil, Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Cognitive bias, Talk:Cultural anthropology, Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Talk:Democracy Now!, Talk:Groupthink, Talk:Social anthropology, Talk:NPR -- think of how much useful editing he could have done instead if he had not had to battle this racist claptrap. No, there is no viable alternative to a wide-ranging topic ban, if not a complete ban from Wikipedia altogether for people who peddle this line. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not edited any race articles for over half a year except some occasional talk page comments most of which were several months ago. Honor killings, Problem of evil, Causes of autism, Cognitive bias, NPR, Groupthink, and so on are not about race. You seem to be arguing for a politically based ban for editing in an area I have avoided for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing for a ban based on your continued and continuing pattern of edits, which are promoting a political point of view which is consistent with and a continuation of that older unacceptable behaviour. Of course it's politically based, in that sense, and the overwhelming consensus of opinion is that productive editors ought not to have to waste their time dealing with it. It's just that some editors are shy about admitting it. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose screen after screen after screen of nonsense at ANI, this is why there are bright lines drawn, so this doesn't happen. The user is causing annoyance by discussing a long list of different new material and many editors are frustrated that this editor doesn't stop trying to add material to articles. It's called wikipedia, and this is what it is for, take up golf you lot, or write a book. Like many things I've seen Johnuniq come up with, this proposal is lacking in any solid foundation and is nothing beyond demagogy, I have come to expect no meat from John unique. Penyulap ☏ 21:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This is not Johnuniq's proposal but mine. And the problem is not that he adds material, but that he only adds one kind of material and shows no interest in improving his editing to conform with Wp:NPOV. That is not how wikipedia is supposed to work no.

• Oppose: I do not see disruption and I for one am not going to lower the bar for a topic ban to the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages. It would send a chilling message if this becomes the standard threshold for a topic ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the reasoning here. Any and all kinds of beliefs or faiths are completely acceptable for editors to have and argue, but a basic requirement is that we at least demonstrate a willingness to work towards NPOV in collaboration with others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• The topic ban was proposed not because of AO's beliefs, but because of the tactics s/he uses to promote those beliefs. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of my edits have not caused any objections. Much of the criticisms is about a single article and in particular a single section and source. Or regarding my prior editing many months ago in a topic I now avoids. That is hardly evidence for any general current pattern. Again, I urge those interested to look more broadly at other articles I have edited recently. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Maunus: saying that I am "misrepresenting" is tantamount to calling me a liar. As you can well imagine I take exception to that. Are you sure you want to go down that road at this venue? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

• Comment - I have trouble saying that I would oppose sanctions based on the actions of the editor involved, but I cannot actively make myself support one. Yes, the editor is apparently incapable of even the most basic reasoning. Yes, the editor politely engages in stonewalling. And certainly his mindless repetition of "I don't see any diffs" and other comments above are almost enough to make one want to strangle him, if that could be done over the web. But I would procedurally prefer it if an RfC on the editor's behavior, with a recommendation to cease editing all articles in the basic topic area, were filed before a topic ban is placed. Based at least on some of the comments here, it may well be possible that the editor has some sort of mental dysfunction or inability and it is impossible for him to view his own conduct rationally. That sort of thing appears a lot in race-related material. The problem seems to be that the editor has recently returned to editing material which is somewhat related recently. For all of his own vapid repetition above, I have seen no reason given by this editor why he has chosen to end his so-called self-imposed ban now. If he at least seemed to have acknowledged his own mistakes earlier, as his repetition of that comment seems to at least strongly imply, how has time made them other than mistakes in the past few months? However, having said all that, there is a precedent for "exhausting the patience of the community," and I do get the impression that AO's behavior has crossed that line. On that basis, I cannot force myself to actively oppose a topic ban either, unless a saw a clear and unambiguous statement that the editor would voluntarily remove himself from all involvement on related articles indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I didn't start an rFc is the fact that he has participated in an arbcom case and has been under editing restrictions for similar behavior in the past. This did motivate him to edit i other areas rather than being an SPA, and I think that it would probably be to the benefit of wikipedia if he would concentrate his editing on topics such as China-Africa relations, China-South American relations and Chinese science and technology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not ever been a SPA but edited a broad range of articles. Most of my editing and adding extensive material to numerous articles has not caused any objections at all. I would welcome a RfC so we could get a more fair overview of my recent editing which I think have been generally constructive. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you quite clearly have, and you have also once stated that you had a previous account but rgistered "Miradre" exactly to be able to edit in "a controversial area" without it reflecting on your previous identity. I can find a dif to a previous ANI thread in which there was a general consensus that your account was an SPA dedicated to R&I. I estimate that less than 5% of the edits of Miradre (talk · contribs) have been outside the general R&I topic area. You clearly are doing good edits in other areas unrelated to biology and psychology, and I would encourage you to continue with that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please present evidence when you make claims and accusations. Many of my edits in biology and psychology have arguably been constructive such as regarding the Psychopathy article as explained earlier above.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it is of course arguable - which is why we are arguing. The point is not so much that your edits are not constructive as it is about the quality of the construction and the amount of overseeing it requires of other editors to bring it in line with policy, and the fact that you appear to adamantly resist improving.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for diffs because many have made general accusations without presenting evidence. Note that at the beginning of the case there were for a time no diffs at all but people still wanted me to be banned. To then ask for evidence when I am being threatened with an indefinite ban seems justifiable. Otherwise it looks like a political ban due to my editing of a topic I now avoids. I have not ended avoiding this topic. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the diffs that have been added are about my editing many months ago in this topic. Or regarding a single article and in particular a single source and section in that article. I urge editors to look more broadly than just at my editing months ago in a topic I now avoids or regarding this single article and section/source. I have edited numerous articles and added material without any objections except in a small minority. If it helps I promise to avoid this particular article (Biology and political orientation) in the future. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I know that in the United states, where most people come from, there is no presentation of a case against the accused, for example, the president declares on TV that such and such somewhere in the world is a criminal, and that's the case closed, however, are we really so low as to deny obvious fundamental justice in this case by not providing a single recent diff or two, because I for one would like to see wikipedia hold itself just that little bit up out of the mud of mob stupidity, like a half arsed push-up by a fat slob just before he completely collapses back into the mud face down, so can somebody, for the love of god, provide a diff or two, hey, borrow something I did !!! there's an idea, call it puppetry for crying out loud, but lets see a little light shining in the basic ANI procedure department here ok ? This is not too much to ask. Penyulap ☏ 00:43, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U is an excellent suggestion, John. This issue is just not clear cut enough to decide in a thread at ANI by tally of !votes. We use the topic ban hammer far too often here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

IP making dubious edits, accusing others of vandalism

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

---

Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979–1990 and Ming Dynasty are the two articles I've identified so far. The offending IP is (currently) 123.117.160.47 but he's also gone by 123.117.180.218, and probably several others. He is verging on edit warring and repeatedly accuses those who revert his edits of being vandals, for example, here and here. I have little knowledge in the relevant fields, but I believe I know a troll when I see one. Someone should look into this.

Note also that I've given him a level-4 warning for misuse of warning templates. He'll probably blank his talk page shortly (he's done this already several times), but if a block is in order, you don't need to hesitate. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The first IP had vandalized my user page twice before the second repetitively put accusing warning templates, and he/she did the same thing to Tow's. He also did vandalize about 2 articles above with misleading, wrong information. I suggest these two should be blocked indefinitely as an obvious troll. That's just my opinion, if I am wrong, tell me --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IP's, unfortunately, are rarely blocked indefinitely. But I support a block on these anons: their utter failure to understand what vandalism is not (reverting an edit that contravenes established policy is NOT vandalism), about original research, verification and that facts must be adequately supported by reliable sources. Their vandalism on user pages and abuse of warning templates doesn't help either. →Bmusician 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IPs and semi-protected the articles. Dreadstar ☥ 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Kalappurackal

This was brought to my attention by another editor. Shjjose (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted personally identifying contact information of himself (and the answer to "what information" is "all of it") into the article; most recently just 10 minutes ago (revdel'd) after I'd given him a -labled warning not to do so 15 minutes before [83]. Frankly this seems to me to be a clear-cut WP:CIR scenario, but since I'm probably technically involved (having RevDeled 145147 edits to suppress the personally identifying information which was then sent to Oversight) I believe it might be best to send it here and have another assess it and block if necessary. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

More recent edits to the article haven't reintroduced the contact information; however the editing style still needs...grounds for improvement, however it seems he may have gotten the message re: don't put your private information on the Internet... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardware-assisted virtualization

Hi, there. There might be a case of vandalism as regards the page Hardware-assisted virtualization. As the originator ot the deletions has no name (only IP address 201.92.95.136 provided), I wasn't able to talk to him. As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to properly handle this case and I would like to ask for some help. Akolyth (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Akolyth. This was garden variety blanking vandalism. You can report such obvious vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it is persistent. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user or IP's talk page (for example, relevant here, {{Uw-delete4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported here. I have warned the IP with the first template in the series, {{uw-delete1}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for he help. I'll have an eye on it. Akolyth (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm being attacked

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146 § Removing warnings squabble, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive288 § Newington College and edit warring

Could somebody please help Hello I've finally found time to create a User Page. I hope it changes my life in a positive fashion. has been harassing me by accusing me of being two other users that he seem to have a vendetta against. (No wonder why they left) and reverting my talk page multiple times after being asked not to and being asked to leave me alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 60.242.91.165 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2012

And he/she has just done it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see that someone with your IP address has posted several taunts to Castlemate's talk page. -- Frotz(talk) 09:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the IP has been taunting, Castlemate has been reinserting material on the IP's talk page which the IP is within their rights to remove. I have warned Castlemate not to carry on with this - which may be the cause, rather than the effect, of the IP's taunts. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good grief! Is this exact same Newington College nonsense still going on with the same names and the same squabbles after six years? Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Vettakkorumakansnehi

This user is constantly flooding talk pages of articles with requests for comments on minor issues - one example on Talk:Nair, about a simple matter of adding a cn template to the article lead. I have received a complaint on my talk page, complaining of what they saw as unacceptable behaviour [[84]] from User:Sitush. I have found an example from the latter user before the latest clash [85] . There are several other diffs which the user has posted on my talk page detailing what they see as 'inappropriate behavior' from Sitush [86],[87]. Vettakkorumakansnehi has been warned of sanctions [88], and has received a topic ban of 6 months [89]. Sitush has also highlited this edit on the articles talk page -[90]. Mdann52 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I placed a 6 month article ban to resolve that. I suspect I'll be imposing an indefinite one in 6 months 2 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems spread from Talk:Nair (several sections) to Talk:Iyengar, where my frustration with WP:IDHT behaviour came to the boil, especially since at that point User:Vettakkorumakansnehi was also trying to impose exactly the same sort of discussions on various user talk pages. I backed off somewhat after that, imposing on myself a "one or two responses a day" rule in order to slow things down and keep things more calm. As it turns out, that was just a relative calmness.

They are intelligent and they can be pleasant to deal with (eg: this thread is ok), but they really do not seem to be getting a grasp of how we operate, despite seeming to have a wide knowledge of our policies for one who has made so few contributions. My suspicion is that they will just move on to another caste article and start over with the same sort of thing but I do hope that the article ban gives them pause for thought. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam and the Hedd Wyn article

• Varlaam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hedd Wyn (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We seem to have a problem here, and a long term one at that. It's previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#And now for the aftermath and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Varlaam's recent edits, the latter resulting in a two week block for what he's doing right now. Edit summaries from back then included "Enough with the anti-English Welsh racism", "Rule, Britannia. Britannia rules the waves. Britons (including the Welsh) never, never, never shall be slaves.", and "Wow, you are really, really racist. You are probably in gaol."

Despite the 2 week block in December 2010, he tried changing it again on 17 May 2011, then 21 January 2012, again on 21 January 2012, 23 January 2012 (edit summary of "You are a pathetic embarrassment to dispassionate, disinterested scholarship"), 24 June and 25 June (edit summary of "Your irrational, one-issue POV pushing is a sad, sad embarrassment to all concerned. Why don't you try making a genuine contribution to anything anywhere?").

There's a discussion about it on Talk:Hedd Wyn (film) that Varlaam has never once taken part in. So sporadic long term edit warring, failing to take part in the relevant discussion, abusive edit summaries. It seems little has been learnt since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive187#User:‎Varlaam reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 60 hours) which was just two weeks ago.

Any ideas on a solution? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Prachursharma's not-so-subtle antisemitic page

Earlier today, Prachursharma (talk · contribs) created a page titled Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States. While such a topic isn't necessarily intended to be antisemitic (and, if you know anything about the rampant antisemitism related to the Fed, even that is a bit of a stretch,) he included links to wordpress.com and http://zionistjewfedreserve.com/photo.html zionistjewfedreserve.com.

I submitted the page for speedy delete, but I think this issue must be addressed with the page's creator. I haven't yet gone through his/her other edits, but given how egregious this page was, I would be surprised if there weren't more inappropriate additions made by this editor in the past. JoelWhy? talk 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The obviously anti-Semitic links have been removed, but can still be seen in the edit history here. CSD was declined (a move I disagree with) but I am submitting for AfD based on lack on notability. (Although, I'm sure we could establish notability by using about 1,000 different neo-Nazi websites...) JoelWhy? talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD seems the appropriate venue - is there any other admin activity you're asking for other than that? (I don't think you can expect to ask other people to go fishing for you - if you think there might be other problems with this editor's work, please do go and investigate yourself, and then come and ask for action if you find anything) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(expanded -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

• Actually, having said that, I've done a bit of fishing and I found Sharia in the United States, which seems like a very POV advocacy piece - I've taken that to AfD too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone is pretending to be me, editing Wikipedia in my name.

I keep getting notifications that I have "new messages." Wikipedia repeatedly thanks me for "your contributions;" this is a link to what are supposedly edits that I have made. My only experience with Wikipedia is to read it; I have no idea how to edit it. It seems that ALL of the edits were done to the Church of the Subgenius Wikipedia page. Since I have had a public falling-out with the administration of the Church of the Subgenius, it may very well be that this is a purposeful use of my name to make edits so that other members of the Church of the Subgenius or users of Wikipedia will think the edits are being made by me. My computer literacy is so low that even the directions for submitting links and edits, including the instructions for how to use this Help page, are gibberish to me. Please assist me so that the Church of the Subgenius is not able to use Wikipedia to libel me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.100.63 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on who you're referring to, but I did fix some vandalism that managed to slip through the cracks for over a week. Can you tell us who you're talking about? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your IP is not your name, and this [91] looks like someone using your IP did edit that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Because you don't have a registered account, anything done with your IP address will be counted as 'yours', even if you did not do it yourself. This means that, if you IP address changes, or if you share a computer/network, other people will be able to edit under your IP address. You can stop this by registering an account; if you do not want to, you can ignore the messages if you know they are not for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

hmm..."I have no idea how to edit...My computer literacy is so low", yet he is able to access the article's edit history (not to mention track down AN/I) and is able to identify his IP number (which if, as typical, is dynamic or shared and fluctuates and most people don't know anyway). Something smells piscatorial.... DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IPs are based on the Internet Service Provider as well. So if you live in say Podunktown, Kentucky and it has 50 residents and you all have Time Warner Cable, it's very possible that the IP you are currently using was used by someone you know yesterday. You would receive their messages simply because the randomness of computer networks assigned the IP address to you today and Wikipedia's software doesn't know any different than what it can see: the IP address.--v/r - TP 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now read the article in question. Hoaxer. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who it is that's doing these things. I do know that some time ago, someone (I have no idea who) created an account in my name (Jessica Darling), and made an edit to the Church of the Subgenius page, which caused a lot of readers of the page to contact me and yell at me and insult me for making the change. I may very well be incorrect, but I thought your IP address was your specific computer? I live alone and don't share my computer with anybody, although it is an old refurbished computer that someone else bought for me. I'm sorry, but when you say "this looks like someone using your IP did edit that article," I click the link, and it brings me to a page that I just don't understand. Are you saying that someone could be using my network, if not my computer, and show as the same IP address? You also mention that I can stop this by creating an account; however, as I said, someone already created an account with my name and has used it to make edits to the Church of the Subgenius Wikipedia page. I'm not worried about the messages; I'm not worried about being thanked for my contributions; I AM worried about other people accusing me of making edits that I did not make. I'm not fishing for anything (nice use of vocabulary there); I'm just following links and trying to decipher this mess. Pardon me for being a quick learner. Also, I'm female. And I DO live in a tiny town, and I DO use Time Warner Cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.100.63 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The account User:Jessica Darling was in fact created and later blocked for being a vandalism only account. The blocking statement did say that it was created to imitate you; however, edits can no longer be made under that account. Can the account be renamed so the edit is no longer associated with Jessica Darling? In addition, is it possible to create a new Jessica Darling account, noindexed with a message not to usurp? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

While you are connected to the internet, your IP address does belong to your specific computer. But when you are no online, it goes back into the swimming pool and anyone else can pick it out and use it. They don't specifically get to chose which IP they get, that's assigned to them by their ISP, but the point is that the IP doesn't stay with your computer forever.--v/r - TP 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy solution. Don't shut down your computer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A few comments about the typical duration of home dynamic IPs:

• IPs refresh from the DHCP server when the Data circuit-terminating equipment (e.g., router, cable modem) is reset, not when the attached (directly or via LAN) end-user equipment (e.q., PCs) are reset.
• Getting a new IP address is dependent upon the the configuration of the ISP.
  • Cable providers tend to provide "sticky" IPs that do not change very often, even when the DCE is reset. Road Runner (a TW service) is one of these providers.
  • DSL providers tend to provide IPs that change when the DCE is reset.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• • While the editor did reference comments to the IP address, I think the more pertinent concern is the account that was created in the user's name. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Re Joe: I was dumbing it down for the Anon IP. They arn't going to understand what DHCP is or why there is a difference between shuting down their PC or their modem. Ever work at a helpdesk?--v/r - TP 22:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Brown archiving

• - notified User:ThunderingNerd

• - Contributions/ThunderingNerd

• - Talk:Gordon_Brown&action=history

I archived all discussion that is over eight months old -diff and its being repeatedly reverted - its normal to archive such discussion - can an Admin comment - assist in the archiving please - Youreallycan 20:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also - can we do a checkuser on the address to connect it with its main account please - Youreallycan 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza started a discussion and I agree.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to the opened talkpage discussion thread - Talk:Gordon Brown#Archiving - Youreallycan 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope we'll hear from the two editors (one brand new) who reverted the archiving. There's no hurry, but so far, consensus supports policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page messages from Jason Clare

Hi all, I added a comment to the talk page of Jason Clare, but it keeps getting removed. See here and here. I've asked for this not to be done, and added a comment as to why I think my comment is relevant to the article here, but it keeps being removed.

I would much prefer to know why this information can't be added to the article, a response would be best I'd have thought! I don't want to keep changing the version, as it might make it a bit hard to edit the talk page (though I don't think that would necessarily be a problem as the talk page doesn't seem very busy...). Anyway, I checked out where I can ask about this and this seems to be the place! I will add the notice to User:Timeshift9's talk page as it says above. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find multiple Reliable Sources (RS) that discuss it, it might be includable. Until then it violates Wikipedia:No original research and has been and will continue to be removed per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Dru of Id (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It might have been nice if this had been explained on the talk page. I guess I wasn't expecting this sort of thing - I'm sort of new here! I just saw it disappeared from the talk page. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Egotistical editor

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

---

I'm here to complain over a EGOTISTICAL editor who deleted my post about CVW 15 history. This page IS about control and the FOOL never served in the military.. he or she has FAKE wiki medals . this @**H*** better stay away from my posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishprince317 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you try assuming good faith with the other editor, read his repeated messages explaining why the article was deleted, and research our guidelines on notability and reliable sources to see if you could improve the article? Just as the military has a way of doing things, so does Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Irishprince is colorfully talking about a new article he created, which was then redirected. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at your contributions, as you intrigued me because you accidentally leaked your comment into my own thread above :-) But are you talking about the editor User:OlYeller21, who did a redirect of Carrier Air Wing 15 to Carrier Air Wing? If so, I think the material wasn't deleted, but it seemed to be a listing of dates? I couldn't work out what it was talking about unfortunately :( The editor, incidentally, got what appear to be encouragement medals for editing and whatnot, which aren't "fake" in any way. Someone tell me if I'm wrong! :-) - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A listing of dates is a nice way to put it. He was lucky it wasn't deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The boomerang was quick...blocked 48 hrs for personal attacks by Bwilkins.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon

This AfD discussion was instituted by a gang of IPs who are angry at the subject over something she posted on her blog. The IP demands for deletion were converted into an AfD discussion in good faith by an uninvolved editor. The deletion demands apparently came from an off-wiki lynch mob, which can be seen here, organizing with the avowed intent of "googlebombing the living shit out of her" and "getting her Wikipedia page deleted." They have now descended on Wikipedia as dozens of IP accounts, attempting to overwhelm the deletion discussion. I am not commenting on the subject's notability or not, or her fitness or not for a Wikipedia article. But I am recommending that the current deletion discussion be shut down as hopelessly compromised, and then reopened with semi-protection, so that we can discuss this as Wikipedians instead of as the vehicle for an attack posse. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Although your frustration is understandable, the problem is that a semi-protected AfD does not permit legitimate comments by non-auto-confirmed users, particularly IPs who may have edited extensively at Wikipedia but simply never registered, as is their right. Although the AfD is, uh, lively, I have confidence that the closer will be able to see through what is going on and give no weight to many of the delete !votes. You've also made a similar comment at the AfD itself, which will assist the closer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Even a fully protected AfD would 'permit legitimate comments by non-auto-confirmed users, particularly IPs who may have edited extensively at Wikipedia but simply never registered' - on the talk page for the AfD, any salient points being transfered to the discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Threat

Am I sensitive or is this edit and the previous edit a not so veiled threat or invitation/incitement to assassination? Trackinfo (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to take it seriously as a threat. It's not an appropriate comment by any means, but hardly incitement sensu stricto. Antandrus has got rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad case of multiple-editor ownership

Just a few hours ago, the Rihanna article was a mess with reams of indiscriminate information leading to violations of WP:SIZE and, more importantly, WP:BLP. I therefore took the WP:BOLD decision of selectively merging the article's "Other ventures" and "Philanthropy" sections into the main "Biography" section, removing trivial information and making grammatical changes in the process. Among the information that was removed were things like "On April 2, 2009, Rihanna visited the NYU Medical Center to help look for another bone marrow donor for a young girl named Jasmina Anema" (inconsequential, irrelevant and WP:TABLOID) and lines and lines about the chart records that each of her singles had broken (WP:NOT#STATS and largely belonging in the singles' respective articles anyway). This is what it looked like beforehand and this is what it looked like after my changes. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, thoroughly stating my intentions.

Despite this, the changes were reverted by User:Tomica, whose edit summary claimed that "I agree the article should cut, but not in this way" [92]. I reverted the edit, informing Tomica of the talk page discussion, but this was in turn reverted by User:Status, who said that "you are supposed to discuss HUGE changes BEFORE doing them... If a user disagrees, you comply"[93]. I again reverted and cited the talk page discussion in my edit summary; Tomica marked this as vandalism [94].

As you can see on the discussion, phrases like "You can't... without notifying single thing of what are you planning to do with Calvin and me (the biggest contributors to the project)" and "that's pretty annoying" seem to come straight from WP:OWN and illustrate that my edits were reverted through pure ownership rather than through editorial fault. Thus far, only one of the pair (Tomica) had highlighted a specific issue with my edits; it involves the inclusion of an image and the removal of a source within one paragraph. SplashScreen (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now reinstated my edits with the following edit summary [95]; "Reverted; the talk page discussion has not brought up any significant reasons why my edits, at large, should not be included". SplashScreen (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. You are edit warring, and even if your version of the article is best, that doesn't change the fact that edit warring can get you blocked. Tomica should not have tagged one of the reverts as vandalism. Until I, or someone else, has time to look into this further, you should all stop revert-warring. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Even with the play by play at AN/I, what you are doing can be construed as edit warring. You've described 3 reverts on your part. Be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've not checked over all the edits included in your clean-up of the article, but I have read the article talk page and...well, everyone's a bit at fault in some ways. Tomica's insistence that you inform them or another of the article's contributors doesn't hold any weight with me, and implying that you did wrong by not engaging with the connected Wikiproject is flat-out wrong. Some editors find Wikiprojects useful for collaboration, other editors never use them and get along fine. You stated your intentions on the talk, which is fine, but reverting their reversions of your edits wasn't the best way to go. The best thing to do, I think, after the first complaint, would have been to discuss more rather than hitting the revert button. You and the other involved editors should work through each edit and find a compromise or consensus for the changes (not always easy, I know, but edit warring is frankly useless).
• I'm not sure about the WP:OWN accusations. Tomica's last response is evading the direct question of which specific edits they find fault with. Saying that removing a certain amount of kb is "annoying" isn't exactly helpful. But, like I said, no one is clearly in the wrong here. It's a content dispute that no one has handled very well. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 01:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand and appreciate these concerns, but there are clearly wider issues to deal with here. And, if you look at the edit summaries of the article, it is clear that I made a conscious effort to get the two users to participate in a talk page discussion instead of edit warring (which I actually name-checked)[96]. SplashScreen (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are involving me in this. I have barely even edited the page, so I'd like to know how I am showing ownership of the article. I made one revert. Your edits were disagreed upon, instead of reverting and saying "discuss on the talk page", your edits should be discussed on the talk page. That's as simple as it is. Statυs (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to observe User:NJ Wine

User:NJ Wine seems to be exhibiting behavior that verges on violating WP:OWN regarding Wineries, breweries, and distilleries of New Jersey. Try to edit the article, he reverts. Quite frankly, I'm avoiding the article because I can't stand that type of behavior and prefer just to stay away. But, he's done this before with other editors and likely will do it again. User:NJ Wine seems to remind me of Smeagol fetishizing over his "precious." Please consider observing his contributions vis-a-vis this article. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs please? I've only taken a cursory glance, but I see NJ Wine engaging with you and other editors on the talk page. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed by your statement in NJ Wine's ANI notice "I am only advising you of this action because I am required to by the rules of WP:AIN". In fact, an editor has already commented on NJ Wine's cooperation on your talk page. "NJ Wine knows he doesn't own it and has expressed a willingness to restore some of your changes, explained his reasoning, and work with you on the rest." In fact, you NJ Wine already created an RFC for this topic in order to get a more broad community decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)