Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 26 April 2012 (→‎User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

    A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

    22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)
    22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)
    12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)
    22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)
    22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)
    22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)
    22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)
    22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)
    22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)
    21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)
    20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)
    13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)
    10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)
    10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)
    10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)
    13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)
    22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)
    10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)
    09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)
    09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)
    09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)
    09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)
    23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)
    20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)
    • Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty845 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you've made exactly one edit on Wikipedia (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Wikipedia to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: [2]. In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Wikipedia: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: [3], so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino (abides) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly hi! 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dog's Against Romney Since we are at it could we please gets some input from Admins regarding the Blog Dogs Against Romney regarding its use as an EL. I propose that it fails WP:EL#11 because it is a Blog and while it claims to be the offical site of dogs against romney, it is not the official site of Seamus. Its purpose is to complain about Mitt Romney and sell related merchandise to promote this view. It is also a work of Satire written from the point of view of a fictional dog called "Rusty". It may also violate WP:BLP since much of the content attacks a living person(s). Arzel (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nothing but election year horseshit. Bring the article about the unelected candidate's dog from the 1980s to AfD and see if it is judged to be an encyclopedic topic. If it passes there, which is shouldn't, THEN start topic-banning the POV warriors by the fistful. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already gone through AFD. SÆdontalk 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been TO AfD but not THROUGH AfD — a NO CONSENSUS close. Somebody should bring it again and this thing should be shipped away in a honey bucket. Letting Democratic POV crap in only provokes Republican POV crap. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, all caps is just pointless and annoying. Cut it out.
    Second, it has been through AFD, and No Consensus is a valid close. If you want to take it to AFD again, by all means. It might be a good idea to let this ANI finish though, or it gives the appearance of forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer all caps to using bold text or italics for emphasis because it is easier to type. I am sorry that it offends your sensibilities, but I will most assuredly not adapt my preferences to yours in this matter. Happily, the article on Seamus the Dog is being put to sleep by consensus at AfD, so MELLOW is the word for the day... xoxo, Carrite (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your prerogative. Expect to get chewed out for "shouting" when you use all caps, though. It's your problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know of many articles which are locked down in a junk or POV state by POV wiki-lawyers. In the few where I've seen Arzel , Arzel was the one trying to FIX the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be a very subjective opinion not born out with facts. We could easily provide (literally) hundreds of examples of bias in editing, double standards, and outright misrepresentation by Arzel spanning half a decade. He has outwardly declared his belief that Wikipedia is full of "liberals" and "liberal bias", so I have no doubt he feels justified in his edits. I don't believe that is true (after all, facts have a well known liberal bias), but even if Arzel's claim of "defending liberal articles" were true, the statistics don't add up... one or two instances of "defending liberal articles" doesn't overcome the thousands of examples of conservative bias. At the end of the day, any thorough examination of his edits clearly demonstrates tendentious editing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that wikipedia has any mechanism (or constitution) to deal with a tendentious editor who is careful to play by the rules. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous complaints have little value, why not show your WP face, rather than hide behind your obvious multitude of IP's so we can judge your edit hisotry as well. At least I am not hiding anything...unlike yourself. Arzel (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous editing is just as welcome here as non-anonymous editing and there is nothing even close to a requirement that anyone register an account. This is a long standing WP tradition dictated by the WMF. It is not true that anonymous complaints have little value and the arguments of any person can be judged on the merits of the argument itself and not who is making them. Note that I am not commenting on the substance of the edit, only that it is perfectly fine to edit as an IP SÆdontalk 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit! Calling out somebody for alleged POV behind the screen of an IP address isn't "anonymous editing," it is anonymous denunciation. Come out and identify yourself or shut your fucking defamatory mouth, Mr. 24.98.7235480924350=92345. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing anonymously is my right, and is intended to force you to deal with the substance of the issue brought to ANI instead of attacking those who seek assistance. Thank you for the assistance in demonstrating my point. -A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a coward, go troll somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? This is not an elementary school playground, you are not (or should not, in any event, be) the class bully, and playground taunting is screamingly inappropriate. The anon IP is exactly freaking right that he is allowed to comment - as any editor might - and allowed to participate in ANI discussions - as any editor does. May I ask what you would possibly do with the editor's real identity, if indeed he has a registered name? WP:NPA doesn't have an escape clause where anon IPs are concerned. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is seriously unacceptable behavior from both Carrite and Arzel. And using terms like "defamatory" is getting close to legal threat language. You two may not like that WP policy - fully backed by the WMF to the point where they rejected a community call to require registration - but it's a huge part of WP. You both need to calm down or an admin is going to bring down the ban hammer. SÆdontalk 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very, very slightly better, yes, thanks. SÆdontalk 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: "Editing anonymously is my right..." Four career edits, all to this thread. See: Poison pen letter. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear to be a proxy account which means that it's likely a dynamic IP. Either way it doesn't matter; one edit or a million, the IP has as much right as you do to comment. Please cease this line of reasoning. SÆdontalk 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not have my history be judged by someone who refuses to show his history. That person is a coward, and if they have a problem with being called a coward they should go troll somewhere else. User names are already pretty anonymous, to be afraid of even having an anonymous user name says quite a lot. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and Carrite need to drop this line of bullying. Argue the substance of the edits, not the editor. It makes no difference, in terms of the piling NPA violations, whether the editor is registered or not. If you continue, you're going to get blocked for this without consideration to the original accusations. Stop it. Note that I am not commenting on the specific complaints, but reserve the right to in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to get blocked because an anonymous IP jumper is leveling accusations against me from several different IP's and I call him out on it? Seriously, this is what has become of WP? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you are blocked then it would be because you continue to personally attack another editor even when having been repeatedly told not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But an IP jumper is free to attack me, where is the justice in that? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, "justice" isn't something Wikipedia is after. Demanding justice isn't going to earn you any points.
    Second, the IP voiced an opinion that you are editing in a POV manner. Your response was direct insults and to repeat those insults after being warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, if I had the mop, I'd block you myself for your repeated insults in this ANI alone, Arzel, because it's plain that you don't get it. Anon IPs are protected by WP:NPA just the same as any other editor, and their statements are evaluated on the merits, the same as any other editor. If the IP fears retaliation ... well, gosh, how could he possibly have come to that conclusion, eh? Ravenswing 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good god, I just stepped through a random sample of the last 1,000 mainspace edits of Arzel. Based on that alone, it is obvious that the concerns stated above are completely valid and need to be addressed. Since Arzel and his pal Carrite viciously attack responding editors, I wish to remain anonymous. just becaus we are anonymous does not mean our points arent valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Provide a point and we can see if it has any value. A single edit to come here and attack me is simply the sign of a coward. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think NPA is limited to launching them at named accounts? You would be wrong if you thought that. Stop calling this user a "coward". You are wrong about anonymous users. Doc talk 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you defending any anonymous IP jumper using several different IP's to attack my character? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only pointing out that we have allowed, and always will allow, IP jumpers to exist here. Some are good, some are bad. Some use it for gnomish edits that undeniably improve the encyclopedia, and some abuse it for nefarious reasons. We can't class a group of editors so easily. If you think they are evading scrutiny, and you know who they are, you can file a SPI. Doc talk 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominally have little problem with IP's, however, this anon is judging me while hiding behind a cloak of multiple IP's. It is the same person trying to give the illusion of many. You are defending that? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have Wikipedia article about a dog riding on the roof of a car for a few hours shows how easily the system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm... didn't you just say the exact same thing in a thread below here? Maybe it's me... Doc talk 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, don't we have two threads going on this same article? The answer to both is yes. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    calling me (and the other anons) "cowards" only shows the strong desire to attack others instead of dealing with the issue. i am not very familiar with ANI, but somebody should really look into Arzel. his bias is systemic and long running, and the examples of it are pretty self evident. i can gladly give TONS of examples, but it seems to me that any random reading of a few hundred pages of his contributions through february (and a random few pages from a few years ago that i looked at) shows pretty obviously the problem. his edits are very clearly ALWAYS pushing a conservative agenda, and he bullies other users and lawyers rules to always benefit his point of view. if you want specific examples, what would help move this along the most? article edits? talk pages? tell me what to do to get someone to get serious about dealing with this, and i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you are One Anon, not many. The probabilistic pattern of the Anon's editing here strongly suggests that they are from one person, or a couple of persons working together offline. The odds that the Anon's attacking my character here would all have almost no other edit history is extremely unlikely. You did not all just come here by chance and have the same thing to say. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then file an SPI, don't keep poking the hornet's nest. Look, I know the natural instinct is to defend yourself, but each reply you make is digging the hole deeper. Just ignore them or file an SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Arzel's contributions to articles consist of deletions of other editors' work. In very few, if any (I've never seen any) cases does s/he add complete references or contribute sourced statements to articles. Most contributions are statements are unsourced, POV opinions, personal attacks, and largely inaccurate wiki-lawyering on talk pages. The destruction of content and senseless and endless criticism of other editors is very offputting and discourages people from spending their time building content. Other editors have tried to educate, mentor, coach, and educate Arzel, but s/he has not been responsive to this. Some responding to this ANI may be choosing to remain anonymous due to Arzel (and perhaps his friends') retaliatory editing behavior. This is my only contribution to this particular thread. I'll use the same IP if I make additional contributions to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.135 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are enough people adding shit to articles, it becomes a full time job to be a pooper scooper removing the same. A job unfortunately that somehow ends up tainting the person doing the dreadful work with a foul smell by which people seem to judge rather than the actual quality and necessity of the work itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The obverse is also true: crafty POV-pushers find ways to veil their editing under the NPOV flag. To use your imagery, ..donning the janitor's cap when it suits their purposes. El duderino (abides) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaints from IP editors at ANI or related pages have zero merit or value. They should be hatted, reverted or ignored, and the drama will be cut in half around here. The "destruction of content" rhetoric by this one is reminiscent of some of our dearly departed Article Rescue Squad indef blockees. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out above, this is not correct. IPs have the right to voice their opinion here, which admins can consider. Now, if they're trolling, socking or conducting meatpuppetry, they can be blocked and comments struck. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as I will point out to you now, that is exactly what they are doing; trolling. The comment by the one below readily admits to editing via IP to avoid identity detection. That's underhanded, deceptive, and renders its comments irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • from SOCK " the use of multiple accounts" yep "to deceive or mislead" seems like what this is "other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking) and is not allowed. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: Creating new accounts to avoid detection" very clearly YES. "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases " potentially yes "and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." and again, yes."Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" umm yes. And under Legitimate uses I am not seeing anything that applies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again Arzel, with a little assistance, has turned this into an attack on others instead of addressing the issue. Personally, I am a well-known editor (with many more edits than arzel) who wishes to avoid the unfortunately successful trick of avoidance ad hominem. I have edited from this singular IP only; responses above from other IPs are presumably other editors with similar reasons. If our statements are read as trolling or inaccurate, simply ignore us, however I believe the record speaks for itself - Arzel's blatant focus on conservative advocacy (of which there are multiple ANI filings in the past) should be compelling enough reason to justify the discussion. I am willing to verify my identity to a trusted admin who understands my wish to avoid attack whilst keeping this discussion focused on the issue. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely uninvolved and impartial observer chiming in: The initial concern over one article seems to have morphed into a review of a particular editor's editing. An administration action may be necessary. What is the next step? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    To be quite clear, the initial complaint is against one particular editors's conduct at that article, which has brought about a wider discussion of that editor's behavior due to his repeated, easily discernible pattern of the same behavior writ large. -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This whole massive thread by the Mr. Anonymous IP Poison Pen Tag Team strikes me as much ado about nothing, soon to be rendered moot at AfD. ANI at its very worst... Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for Dwainwr123|Debbie W. -- You make the claim that Arzel is "doing everything in his power to destroy the article through abusive editing". Question is this... has he been edit warring? And, if so, why did you not take this to that venue? Has he been operating with consensus or have you been working with consensus? If you can't answer these two things, I think you might have arrived at AN/I too early. If however, he has been edit warring... take this to the edit warring page. IF you have actually been following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and he's been removing things in that vein, then so be it. AN/I is not here to take a position on content and whether an article is good or not. It is here to take care of things that need administrative tools to solve. My impression is that your conflict here is not one that can be solved by administrative tools, but by simply following the policies found on WP:CONSENSUS. -- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox classical composer TfD closure

    {{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. SilverserenC 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. SilverserenC 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. SilverserenC 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, it's hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ITYM "reverting a template's use when that template has been improperly recreated after a TfD decision to delete it…". Since when do we close TfDs with only nine comments, mostly from members of canvassed projects, in under 24 hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI timing

    Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

    It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [4] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "3 editors" <> "the community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear, I didn't say I was ready to site ban him, I said "I have no simple solution" (banning == simple). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. At to site banning, I remain neutral, not committed. I still have no alternative to ANI banning, but as I stated, feel it would only serve to push the problem to a different board. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be interested in how you explain thatthis, this, or this, from this month, show evidence of POTW's committment to, and participation in, the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions? MBisanz talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
    • I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
    • Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
    • You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, I'm not seeing much the admins can do at this point. There is nothing immediately blockable, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for any topic bans. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban part 2

    From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [5]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.
    • That's a highly cherry picked comment. One can easily add several examples of infoboxes Andy Mabbett has added that are factually inaccurate and stripped of essential nuance. See the Marian Anderson article history for example.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
    • Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
    • Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of our articles on musical artists treat vocals as an "instrument" for the sake of consistency. The argument that this is somehow "inaccurate" doesn't carry any water at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That kind of attitude is exactly why I dislike infoboxes. You illustrated nicely how factually inaccurate content can be spread encyclopedia wide for the sake of uniformity. Who cares if it's wrong information as long as it can be shoved into a box? Go to any School of Music and you will find a clear division of performance tracks, one for instrumentalists and one for vocalists. Wikipedia should strive to mirror academic categorizations. Further, one could easily point out errors within other infoboxes to nitpick over. This is just one example of how the musical artist infobox has issues. 4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "wrong information" is just your viewpoint. People are rarely that easily categorised. Was John Lennon a vocalist or an instrumentalist? Was Louis Armstrong a trumpeter or a vocalist? and so on. Take a look at the sleeve notes of most modern albums - the artists often contribute vocals as well as the instruments that fit your definition with no clear division of performance. Wikipedia has no need whatsoever to mirror academic categorisations when that gets in the way of presenting useful information. You are right that there are issues with the musical artist infobox, and there are similar issues with as the classical composer infobox as well. Why are you so keen to rid the area of someone who is intent on making the best presentation of information when an infobox is used? You still haven't replied to my question about whether you support the removal from infoboxes of vital statistics such as date of birth and age, as well as crucial information such as genre and years active. What's your answer? Yes or no? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an odd response. If someone sings professionally they are a vocalist. If someone plays an instrument they are an instrumentalist. If someone does both than they are both a vocalist and an instrumentalist. Lennon and Armstrong would obviously be considered both, and the infoboxes on their articles should be designed to reflect that in a clear way. This can be done without placing "vocals" under the subheading of musical instrument as it currently is. On a side note, I agree that crucial information can and should remain in an infobox when an infobox is used. Reguardless, my opinions on that matter are not pertinent to this conversation. My problem with PotW is that whenever the classical music projects have expressed the difficulties the musical artist infobox often causes when utilized on classical musician articles he has repeatedly ignored our concerns. Rather than helping us design a more suitable infobox, he has insisted on continuing to use an infobox that has created factual inaccuracies across many articles. The result has been edit wars across many articles and unproductive conversations that repeat the same arguements over and over for literally years. It's frankly annoying as hell and a waste of everyone's time. I personally would like to see a more friendly infobox designer approach the composer/opera/classical/G&S/CCM/and Wagner projects to help us design some infoboxes which would address the concerns of the various projects. It would be most helpful. That said, I am not a proponent of every article having an infobox. If all the info in the box is the dob, dod, and occupation than it's a rather pointless redundancy in the article in my opinion. Infoboxes are useful when they contain summation of facts and details beyond what is obviously apparent in the very first sentence of the lead.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seeing his conduct at Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox continues to show he doesn't get the community editing process in music articles and has no interest in learning it. I do not dispute that some of his edits are useful, but his usefulness does not outweigh his disruption. MBisanz talk 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hurz4711 conflict of interest

    Closing this as this can all be worked out reasonably amongst editor. First time article creator needs pointers on how to proceed not being thrown in to the Coliseum. Hurz4711 is reminded to be careful about starting AFDs Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Dennis, although I had added a notice on his page - see this diff. The duplicate has since been removed by another editor. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be what you're looking for. I'm not saying tagging those articles was wrong, but sometimes one subject will cut the mustard, while another will not. We still have articles slip through the cracks at times, but that's what CSD, PRODs, and AfDs are for. I'm not saying you were right or wrong with the PRODs, but once an editor removes the PROD tag you can't PROD it again. If you believe those articles don't stand up to policy, then WP:AFD is your next step. Ishdarian 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, no on is saying that Hurz4711 adding the PRODs the first time was against a policy, but considering the totality of circumstances, reviewing mass PRODing here at ANI was the right thing to do, as it did look a little unusual. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like some clarity on a way forward here. Whether the other ecommerce applications are notable or not is another story, but I feel that adding seven deletion requests simultaneously as a response to one's own being deleted is unreasonable. The topic has relatively low activity and it's likely all seven are not going to be watched closely and some may be needlessly deleted as a result of this. I'd prefer to work with User:Hurz4711 on their new article to see whether it is notable (it's still hasn't reached version 1.0, so likely not, but may be in the future), or on one at a time of the other articles to see whether they can be salvaged, rather than have to deal with seven simultaneous notices. Some of the other articles may be able to be improved, some may end up being deleted, but this doesn't seem a good faith attempt to deal with the issue. The user's aggressive tone and defensiveness indicate to me that they haven't really had an epiphany. Is there consensus that I go ahead and remove the seven requests again? Greenman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, behind the times, TP has removed as discussed above, thanks for the clarification. Greenman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need help in straightening out a mess

    Would greatly appreciate an uninvolved admin with a little spare time to help straighten out a move/delete/merge discussion mess that has cropped up (everyone involved was acting in good faith).

    Yesterday, I proposed a move of Seamus (dog) to Mitt Romney dog controversy here and several people commented on the proposal. Sometime later, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, another editor proposed merging Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which I actually liked better than my original idea - I posted a pointer to the AfD merge discussion here. After that, yet another editor created yet another merge discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog) here.

    So basically, there are now three discussions regarding slightly different variants of the same idea. Does anyone have any ideas for perhaps deciding which one place is the best venue, and perhaps hatting/closing the others? I would give it a shot myself but I am an involved editor. Any help welcome. Kelly hi! 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly's take is pretty much spot on. It is messy. I am the editor that created the last mentioned thread on the talk page, and I did so because I think an AFD for a different article is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I'm ok with what ever consensus arises obviously. I'm not 100% sure ANI is the right venue for this, but it's not really much of a "dispute" as much as a procedural problem, so admin help would be quite welcome. SÆdontalk 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To thus of us who remember the relentless edit-warring from 2008 and 2009 over politicians' articles (liberal and conservative both), it's unfortunate that there seems to be no improvement since then. This kind of garbage does not belong in a "real" encyclopedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look on the bright side - I don't anything can ever be as bad as Sarah Palin in late 2008, with hundreds of edits per minute and wheel-warring involved admins. I think I still have PTSD from that article. Kelly hi! 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think things are that bad tbh. In a couple months it'll all be worked out and might be a GA, all just part of the process. SÆdontalk 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, sure. Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. And I missed the obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face comment that wikipedia is "going to the dogs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just hope the dogs are Keeshonds :). SÆdontalk 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:RECENT needs to be a speedy criterion.WTucker (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'd like to take issue with something in the first line of this thread. User:Kelly says "everyone involved was acting in good faith" but I think there is a possibility that this is not true in her case. Judging by her involvement with the Seamus article, creating the new Obama article, and her responses at the various talk pages, as well as her pattern of disruptive editing in the past, I think she may be gaming the system and/or treating it all like a game. Or at the least, looking to take advantage of the mess to wear others out. El duderino (abides) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What else did I do? I have to admit, so far it sounds like I am a Very Bad Person and should be investigated immediately. Kelly hi! 06:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the mess would have been completely prevented had you not created the Obama Eats Dogs article. The mess stems from that. The Seamus article is fine where it is or under 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. The Obama non-issue can be added as a tiny mention on the Seamus article, as a reaction to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's really a content issue, we were just looking for some help with the procedural stuff. Kelly hi! 06:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. I propose a topic ban on Kelly relating to all articles, images, and templates concerning the 2012 election, its candidates, and any related issues, such as memes. How's that? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Viriditas. Kelly, you obviously have to wait for your Obama Eats Dogs article to be deleted. Then the discussion can occur in one place: on the Talk page of the Seamus article, where it should. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Topic Ban Given Kelly's conduct in this instance, and reviewing last years Sarah Palin fiasco, I agree that Kelly should not be involved with anything related to the 2012 elections. There are other users who should also get said topic bans, but none of them had the temerity to blatantly violate WP:POINT, and none of them to my knowledge did it last time as well. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh - perhaps someone should first submit some evidence of my poor conduct? Kelly hi! 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. You started an article named Obama Eats Dogs, which was created by this unreliable source, based on this gossip blog which does not meet the reliable source guidelines established on Wikipedia. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the only source? Kelly hi! 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Care to tell me how a so-called "meme" started by a partisan gossip blog is an acceptable source? You wouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to push a political POV now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope - actually the whole intent is to balance the POV in Seamus (dog) by including the other camp's response< which is why I would personally like to see a merge of the two. I think the article is sourced to acceptably reliable sources like the Washington Post and ABC News. Is there a problem with neutrality in the wording of the article? (We're veering into content issues here.) Kelly hi! 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds like POV pushing. One could write an entire article about Seamus without ever mentioning "Obama Eats Dogs". The only one linking the two issues is an unreliable partisan gossip blog, who you appear to be representing. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like the Grundle Method of NPOV, honestly. The belief that a Good Fact(tm) placed near a Bad Fact(tm) results in NPOV is a common error seen in partisan editors. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Kelly, but I have to endorse a topic ban from articles related to the 2012 election as well. It's nothing personal, I just think that it's pretty clear you're trying to push a POV here. Based on your comment above, you seem to unintentionally confirm the gaming accusation against you by saying that the reason you created the Obama eats dog article was to get a POV in, hoping that the content would be merged (against consensus on the Seamus talk page). Even after I explained very logically why what Obama did as a 6 year old is a red herring in respect to the Romney dog issue, you pressed the point without any sort of logical argument as to how the issues are related. You had to know that Obama eats dog would have gone to AFD immediately, it's just so obviously a POV fork, and that tells me that you're not able to edit in this are dispassionately. SÆdontalk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have a Wikipedia article on a dog spending a few hours riding on a roof of a car shows how easily the Wikipedia system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an election year. This crap always pops up when the US Presidency is up for grabs. It's only going to get worse once the GOP convention is over, and the full campaigning starts. There's a reason I stay away from politics articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reminds me, it is probably about time to look at candidate bios for senate and house races, as this is the point in the election cycle where we see puff pieces arise. Hopefully there will be less hissy fits when articles are pruned as oppose dto the last time around. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So first, is, or has there been, an RFC/U for Kelly? If not, I suggest the those asking for a topic ban get busy. Second, think you guys could move your Topic ban comments to a different subsection? I barely even noticed that it had been proposed, and I doubt I'm the only one. Oh, and Oppose. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An RFCU has never been a prerequisite for a topic ban. SÆdontalk 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it is a step in dispute resolution, specifically user conduct issues. If that is your goal anyway. Which it doesn't appear to be. Arkon (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal is a neutral article specifically and a well built encyclopedia in general. I am apolitical and I don't vote. If I was forced to choose between Romney and Obama I would flip a coin. I supported a topic ban because I believe it is best for the encyclopedia and for no other reason. SÆdontalk 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This general subject seems to be crying out for a home. Many presidents have had interactions with dogs, one way or another. There was the Bushes' dog, for example, a pint-sized pup that attacked reporters. And there was the case of LBJ, who took a lot of heat for lifting his beagles by their ears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's actually a pretty damn decent idea, Bugs. First dogs anyone? SÆdontalk 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FDR had a dog named Fala. And then there was the infamous Nixon speech about a family dog named Checkers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than just dogs, though (Socks the Cat during Clinton's administration.) Pets of the United States Presidents is a bit clunky, but would be an accurate starting point. We'd just want to keep it narrowed down to the notable ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note though that Checkers speech, certainly highly notable, is the article; Checkers (dog) redirects there. And Checkers was only a vice presidential dog anyway, she died in 1964.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr

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

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction being appealed
    indefinite block; Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    [6]

    Statement by Dehr

    • The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log [7] and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" [8]. My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
    • There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
    • The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see [9].
    • I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster [10]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise [11]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
    • I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
    • Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts [12]. Reason?
    • I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.

    Statement by Timotheus Canens

    To the extent that this appeal is directed to me, I decline it. To the extent that it is directed to the community, I recommend that the appeal be declined as well.

    Previous AE cases have established that editors who had extensive participation at AE may be deemed constructively warned of the relevant discretionary sanctions. In this case, Dehr has participated extensively in the discussion that resulted in the editing restriction that he attempted to game.

    Moreover, this kind of blatant disruptive gaming more than justifies an indefinite block even without the discretionary sanctions. It should have been blindingly obvious to any reasonable editor that evading the spirit of a restriction by making hundreds of edits, each adding a single word, is simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr

    • Per Boing!, carrying on the fight in the unblock request isn't a very promising sign. I don't have a sysop bit to see what Blade is commenting on in the deleted page, but generally trust his judgment. Given that, plus an attempt to carry on an ethnic fight in the unblock request, I see no reason to overturn this.I also moved discussion from the 'results' section below to this section, because it seems like it's where it should be. feel free to rv if I'm wrong.Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would some of the above editors please explain to me in what way the content edits made by Dehr were "disruptive" to Wikipedia? A proper answer please. Are your servers so full that the extra space to record the history of Dehr's one or two word edits would break Wikipedia? Was there something wrong with actual content being added? There are no Wikipedia rules that individual edits can't be less than a couple of words, and there is no mention in the restriction that was used to block Dehl that the 500+ edit threshhold had to be reached in a specific way. So Dehl had every right to try and avoid the restriction using the course of action he chose. It seems to me that the restriction under which Dehr was blocked was created specifically to block Dehr, and this restriction was created because no existing method could be used to block Dehr. So, if there has been a "gaming of the system", it was done by administrators who have invented a one-off restriction that was created to block one particular editor. Meowy 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction has been in place since October of last year: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions. So, no, it was not created "just for Dehr." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong - the restriction was only created on April 7th: "Nagorno-Karabakh is placed on 1RR per day restriction for all accounts under 500 edits". Here is the dicussion about it: [13]. That was the restriction that T. Canens, by assuming bad faith, claimed Dehl was trying to avoid. I say "by assuming bad faith" because Dehl never actually made any reverts to the Nagorno-Karabakh article after the 500+ edit restriction was introduced (even though he had reached, by making those large number of little edits to other articles, the 500+ edit requirement that would have allowed him to do so). If Dehl had made reverts, then the case for a block would have been arguable, but because he never tried to I don't see under what reason he was blocked at all (beyond the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason). An editor can't be blocked just because of a suspicion that he might do something that is a blockable offense - the blockable offense has to be actually committed! There is nothing wrong with the Ghaibalishen Massacre article that Dehl created, and no editing rules were broken during its creation. Meowy 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions give admins broad ability to block for disruptive activity. So, yes, it's been in place since October. The additional "500 edit" restriction is just a more narrow instance of "what is disruption," and Dehl's specific actions are clearly WP:GAMEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet the disruption for which he was indefed occurred outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions didn't it? Monty845 22:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were certainly under that. Per the ArbCom decision cited above:
    "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions."
    Unless you're arguing that Ghaibalishen Massacre had nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan, it certainly falls under sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No your right. I was mistaken. Monty845 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It can be easy to miss with all the various things flying back and forth in the A-A disputes. That's why I normally don't comment. As below, it's not worth banging your head over. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason. Which brings me back to the question that I asked and that remains unanswered. Tell me in what way the edits made by Dehr were disruptive to Wikipedia? Meowy 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been explained above. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I note how comments that initially appeared under "discussion" were later moved to "result" - pretty strong evidence, I think, that there was never any intent to have a real discussion, only an intent to end at a predetermined result (the "admins are always right" result). BTW2, re Jayron32's comment in results, someone is getting ahead of themselves! When this article-specific 500+ edits edit restriction was being discussed I predicted that soon it would be 500+ of a specific length (that prediction is now true), and then more than 1000+ edits and then the edit restriction would be on more than one article, maybe 10 or 20 to start with, then 1000, then 10,000, then hundreds of thousands of articles. Jaron32 - you've gone straight to the millions of articles! Meowy 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand, there's the "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit. ಠ_ಠ I think I'm done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy? You are the bullshitter. You say any old bull rather than address my points. Meowy 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Result of the appeal by Dehr

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I don't find the warning required by WP:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Looks like the word-by-word edits have been deleted, so they can't be used to "game" anything now. Unless there is evidence of socking or other disruption, inclined to overturn. Awaiting response,. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea how [14] could be considered anything other than blatantly disruptive gaming. No experienced editor could have done that in good faith, and I'd have indeffed even if the article wasn't under discretionary sanctions. We're allowed to block for clear disruption if it's incredibly obvious, even if we haven't gone through all the motions. I'm inclined to agree with the sanction given here, and I'd suggest Dehr wait at least few months before appealing again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Meowy; you're pushing your luck. I'm very close to blocking you for casting aspersions about other editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blatantly disruptive gaming, accusations of bad faith in the unblock request, claims that only one side of the dispute gets blocked -- no unblock needed at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear WP:NOTTHEM activity in the request tops off the issues raised by Blade and Sarek. No need to unblock until such a point as the editor has had sufficient time to reconsider their own behaviour in the past, and as they someday move forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, carrying on the "Armenians vs Azerbaijanis" fight here in the unblock request? I guess it's better than in real life with guns and sticks, but it's not the way to get unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Meowy; The restriction described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113#Winterbliss is quoted as "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Dehr created the article Ghaibalishen Massacre and made hundreds of very small edits to it, building the article one word at a time, to get his edit count up to the 500. In my opinion that's clear bad faith and blatantly gaming the system. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meowy; My view is that the one-word-at-a-time creation of Ghaibalishen Massacre on April 11 (which was after the restriction was imposed) was blatant gaming of the system to get out from under the restriction, even if Dehr did not go on to break 1RR on Nagorno-Karabakh. That alone, in my view, shows a bad faith approach to collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly a justified block per WP:GAME. It would be better if the restriction were expanded to indefinite 1RR for all editors, as all ethnic conflict areas should be. Regardless, however, this was a clear and blatant attempt to bypass the restrictions. --Jayron32 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: There has been some confusion about where comments should go, with comments being moved back and forth between the "Discussion among uninvolved editors" section and the "Result" section. Not only has this been seized upon by a conspiracy theorist as evidence of bad faith, but, more seriously, it has resulted in disjointing the discussion, with responses to comments being detached from those comments, and a reference to "the above editors" when the comments in question were below. I suggest that the best way to use these sections is for all discussion, whether by adminisrtaors or not, to go in the "discussion" section, and the "result" section to be used only for concluding the discussion.

    To remove an arbitration enforcement block after a community discussion requires "a clear, substantial, and active consensus" to do so. We clearly do not have anything like that. In fact we have a substantial consensus against unblocking. Not only is there a substantial numerical preponderance of editors argung against unblocking, but the couple of dissenting opinions do not argue within the framework of Wikipedia polices. (Gimmetoo argues for a procedural unblock because of the lack of a warning about the sanction. However, that is missing the point. The purpose of such a warning is to make sure that nobody is blocked for breaching a restriction that they were not aware of, but Dehr was clearly fully aware of it. (Even without looking at the history of the case, that is clear from Dehr's statement above.) There are various ways of ensuring that someone has been warned of something, and while placing a message on their user page is a useful way of doing so, if the same effect has been achieved by other means then we don't need to go through a pointless formality. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia to think that we interpret policies, guidelines, and editing restrictions as strict rules in the way a court of law does. If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed. Looking at Meowy's dissenting opinion, if we ignore the irrelevancies such as the "all administrators are part of an evil conspiracy" nonsense, the essential content is that Dehr never actually used his 500 edit count to breach the sanction. However, that again is missing the point: it is perfectly clear that the purpose of the absurd way of editing was to accumulate the 500 edit total (Dehr even admits as much above), and the only conceivable purpose of that was the intention of breaching the sanction: what else is special about 500 edits? Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and if an editor makes it so blatantly clear that he/she is making preparations for a breach of sanctions then that is abundant reason for a block. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia's polices to think that we work by applying some sort of exact rules, such as "you can be blocked for breaching the exact letter of this sanction, but not for going against the spirit of it, or evidently making preparations to do so".) In view of the consensus against unblocking (note that the absence of a consensus for blocking would have been sufficient) I am closing this discussion, and will decline the unblock request. Thanks to all who have taken part. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:ElliotJoyce

    User:ElliotJoyce blocked for 48hrs for edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on at least three articles that I am aware of. He was reported to WP:ANEW sixteen hours ago, but the report has not been acted upon. He has now made six reverts at African slave trade. Will somebody act on the ANEW report? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The 6 reverts do not go to the same content, and as far as reverting the edits of Ackees goes, this individual has consistently changed information on various articles in Wikipedia that either contradict the source or are POV. For example, please observe his edits on the African Slave Trade page, where he directly contradicted the sourced material several times in effort to insert his own content in the article. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — WP:3RR -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and blocked the user for 48 hours. The edit warring with multiple editors involved is quite clear from the edit history, and i cannot fail to notice wikihounding due to the sudden revent spree of Ackees edits on pages the user has never edited before. Also, comments such as this and this don't exactly inspire confidence either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pakistan Premier League T20 and User:NHPak

    User has been Indef'd and IP blocked for a week Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    NHPak (talk · contribs), no doubt the same person as 39.54.35.26 (talk · contribs), has been removing sourced information from the above article and replacing it with inadequately sourced material despite warnings. It's gone on long enough and somebody should probably block the account and IP. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, account blocked indefinitely and IP blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion

    Regarding Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

    I feel that a number of editors are ganging up on anyone who proposes keeping this article. The tone is uncivil, biting the newbies and nonconstructive. Editors have asked for explanation, help, evidence, guidance and clarification - but have instead been shot down in flames. Looking at the edit history of some of those involved, I honestly believe looking at the contributions of User:Salimfadhley ; User talk:Fmph and User:Dominus Vobisdu that there seems to be a cabal with a single interest of deleting such pages. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed your link. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People disagree. That's what's happening there - people are disagreeing with you on whether the article meets guidelines for inclusion, that's all. I think you threw out the accusations of bullying quite early. Those are completely unhelpful. If you can provide some diffs of people being uncivil or non-constructive then that's a different matter. If you can't, then I think you'll just have to deal with the fact that most of the editors there just happen to believe the article is not suitable. (Also, a cabal with the single interest of deleting pages about schools? That would be the most boring, pointless cabal in the world...) OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your humour and reply. I can deal with disagreements. I'm happy to accept it if an admin wants to throw the article out - I just want to know why, and how I can edit better to avoid this kind of thing happening. I think the abuse and dismissive tone of the editors is unfair. I want to do the right thing, produce a good article, one which meets the notability standard. Will someone please tell me clearly, what is wrong with the article, so I can try and do the positive and constructive thing, which would be to try and fix it. That's all I'm asking. I don't expect to be crapped on for asking that. Every time I've (and others) asked them to explain what the issue is, they quote policies, avoid answering, put up some patronising comment and refuse to give a clear reason which I can look at, and work out a way of improving the article from. That kind of offhanded and uncivil behaviour gives this place a bad name - in my view. As for the 'diffs' I'm sorry but I don't know how to do those - but if you look at the users' talk pages and their edit history you will see that the same behaviour is evident on many other pages and with many other editors. I really want to do the right thing here - but if noone is prepared to be reasonable then it really is too much stress and hassle to waste my evenings on - I have a family that's more important than all this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A diff is like this, showing an edit to a page. I have looked at the article talk and the AFD discussion and I really don't see why you think this was done out of spite. The other users are quoting policies, yes, the notability policies that they think the article fails. If their tone is unpleasant it's probably because they've been accused of bullying and witch-hunting because they are examining the notability of the article in question. I haven't the time to examine the sources of the article in-depth to see if I think it's adequately meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG, but from the discussion on the AFD, the other users feel that the sources are inadequate. I appreciate that you don't want the article to be deleted, but can't you see that your own behaviour is highly imperfect? Accusing others of bullying never helps. Remember to comment on content, not the editors themselves. OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits appear nonconstructive at the very least: [15] [16] [17] [18] 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs)

    • It would help to have some adminstrative eyes on this AfD and the associated article. The discussion is becoming quite heated and uncivil (especially in recent edit summaries, e.g. [19], [20]) and there is some potentially ducky behaviour going on. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WholesaleChinajerseys

    indef'd as spam account Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This blocked user spammed on its talk page. Please consider revoking his/her talk page access. Mathonius (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin Attention on MMA

    I think it is time for me to post here about MMA and the off-wiki activity going on, following on from Some goon on Wikipedia is trying to get all of the UFC Event pages removed(I particularly like the bit about how WP update[s] with results before they announce the decision in the cage) , I think some independent and more experienced (admin) eyes are needed at the UFC articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, I have not notified any one editor about this as there are far too many to select out individually, and though I suspect I know the wiki account of the author of that article my understanding naming it could be WP:OUTING.Mtking (edits) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all about the war between the online MMA community and the Wikipedia community. Previously, I have nominated Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning for deletion (here), but everyone seems to want to turn their ears off to the fact that Wikipedia is all about winning and losing and who comes out on top – just like all the MMA competitors. --MuZemike 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there need to be more eyes on that issue. I've seen some questionable arguments on both sides, and we had a recent ANI about an experienced admin calling scores BLP material... probably needs more attention. I'm not involved enough to have formed an opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the end we have a lot of editors using Wikipedia as their own personal MMA wiki (which already exists elsewhere). The individual articles on fights are purely results services and nearly all of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOT#STATS etc. To give a parallel elsewhere, it would be like creating an article for every regular season NFL or Premier League fixture (indeed, one could probably find better sources for those). The amount of cluelessness at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is stunning; "These people must be violating some Wikipedia policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen." or worse, threats of puppetry "I can go to Sherdog or The Underground right now and bring back hundreds of people, if not more, and we can take that straw poll again. I guarantee you that your opinion will be in the extreme minority." Take a look at UFC 140, and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination), and weep ... Black Kite (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is of last weeks UFC 145 and the discussion at Talk:UFC 145#Notability? over the {{notability|event}} template, the article still is only sourced to MMA websites, there is zero prose on the event it's self, no claim made (sourced or otherwise) to how this event is of historical significance. Would be it any other sporting event likely be merged/redirected or deleted with no fuss. Mtking (edits) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At this stage, I personally would not count it a great loss if the entire wikiproject for MMA was vaped. Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone would like to have a chat with User:Beansy about his bulk removals of {{notability|event}} templates and his edit summaries. Mtking (edits) 11:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you've admitted you clearly do not "understand or care about" MMA, perhaps someone should have a chat with you, User:Mtking, about your massive single-person campaign to remove dozens of significant MMA event pages. This is not a sport like baseball where MLB has over 2000 games in a regular season, or like the NFL which as over 250 not including post-season or pre-season. There are about 45 major MMA events (most of them being the UFC and Strikeforce events) and about 100 second-tier events each year in the entire sport. Trying to remove something like UFC 144 which is a truly historical event that sent shockwaves through the scandal-ridden kakoutougi industry in Japan (general term for all combat sports) by its mere existence and success, not to mention the fact that a World Title changed hands (and there are a lot fewer world champions in MMA than in say, boxing) is particularly galling and demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about the subject, yet you have been crusading non-stop for several weeks now to try and delete as many articles as possible. It's strongly indicative of malice on your part at this point. As for KSW, it specifically is indeed second-tier, but they are the largest promotion in Europe and routinely watched by millions of people in Europe, and the face of the organization is one Mariusz Pudzianowski who is one of the most famous people in all of Poland. KSW results are still fair game for an omnibus compression I suppose, but you don't seem to know a thing about this subject and you've been rebutted numerous times on meeting wiki guidelines, yet you've maintained a fanatical crusade specifically against MMA for completely unclear reasons. Perhaps you could re-direct your efforts towards a cleaning up entries on a sport or subject matter you actually care about, instead of specifically on something you hate. Beansy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been participating in these sorts of deletion procedures since last summer. I've seen hundreds of SPAs in these processes. Hundreds. There's such a coordinated pattern of socking and meatpuppetting here, I'm beginning to wonder if something more serious than mere votestacking is going on. With the enormous amount of betting which surrounds these events, I'm wondering whether the side money community is involved. Scottywong's recent closure of UFC142 points out the need for an RFC. I agree. BusterD (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I did not know about this until a little over an hour ago, but considering that this is a sport with a huge online community (because, well, it's a somewhat major sport), and now that word of what is going on in wikipedia is happening, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you're getting flooded with resistance to this sort of fanatical campaign. Imagine if someone tried deleting Miami Dolphins pages. There would be a tidal wave of resistance (and rightly so) and that's just one NFL team. Oh, and as for how wikipedia pages affect betting, if someone is going to make a patently ridiculous accusation like that, they really ought to explain how on earth wikipedia pages affect gambling or aide in illegal gambling, especially any more so than any other major sport. Beansy (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate User:Beansy demonstrating the problem we're dealing with. Regardless of the motivation, certainly a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance has been taken by the vast number of SPAs which arise anytime one of these events is discussed. Based on the edit history for UFC145, such articles should be at least semi-protected during the event to prevent the chat-like flow of edits. Name calling and ad hominum attacks are the norm in AfDs on the subject. It's clear in this content area that we're not working together to create the best online encyclopedia. As a community, we need to figure out the best way forward. This case-by-case stuff works in favor of the SPAs, not policy or pillars. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your levelheadedness in that "we need to figure out the best way forward." I 100% agree with that and have proven entirely open to change in the past (when all of the Bellator pages got AfD, I created the seasonal pages as suggested). However, I'm not sure you understand the context in which two editors took a suggestion from an admin upon themselves and completely changed all of the UFC pages to an omnibus (where they initially wanted no results) with little discussion from users. That event is what kicked this entire thing off. Additionally, Mtking's campaign of multiple AfDs seems to have little bearing on making things better, but more on wanting to argue and be right (via constant Wikilawyering; example seen here on my talk page). It is ironic that he is all for pushing the omnibus article, yet rarely contributes to it. I'm all for finding a solution, but this latest round of AfDs has proved even less successful. Udar55 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting thought given the statement made in the bloodyelbow article above. Mtking (edits) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination) has been started. Mtking (edits) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, Mtking. It's faintly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets stoutly defend the right of individual match articles to exist, while going after the portmanteau articles with a bad faith nomination. Let me get this straight: MMA event articles are notable, but articles on whole years aren't? That being said, turning my attention to Beansy, why, NO: if people were to attempt to make articles on individual Miami Dolphins games (each of which have many more people and many more viewers than any individual MMA event), they would be swiftly and uncontroversially deleted. The way sports seasons are handled, after all, is with annual articles much like the one you're advocating deleting. Ravenswing 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, first off, nice ad-hominem attack on MMA fans, lovely impartiality there, clearly you have an even disposition towards the subject. Secondly, the argument is for individual event articles to exist (typically there are around 11 matches per MMA event today) not matches. I cannot think of a single individual match that has its own page (maybe there are a few exceptions). Thirdly, I said "pages" not games. As in existing ones. You have different pages for each season, each post-season, etc., going back to its inception. The entire NFL has 32 such teams. The season pages tend to be extremely detailed. But that's just the NFL right? Then many if not all Arena Football League teams also get their own season pages. Also the World League of America football. Each Frankfurt Galaxy season has its own page. But maybe that's not the best direct comparison. Take tennis then. There are different pages for each of several hundred significant tournaments each year. In the entire global sport of MMA like I said there are about 45 top-tier events, and 100 second-tier events, many of the latter of which are already omnibused (Bellator, for example, as it is the only major or second-tier MMA promotion to act on a "seasonal" basis), before getting into the thousands of minor events that generally are not mentioned. This is because average fighter has only 2 or 3 fights a year once they reach the elite levels (and with a few notable exceptions, maybe 4 or 5 a year max before the elite level), compared to the two dozen tournaments a tennis player might have. There are tons of obscure sports pages like that. When I wanted to find out Olympian-turned-MMA-fighter Hector Lombard's Olympic judo record, at first I was unable to since the 2000 Olympic Judo results only listed the medal winners but then I found tournament pages for each weight class. Why isn't anyone deleting those? There's no prose or anything, just information. I guess because they contain useful information which is exactly what one goes to wikipedia for and they haven't caught the attention of some wiki-crusader. Please try and have some perspective on things and at least pretend to be neutral here so this battleground doesn't get any worse. Beansy (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable to mention that one of the more seasoned and reasonable supporters of these individual pages has proposed that canvassing for more chat board participants is the best way forward. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And a good proposal it is if it is read from an uninvolved viewpoint. We already have a battleground so things can't get any worse. But if Anna's suggestion succeeds then we can get a number of new and dedicated editors developing the subject matter in line with our procedures. Can only be an improvement. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD closed. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) I have to say, I'm very disturbed by the level of battleground behavior from the MMA proponents. There are some suggestions on that blog of escalation into real-life harassment of WP editors (search for "the IP. GET the IP."; you can't link to individual comments). This is fairly typical behavior from bloodyelbow and its associated blogs/forums; an RFC might be a better solution than trying to hash this out on ANI. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As a editor in relatively good standing, having worked with several of the key players in the MMA Project space, I would be disheartened to burn the entire MMA article space to the ground. For every editor we chastize into oblivion and off for violating the policies of WP, 5 more will join as SPAs for the single purpose of expressing support for any MMA article regardless of it's notability, independence, or reliability. After multiple sockpuppets, Canvassing attempts, and single purpose attack accounts I'm considering requesting Arbitration for the explicit purpose of seeking Discretionary Sanctions for the MMA article space so that admins can be more proactive with conduct issues. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it's going that way. That'd also set a very refreshing precedent for other WikiProjects which simply opt out of collaborating with the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go that route, make a request at WP:AN; that's what we did for Indian caste articles when we realized it would be necessary, and it's worked there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hasteur: I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights that the easiest way to propose this kind of sanction is via community authorized discretionary sanctions instead of Arbcom. It's especially appropriate when the abuse is blatant. To see the example about Indian caste articles, open up WP:General sanctions and search for 'caste'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom also probably won't touch this right now due to the lack of prior dispute resolution. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, what could ArbCom do, anyways, that could possibly resolve this, given that neither side will agree to anything? --MuZemike 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    DRN Try #1, DRN Try #2, this evidence section showing repeated misbehavior besides the user it was created for,ANI discussion, and more are not attempts at dispute resolution? Ending sarcasam here. The toxic enviroment that the fanatics create is why multiple experienced editors are fleeing the topic space. Hasteur (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem editor, take 489

    987lihas retired. Return here if further action is required Blackmane (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    987li (talk · contribs) — Okay, I'm calling WP:COMPETENCE if not outright trolling. So far, since August, this user has.

    The user got a level 3 "Stop your disruptive editing" warning in September and continued to do the same thing:

    After I warned them to slow down and take it easy, they put a help tag on their page and said "I feel that someone hacked my account.. I got on a vacation and haven't been on Wikipedia for a long time but some edits were not made by me, but it says that it was made by User:987li!" That last edit there smacks of outright trolling, since the edit pattern has been pretty consistent from day one and does not seem to be an account hack.

    tl;dr: This editor is clearly not here to build a project, just to screw around. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Deeply harsh. I'm not sure 987li was actually aware of WP:WAF until I linked to it yesterday during the {{out-universe}} TfD. Unsurprising that he'd want a do-over, and unsurprising that he picked one of the more common lame excuses. This editor needs guided in the right direction rather than his head bitten off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did NOT post that message. I did not get hacked, I did not go on a vacation so I didn't post that message. I admit that I created all those articles, and I admit that I went to far from a good article to an admin, but I seriously didn't post that message of the hacking thing. I dont know who did, but it wasn't me. If I were really hacked, I would have changed my password, not burst out in tears looking for help, right? you don't have to believe me, but that is what really happened. 987li (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering he made an RFA after his first 8 months of screwing around on Wikipedia, I'd say he does need his head bitten off. I'm not an admin so I don't know what that should entail, but one suggestion is, if he's engaging in unconstructive edits or moves, to use each of the increasingly escalating Vandalism Warning templates and then alert an admin to block him when the latter stages are reached. Otherwise, I don't know what the penalty should be for blatant lying, wasting of admins' time, and serial creation of ridiculous articles. Perhaps he should be on some admin's watchdog list, if not outright blocked or banned now. (I vote the latter: ban following this warning if behavior continues to follow this pattern.) Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of your belief, there's NO way that any editor should even be suggested to "have their head bitten off" - any behaviour that serves to drive away another editor is unwelcome on this project. Blocking and/or banning is an absolute last solution to anything. If you think otherwise, then go elsewhere. If your own behaviour related to this situation is represenative of other situations, you need to stand down pretty quickly - your assistance has been the exact opposite of what we need around here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, if you're really going to think that way, go ahead and block me...987li (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor has retired a couple of hours ago. In case he should he decide to return, I'll also point to his Commons userpage, which displays the same not-so-good behavior. – sgeureka t•c 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    if the average length of "retirement" after placing the banner on the user page was something longer than the 2 hours, that might be worth noting. :-) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've CSDed a lot of the redirects he's created, as a lot of them are fancruft abbreviations and "EP" while rediring to a season article - "FG EP 2" does not go to the second episode of Family Guy, but to the season 2 article), and FG itself is a lengthy dab page in and of itself. That should clean up most of it. MSJapan (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On further inspection, this editor never apparently bothered to learn policy, MOS, or anything else of basic substance. There are a lot of unnecessary capitalization redirs and unneeded dab dirs. WP, being case insensitive in search, will find the correct title irif it exists, and three different redirs to the same page with differences in caps, or things like "United States (country)" are nothing but confusing, and many have already been dealt with via established methods (hatnotes and the like). I've CSDed a bunch more redirs (up to 20+ easily), but it takes time. Can someone simply go through his contribs and nuke the garbage? MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a general comment

    AN/I seems recently to have become (if this is possible) even worse than it's been in the past. I'm disheartened to see such an overwhelming lack of attempts to de-escalate in many situations, with an over-abundant amount of Shoot 'em! Ban 'em! Block 'em!

    Would it be remotely possible to reduce the amount of aggression in here, just for a while? For everyone who's tempted to leap onto a banhammer bandwagon, in cases where calm, friendly discussion and a bit of understanding would probably work better, to have a nice cool beer or three and not post unless they have constructive, forward-moving, non-damaging options to suggest, instead ;P

    Sometimes it seems almost as though we have Clippy-clones in here saying; "It looks like we're recruiting a WikiLynchMob! Would you like some help with that?" Pesky (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing a lot more names in here that follow that attitude, as opposed to:
    1. check that it's been attempted to be resolved directly with the editor
    2. AGF as far as possible
    3. perform the principle of least harm
    4. correct/extinct the bad behaviour, increase the good
    Anyone who's not doing those should STFU, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this is a board reserved for situations that have gotten terribly out of hand, I don't see why proposals for blocking/topic-banning are surprising to you. If you disagree with proposed blocks/bans, speak up and offer an alternative solution to the problem. What I do see on ANI lately is people escalating to drama by repeating themselves endlessly when it is of no avail in the situation, and escalating to aggression by name-calling and profanity (even in acronyms). That is aggression; suggesting blocks or topic bans when they are standard Wikipedia procedure for repeated and warned-against misbehavior is not aggression or necessarily bandwagonism, it's just solution-proffering. You are free to proffer your own solution(s). Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is for proffering solutions that are based on policy and what is best for the project, not your version (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When the only tool you are willing to consider using is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Why arent we giving greater consideration to other options in the toolbox?-- The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat: You are free to proffer your own solution(s). (In the interest of non-repetition, I'm not going to repeat myself again.) Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In a community based project it is EVERYONES responsibility to act in a manner that helps rather than hinders the project. the "YOU fix it" attitude is a prime example of shirking individual responsibility to help the community. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this board is to call for admins to take direct action on a problem which requires admin tools. Coming here is asking for the hammer to be used. If you feel it's not necessary to bring down the hammer, provide your argument. Others will provide theirs. That's how this works. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're the user that linked Data. I love you (and Data). I think that every time a thread gets out of hand, everyone should go watch some Star Trek. OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL should I link it again? Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely. It's applicable to almost every thread on this board. OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks: To quote Data: [21]. Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Softlavender suggests, on the board of last resort, calls to block/ban are entirely appropriate. Where the problem is is in the wave of people who apparently believe ANI should be the first resort for issues. Ravenswing 12:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For some of the reports, there are cases where all the defendant (for want of a better word) needs is a few words of encouragement and advice. I know in the past that admins have done exactly that, but sometimes I find that having totally uninvolved and neutral editors provide the same service is actually more palatable to them. Despite what we all understand and think, there will always be the thinking of "us (editor plebs)" vs "them (admins)". In the few cases that I've meddled in, I've either learned something new or at least managed to (I hope) provide a peanut gallery voice. Quoting BWilkins, we should take AGF as far as possible (except in obvious cases). Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who posts on this board is not necessarily seeking a block/protection/deletion. Sometimes a warning or word of advice or clarification of policy from an uninvolved admin or someone level-headed who has been around for a while can lead to behavioral changes. And quoting Star Trek should be an action of first resort; I would accept that as an axiom. -- Dianna (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a prime directive? Syrthiss (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my temporary absence; I've been at my daughter's wedding! Prime directive - nice one! As has been said (wisely), much of the problem is when people drag someone (with mandatory kicking and screaming) directly to AN/I, when there are (in many cases) almost certainly other options which would be so much less hurtful. It always seems to get particularly spiteful and nasty in here, and this never does anyone any good at all. It leaves a lot of festering sores behind it, and dramatically demotivates people. The petty bickering may intrigue many people, but when the characters on stage are wielding real swords (well, okay, not real swords, but you know what I mean), the interests of the audience should take a lower priority than rescuing the poor sods on stage, many of whom are probably quite bewildered ;P If people would try all other options first (and yes, I know the only time I ever brought someone here I should have tried other options first ... this is why I'm saying ;P) People in here are not just words on a screen, Mr/Ms Anonymous, they're real people with real feelings. Sometimes I think we lose sight of that, when we can't see them sitting there at their own computer with weepy eyes and tremory fingers. (OK, not all of them, but some of them.) This really should be the place of last resort, or for emergency action, and not for petty little squabbles. Pesky (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with the editor who opened this thread. For a group "not required to use the tools", the tools sure get used pretty fast. I'm sure the defense of this will be, "but some situations require it". But I think the honest editor will recognize that the entire reason that non-requirement was put in the WP:ADMIN page is because they knew the tools would get misused at times. If administrative editors can't admit that, then we're in a sad state. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with the editor who opened this thread. For a group "not required to use the tools", the tools sure get used pretty fast. I'm sure the defense of this will be, "but some situations require it". But I think the honest editor will recognize that the entire reason that non-requirement was put in the WP:ADMIN page is because they knew the tools would get misused at times. If administrative editors can't admit that, then we're in a sad state. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the standards for addressing an issue on this board should be raised. I often hear the question asked "Have you first attempted to discuss this with the other editor on their talk page?" I think an additional component of this question should be "...and have you previously raised your concern on a more specific noticeboard (:WQA, BLP, 3RR, HELP, etc)?" If the answer is "no" to either question, then the thread should be promptly shut down. This board should be a request for admin action based on prior consensus at another noticeboard. Lengthy discussions here never seem to accomplish anything, probably because of all the people who follow the happenings on this board and chime in without actually taking the time to research the issue. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very insightful and wise comment. I very often see an issue 'resolved' here without those questions ever being asked. And as you say, if they weren't done, then the editor bringing the issue here likely hasn't done due diligence. As always, there are exceptions, but generally, it wouldn't hurt to sometimes ask... did you try to work this out first? -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I've noticed quite a bit of recently, is an uptick in... let's call it "amateur psychology". There seems to be a bit of a meme that's developed recently, which is concerned with "all the pain that everyone is feeling". Personally, I don't really give a damn. I don't say that because I'm uncaring though, but because we're volunteers here. I mean, if Wikipedia is really getting you stressed out to the point that your stress becomes my problem, then you should take a break (preferably voluntarily, but...). Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, after all. Being an editor is not a job. The site isn't going to come to a screeching halt because you take a break from editing. (That, plus I agree with Quinn1 and Ravenswing/Softlavender).
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damn straight. WP:CIVIL is a good policy but, in any social medium, toes are going to get stepped on. CIVIL is to try and keep those minor offenses from turning into verbal brawls. What I'm seeing from some users, though, is that we should take great pains to never, ever, ever step on toes. And if someone does resort to verbal abuse or repeatedly violates policy, it's everyone elses job to keep gently coaching them ad infinitum. That a block or even a stern talking-to is never the answer.
      • There's a point where being blunt is necessary to emphasize the seriousness of an issue. And there's a point where a user has ceased to be a net-positive to Wikipedia's community. I think it's a good idea to debate when a person has reached that point, but eventually people will reach that point. There are a few troublemakers who have been allowed to outstay their welcome, while a few editors got blocked too soon. That's going to happen, because we're all human. Blocks are not like the death penalty, though: mistakes can be corrected here. Swinging to a more permissive culture would be to the detriment of WP, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeek! (lol!) But taking a break from the WikiFix is, like, really hard for the really addicted/committed WikiHolic! (says she, typing at 02:16 ...) Pesky (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    lol yes it is! It's only really a problem though if the WikiFix is causing an editor to end up... well, here (or WP:3RR, for example). I'm reminded of the expression that is being used now for addiction, which is something like: "if it's causing you to abandon relationships, or hurt yourself...". Hopefully that makes sense. heh
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Justifiable venting

    There's justifiable venting after being blocked, then there's this.

    • 19:24, 23 April -- "if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy."
    • 19:26, 23 April -- "Either a competent administrator will undue your improper block, or not."
    • 20:10, 23 April -- "Is this Vulcan mind-meld, psychosis, or what?"
    • 20:25, 23 April -- "Speaking of phronetic limitations..."
    • 22:00, 23 April -- (edit summary) "Pathetic, make that bathetic"
    • 07:45, 24 April -- "So you ignore the rule-book when it applies to you and your familiars, and run around imposing bullshit blocks without having the decency to explain your fuck ups?"
    • 08:03, 24 April -- "Sarek's abuse of tools"
    • 08:49, 24 April -- "This episode has provided good examples that will stop BHG, Sarek, Bushranger, etc. from ever being elected to ArbCom or re-elected as administrators."
    • 14:01, 24 April -- "The Blocking-Head Sarek of Vulcan had no such sense. but apparently had powers of mind-reading into my intentions (which relieves him of the usual WP policy of describing behavior rather than intentions)"
    • 16:29, 24 April -- (edit summary) "Dawes describes his psychologist colleagues having the ability to understand others' intentions without behavioral evidence as satisfying one DSMIV-R criterion for psychosis"
    • 08:53, 25 April -- "Sarek has behaved like an abusive administrator, not for the first time---and not for the last, unless he grows up. He blocked me for a month because he didn't like my short notice on Malleus's page, which he stupidly (incompetently and---one would like to be able to wish---perhaps not dishonestly) called a violation of canvassing."
    • 09:31, 25 April -- "After Sarek abused his administrators powers"
    • 12:46, 25 April -- (edit summary) "Has anybody looked at IRC or Facebook, regarding this RfA, for real canvassing (not Sarek's hallucination)"

    And that's just the attacks on me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access revoked for the remainder of the block. He is clearly not using his talk page for making a reasonable appeal, he is just using it to cast accusations and spout endless nonsense as usual. What he really needs is a solid chunk of time away from Wikipedia, not two weeks of using his talk page as his personal facebook page to chat with his wiki-friends about how Sarek and the "Blocking Heads" are a bunch of assholes. A short, temporary block is intended to demonstrate to the user what it will be like if he continues the behavior which got him blocked. This means that KW should be restricted from influencing articles, AfD's, CfD's, and pretty much everything else. Talk page access during a block is a privilege given so that the user may appeal his block, and in this case it is clearly not being used for that purpose. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unjust, but expected. Where's that dog cartoon when you need it? Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (I've unarchived the thread, since from the comments posted here outside of the archived section, and the comments on my talk page, it seems a few editors would like to discuss this further.) ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a WP:KICKADOGWHILEHESDOWN essay? Seems like it fits. -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This was not the way to go. I can't be bothered to count the number of times KW has asked for a full and insightful explanation. Surely he's entitled to ask for an explanation on his talk page, and surely he has a right to complain about not having received an adequate explanation? I can't see how it's wrong to ask for a really decent explanation for a block. Bearing in mind policy, and all that. And I can't see how it's wrong to get upset when that explanation isn't forthcoming. And I can't, also, see how it's wrong to be upset when an apology - at least for misunderstanding, if for nothing else - also doesn't appear. And yes, kick a dog while he's down. And I think maybe people should read the whole talk page, not just the highlighted diffs. They look different in the context of the whole page. Pesky (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take those bullet-points one at a time. Someone actually spend some time to review them and find something more offensive than "Blocking-head." "Boo hoo, someone challenged an admin's authority," is not a blockable offense. Where's the incivility? Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be mistaken. That's not what he was blocked for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His talkpage was locked as a result of the above overblown, puffed-up accusations of incivility. I am not commenting on his block. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicitly accusing someone of incompetence (as KW appears to do extremely frequently) is not a big clever grown-up un-sanctionable version of doing it explicitly. In fact, it's the opposite of grown-up; it's all the more immature behaviour for imagining that others won't have the gumption to call him on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Pesky, I think the point is that there is no adequate explanation for KW. There is nothing an admin could tell KW which would satisfy him. Meanwhile, he's continuing the incivility and personal attacks (that led to his block in the first place) on his talk page. I understand he's frustrated, and I get the "kick a dog while he's down" comparison, but at the end of the day KW needs to understand that incivility isn't tolerated no matter how frustrated or upset you are. If you're angry, then stand up, go outside, and take a walk around the block, rather than spending hours ranting and attacking editors. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the bullet points did you feel demonstrated incivility, and which of them were filler added to create extra bullet points? Let's start with the bullet point that said "Either a competent administrator will undue your improper block, or not." How, exactly, was that incivil? I mean, either a competent administrator will undue your talk page block or not, right? It's a tautology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. The block was upheld on review, if shortened. It is KW whose responsibility it is to understand why he was blocked, rather than Sarek's to somehow convince him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant to the issue at hand, which was KW's alleged talk page incivility, which apparently consists of "blocking head," and stating that Sarek abused the tools. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Quinn1 asks a useful question in another thread above, so I'll ask it here. Sarek, in good faith and with a positive attitude, did you follow the guidline at the top of this page? "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Simple question, needs a simple answer. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think this is a very good point. Sasha (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that notifying a blocked editor about this discussion is not terribly important, since he lacks the ability to respond to it. In any case, the notification I posted on his talk page about revoking talk page access included a link to this discussion, so he's undoubtedly aware of it now. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    KW felt he'd been quoted out of context, and attacked. I can see that point, though (as I've said on his talk page) I think the editor quoting him said it as she saw it. I don't think it was intentionally quoting out of context, just maybe that the whole of the context hadn't been appreciated. KW posted a grand total of two neutrally-worded comments about an RfA. As I've said before, I don't think (and neither does KW) that those came into the (strict) category of canvassing. He's asked for a better explanation of having a one-month block for commenting on what he saw to be acivility violation re context, and a more detailed explanation (which would apply to any and all editors, not just to himself) of exactly how his neutrally-worded comments constituted canvassing. I think both those requests were reasonable, and I think it's not reasonable that he's now been denied talk page access for having got upset that no decent explanation has (yet) been forthcoming. I'm sitting here with the strongest-possible impression that the primary reason he was blocked, and denied talk page access, was because he's KW. I think things would have been rather differently handled if he'd been somebody else. Pesky (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be, but as Pesky says, you have to take into account the context. A fair number of the people who did originally discuss concerns about KW's behaviour with KW himself, were accused of hounding (and all manner of other things), and were the targets for suggested "interaction bans" so that KW could carry on his behaviour uninterrupted. It's the old tactic of attempting to get into a dispute with every possible administrator, so that there will never be an uninvolved administrator capable of blocking you (there's an essay on it somewhere). Sarek took the option of remaining completely uninvolved when using the tools. Probably wisely, since he's been criticised for not doing so in the past. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumperward, you've said:"It is KW whose responsibility it is to understand why he was blocked, rather than Sarek's to somehow convince him. " But this says "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.." OK, he fell down on civility, because he's had no explanation. I think that's understandable. Pesky (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "The block was upheld on review, if shortened" was the previous sentence in that sentence. I cannot see how you could have missed it. Admins are accountable to the community as a whole. The block had already been discussed here and accepted by Sarek's peers. It is plainly illogical to interpret your quote from the guideline to mean "any editor can question any administrative decision at any time and the admin responsible must obligate that with a response". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins aren't machines. There's a section called WP:BUTT that seems applicable here; if this was a new user I'd have removed talkpage access for being a trolling-only account. Why should we have to put up with that from anyone? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of have to agree with Demi about how well communication has gone in the past. Kiefer doesn't make approaching him the easiest of tasks. Also, I'm not sure why everyone feels the need to treat him like a delicate little flower, or a wounded dog. He's neither of those things, and everyone knows that. He's an adult, and at some point the adults need to start remembering they are accountable for their own actions - and continuing to try and deflect attention away from themselves and onto the admins that have to clean up their messes only makes things worse, for themselves and for others. ADMINACCT is all well and good...but surely the rest of the users should take some accountability for their actions too? It would be nice. OohBunnies! Leave a message 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If KW was having civil discussions on his talk page, and calmly asking for an explanation, there would be no problem. Simultaneously pointing out the "hypocrisy" and "fuck ups" of the person who you're asking for the explanation (while calling them stupid, or more subtly, having "phronetic limitations") is not the way this process works. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)::::I know he can be problematic, and I also know he won't mind me saying this here. But he does get upset easily (no, not a delicate little flower, but he gets angry-upset at perceived injustice). On the other hand, he doesn;t fly off the handle when I leave him a nicely-illustrated dominatrix spanking on his talk page. I'm not a miracle worker, nor have I ever claimed to be, but KW and I see to be able to sustain some kind of communication, and he always knows where I;m coming from. I just wish there were ways, not just in this case, but (as above) in so maqny others, of fixing things without actually leaving people really upset by something. Anyway, I'm knackered, been at my daughter's wedding, going off to eat pizza now. I may be gone some time. Pesky (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixing things without having people upset, that would be nice. Unfortunately, this is the real world and (to be unimaginative) shit happens. Everyone is accountable for their own actions, whether they are upset at a perceived injustice or not. The sooner people realise that, the better. Ugh. I really can't see this thread going anywhere. Perhaps it should be closed (again)? OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    KW had been at the personal attacks all day before posting to Malleus' page -- that was just the final straw that caused me to block him. I saw the last block for a pattern of incivility was one week less than 3 weeks ago,, and evaluated 2 weeks and 1 month for an escalation before deciding on 1 month.

    • 10:38, 23 April -- "Please reduce the AGF violations and hypocrisy, BrownHairedGirl and Oculi."
    • 10:45, 23 April -- "The Blocking Heads are again in usual form."
    • 14:30, 23 April -- "You are quoting my comments out of context, BrownHairedGirl, especially stupidly or dishonestly."
    • 14:36, 23 April -- "As explained below, BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today."
    • 14:38, 23 April -- "The dishonesty or stupidity BHG can display beggars belief."
    • 18:36, 23 April -- "It is a predictable pity that Demiurge1000 appears again without any concern for incivility, AGF, NPA violations against me by BHG, but nobody cares what he writes about me, since he has not had the courtesy to apologize for the smearing of Lihaas as a national socialist, or about his lies in the RfC,"
    • 18:42, 23 April -- (edit summary) "Withdraw per double-standard of apologizing for adminstrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc."
    • 18:45, 23 April -- "We don't need another junior-high school vice-principal reciting cliches and apologizing for administrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, as in BrownEyedGirl's thread at ANI."
    • 18:56, 23 April -- "Please be aware of Dennis Brown's comments at ANI, and that Dennis Brown is currently a candidate to be an administrator."

    That's basically what I saw, and why I blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd still like an answer to the question I ask you above, Sarek. It is clear you're good at amassing mountains of snips and clips, but are you attempting in good faith to de-escalate and move this guy Keifer to a more positive editing posture or are you just looking for stuff to nail him on? -- Avanu (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you like, not seeing everything written above or something? Do you honestly believe that alternate methods haven't been tried with Kiefer? Need I point you to his RFC/U? OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not Sarek that has amassed these mountains, Avanu, it's KW. Sarek is not responsible for KW's actions, KW is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Avanu, other editors have tried to de-escalate with Keifer in the past and although there are ways of doing it, they are generally considered demeaning to the editor who attempts to de-escalate. It takes two to tango, Kiefer does not appear to have attempted de-escalation either. Whilst I believe Sarek's block was excessive, it does not count as admin abuse and certainly does not deserve the barrage of comments from KW he has received since. WormTT · (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Avanu, you're placing the burden solely on the shoulders of the blocking admin. Others have already tried, for an extended amount of time. Insisting that the admin who decides to block must first attempt to "talk down" the editor before blocking, even though extended discussions have already occurred, is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    either I missed something, or Avanu's question was about this ANI sub-thread (started by SoV, and concerning talk page access) and not about the block. To my opinion, this is a valid and legitimate question. Sasha (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed something. As worded, Avanu's question is just making Sarek responsible for calming Kiefer down. I took it as in regards to the block itself but, even if he's referring to the talk-page locking, others have asked Kiefer to take it down a notch. He has not. It is not on Sarek's shoulders to talk Kiefer down from the ledge, and Avanu's question struck me as needling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    have re-read the thread, and I still think my interpretation is plausible (Avanu - perhaps you could comment?) Anyhow, here is what bothers me: SoV posted a complaint here under the subtitle justifiable venting. I would appreciate his response a) whether he has tried to communicate with KW after KW was blocked and before posting this complaint, and b) whether he still regards himself as an uninvolved admin in this affair.
    Thank you very much!
    Sasha (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing WP:INVOLVED around in situations where it doesn't apply is not a good way to get your questions answered. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The header was "Justifiable venting," but his very first line is to note that while JV is allowed, this instance isn't "justifiable." I honestly don't see he has anything to gain by responding here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also doubt that the precedent that "block a user once, you can never block them again because you're now involved" is a particularly sensible one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I asked. Let me rephrase: SarekOfVulkan, you have posted a complaint at ANI (the current sub-thread) regarding the (alleged) violation of WP rules by KW after he was blocked. Have you tried to explain this to him before turning to ANI?
    If you think my question is not well posed (or illegitimate), I will rephrase again.
    Sasha (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of this thread is composed of diffs showing problematic intereations between Sarek and Keifer. In that light, the question "Have you tried to explain this to him before turning to ANI?" seems to be a non-sequitur.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohms, you're wrong. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. You expressed what I was trying to express myself anyway.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sasha, considering his very first post after my block notice had an edit summary of "Sarek of Vulcan needs to block himself for severe incivility of blocking while citing WP:Canvassing for 2 neutral messages" and content that included "if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy", and it went downhill from there, over the course of 41 hours, exactly what do you think would have happened if I posted on his page saying "Please stop the constant personal attacks, Kiefer"? Really, I'd like to know what you imagine Kiefer's next post would have said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek, I understand that the situation was problematic. Still, procedurally this is exactly what you should have done. If this was difficult/impossible for you in the existing situation, you should have left the matter to others. I understand the circumstances, still, I am unhappy about (what I see as) policy violations, especially from an admin, and especially when it comes to complaints about policy violations by other users.
    ANI (and being an admin, and especially the combination of both) is a stressful and difficult activity; luckily, it is voluntary. So I do expect from an admin to get involved in an ANI incident only if they can follow the procedures to the end (if not, there are plenty of other ANI threads here, most of them are probably less stressful). Sasha (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why enwiki has a fairly rigorous RfA procedure that selects administrators who are sufficiently independent-minded to not be crippled by ridiculous aspects of procedure. I've never heard anything so foolish in my life. Exactly how many edits did KW make on these various topics, before Sarek got round to stopping him? For each of those dozens of edits, did KW bother to follow (or even think about) any of these "procedures" that you're suddenly so keen on? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I was supposed to know before I blocked KW that he was going to spend the next 41 hours attacking my honor, intelligence, ability to think rationally...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...(and your legal right to use your own username)... (I jest not) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line here is that, as far as I can determine, KW is one of those editors who believes WP:CIVIL is a 'strange and distasteful concept' Note for clarity: not KW's words, but those of another member of the CNCC (Content Not Civility Club) that applies to others but not to him, and that any attempt to get him to understand that it applies to him to is an attack on his person, that any attempt to explain his disruptive behavior can be deflected by wikilawyering over how WP:DISRUPT doesn't apply, and that any block has to be the result of a power-mad and abusive admin - it couldn't possibly be him. That is a shame, because his articlespace editing is a great asset to the encyclopedia, but his talkspace, Wikipediaspace and (lately) categoryspace edits have consistently contained kind of actions that drive people away. Until and unless he understands that and changes his ways outside of articlespace, we're either going to have continuing debates of exactly this sort, or he'll be indef'dand/or he'll become another passenger on the block/unblock/cries-for-desyopping tilt-a-whirl. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demiurge -- thanks for the compliment. I am happy to be at your service as a standard of foolishness. [btw, do you imply that I have previously been violating some procedures (else what do you mean by suddenly)?] If procedures themselves are ridiculous to your opinion, I am sorry, this is not the right venue.
    @Sarek -- you implicitly admit that you took personal offence. This is exactly the reason why I would suggest you to downgrade your involvement, and leave this to others (I am sure there are enough other admins following this as well as KW's talk page).
    Finally, it seems that the error of interpreting others' beliefs and views was committed several times on this thread.
    Sasha (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing that comes to mind here is: WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. God knows we have enough of it already. (No offence to any passing bureaucrats, obviously.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "you implicitly admit that you took personal offence"...."it seems that the error of interpreting others' beliefs and views was committed several times on this thread" *looks askance at Sasha* Pot, kettle? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    May I offer everyone a nice cool beer? Please let's not all bite each other as well! Anyone wanting a granny-hug, please help yourself now ;P We all, in here, so often misunderstand exactly where others are coming from. Sometimes we think it's "obvious" (yup, sometimes it is, but not always!) But we all fall into the trap of believing we know what's going on in other people's minds, what their ulterior motives might be, and all that stuff. It's sad. Pesky (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Its disappointing that we move off target so fast. My question for Sarek was simply whether he followed the guideline for this page. I've not seen him answer it, and while a lot of other editors have come in with defenses and justifications for the block, that doesn't change the basic question. I don't know this Kiefer Wolfowitz guy, but he seems very unhappy with perceived neglect of process by admins. I've asked if process was followed, and from what I can tell it was not. Are there excuses for this? I'm sure its entirely possible to come up with many. But that doesn't change the advice and guidelines that have been carefully developed and hopefully will serve us well if we follow them. Simply admitting we can do better is enough for me, I don't see the need to develop so many justifications for not being perfect. -- Avanu (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand where you're coming from, but in this particular case you're simply off the mark. There's a history here, that's partially already in the AN/I archives. It's perfectly understandable why Kiefer is whinging away at administrators in general, but that's part of the history behind all of this as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Same ol', same ol. There's actually no reason to think the guidelines have been 'carefully developed' -- in fact, they haven't, they're just a hodgepodge which evolved until it became too hard to get consensus on anything different. Blocking KW for incivility -- sure, that's possible almost any given day (like the next time he decides to award a 'barnstar of decapitation'), but Wikipedia has no standards for personal interaction and the combined attention span of a gnat. The block is fine, the part of the justification regarding canvassing ridiculous per the Homer analogy (Do'h!) and blocking talk page access overreacting -- if an admin isn't willing to be an other duck after laying down a block on a prolific edge-riding editor like KW, they should just work on the low hanging fruit. Nothing is going to happen here, so best option is for an editor with sufficient wiki-cred to slap a close tag on this and everyone moves on until the block times out. Nobody Ent 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kinda hoping that other duck thing catches on. Close away. :) -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobthebuilder1412 account being used just to make patently undeserving pages

    Indef'd as VOA Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Never mind, he's already been blocked.JoelWhy (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Masculinism

    Hi everyone. We've had a situation recently with a dynamic IP who is editing the masculism article. I'm sort of at a loss of what to do. This person recently posted the following attacking talk page comment: [22] and while I'm ok with them removing uncited content, they are extremely aggressive in their nature. The anon who has edited the article for the past day or so is easily seen here on the history [23] and has also been warned about edit warring, personal attacks, etc. I really don't want to see this turns into another Men's rights drama, regardless of anyone's political or social beliefs. Help would be deeply appreciated, as I have no clue what to do. Thank you. Sarah (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The dynamic IP is also substantially above WP:3rr - I just hadn't reported for that as I figured that a rangeblock would be more effort than it's worth. A couple of the changes they were making were worthwhile, but most of them weren't - and they were doing stuff like citing UrbanDictionary Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a final warning for edit warring. If they carry on, blocking is in order. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it hasn't been pointed out already, the topic of masculism may fall under the Men's rights article probation enacted by the community last year. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure all the IP users are the same, since they are all using the same ISP in austria. I agree with Fluff that it pretty clearly falls under the previous article probation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a long running issue with anon IPs from Australia engaging in this kind of disruption in this topic area. I share Kevin's POV that these ducks quack and would suggest denying recognition and following revert, block, ignore--Cailil talk 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    World Tomorrow (again)

    I've been accused of being a "blatant sock puppetry for Julian Assange and Wikeaks supporter" [24]. I originaly reverted it as being "disruptive and incorrect claims" [25]; but after thinking about the recent history on these articles, decided that I should mention it here for further review of my actions.

    This is related to my reversion and page protection of both World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is also likely related to the issues from a week ago that can be found at ANI archive#747 "Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs" (and the sub-thread in that archive titled ANI archive#747 "Legal threat over World Tomorrow"). For the record, I have never knowingly met, communicated with, nor have I been employed by Julian Assange, his associates, nor any of his organizations or business ventures. I have also never even watched the World Tomorrow program. My actions on Wikipedia were strictly related to the unsourced changes and the disruptive sockpuppetry of multiple IPs restoring those changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It just looks like random IP trolling. You did fine by reverting, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a random troll, it's someone related to The World Tomorrow (1934) who's angry that the Assange program has usurped the primary target on the disambig page. They contacted me on my Talk page - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#The World Tomorrow. But yes, I agree that revert and protect was the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant, but apparently did not convey. Pissed off IPs accusing an editor of being a "shill" is nothing new, and rightly ignored. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor

    No consensus for any administrative action, and that's really why this page is here. Undoubtedly much to say about paid editing and feel free to say it! Someplace else.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Cla68 now advertises his services as a paid editor at the top of his userpage, as well as in other posts to places such as the Signpost discussion pages. He openly invites clients to use Wikipedia's email facilities to contact him for hire, as well as inserting an external link to an anti-Wikipedia website.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So what? Seems like a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe all of us who know how to ... actually add top content ... should follow suit. WMF is hiring and paying folks all over the place, and their programs promoting things like recruited student editing are dragging down quality, so why should those who actually know how to write articles not be paid along with WMF staffers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have no hesitation at all in writing an article for money, so long as it could meet the GNG. And as you say, the WMF staffers are being paid to do God knows what anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see, volunteer hours of my time and knowledge to clean up marginal articles (that get no page views) created by student-editing projects to at best C-class, or get paid to create top content that someone actually reads. Such a dilemma; what's an editor tooooo dooooo ??? Bad boy, Cla68, how dare you improve content! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    :)) ANI is rarely that much fun. JN466 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats pretty bold I must admit. I'm not sure if its as big of a deal as it used to be though unfortunately. I brought a couple up and no one seemed to care. I think as long as he is honest about it and follows the guidelines there is a low level of acceptance these days. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing that matters is what he does, not why he does it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's pretty facepalm worthy... but practice seems to be it's okay if the paid editor follows Wikipedia's rules, including WP:COI. It's just going to get a lot more eyeballs on his contribs. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And more than on those who are already doing it without being so open. Cla68 is to be congratulated on his honest transparency. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, I wouldn't go that far. But yes, the honesty is refreshing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, as far as I'm aware, being paid to write an article is not, in and of itself, against our rules. Doing it in a manner that's not neutral, or pushes a POV, or whitewashes, or anything else that breaks a policy is against our rules. Doing it without disclosing that one is being paid for a particular article is also strongly frowned upon. If it turns out that Cla68 does any of these things, then we have a problem. If, on the other hand, he's simply turning out appropriate, featured content in a neutral manner, then both he and the encyclopedia have gained, and while it would behoove the community to devote a few more eyeballs to making sure content produced in this manner is entirely even, and it would behoove Cla68 to request community input on edits he makes for pay, we have no real reason to prevent him from editing in a way that benefits both him and Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You sure 'bout all of that? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OMG, we can get paid for this? Oh, I wasted my life. On a serious note, if it's goal of Wikipedia to have as many FA articles as possible, does it matter how that is achieved?JOJ Hutton 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this an AN/I issue? What do you want here, Orange Mike? To force Cla68 to remove something from his user page, or to block him until he somehow "proves" that he's not being paid to edit, or something?
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)A portion of the editor base feels that paid editing should not be allowed, full-stop. However, no solid rules have ever been agreed upon. If Cla had done this a couple years ago, he'd have been blocked in heartbeat. Right now, I don't think that'll happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's advertising an anti-Wikipedia website on the top of his userpage; he's using his userpage to advertise his services for hire, and inviting his potential clients to use Wikipedia's e-mail facilities to contact him. Nobody thinks this is a violation of our rules on the use of userpages? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, this seems like a stunt. Cla is doing it to make a mockery of the COI policy. I doubt he'll get any serious offers. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's nothing to forbid writing for money here (and it would be impossible to police anyway). It sounds to me like Cla68 is being honest about it, and effectively also inviting scrutiny to check that any paid articles are appropriately written. I really don't see a problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom recently established, in the TimidGuy case, that conflicts of interest were irrelevant. I used to think we had a basic responsibility to our reader to disclose major financial or other conflicts - after all, that's a very fundamental ethical rule of reputable publication - but now I know better. So if Cla68 can convince someone to pay him $1,000 for a Featured Article, more power to him. The dominant ethos of the site right now says he should take the money and run. If "the community" and ArbCom see no problem with frank editorial conflicts of interest, why should we expect Cla68 to restrain himself from cashing in?

      In the current economy, I'd be surprised if anyone is willing to spend $1,000 (and I think most companies would prefer a low-profile puff piece to a high-profile featured article), but there's a sucker born every minute, and among the myriad ways in which fools are parted from their money, one could do worse than to fund an FA. So meh. MastCell Talk 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Oops, posted that above before I saw this. Egg-zactly. If paid COI is acceptable, and WMF staff are also paid and their programs are promoting poor content, we have no basis whatsoever for complaining about what Cla has put on his userpage; in fact, the disclosure is helpful as it will generate review of his work. The arbs and WMF led us down this path, what's good for the goose is good for the (unpaid volunteer) gander. Horse outta the barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring the very real COI issues associated with paid editing for a moment, or the potential to distort quality standards, there is the fact that he is ADVERTISING a business on his user page. We do not allow people to advertise other businesses on their user pages when they don't have anything to do with Wikipedia - why should this be an exception?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spot-on. I was just going to say the same thing. Paid editing is neither here nor there - advertising is not permitted. TNXMan 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple; because if you force him to remove it, you've removed an important disclosure that does more good than harm. It's called, shooting yourself in the foot. I'd rather know who is paid to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an editor is editing for pay, it helps the project more than it hurts it for him to say so on his user page, so that the conflict of interest is apparent. Could it be a matter of how the information is phrased? Edison (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Wikipedia will fall into the dust if professional athletes are allowed in the Olympics there is a tasteful mention and link stating that the editor is available to be paid to improve articles. About time, by the way, say I. Nothing incentivizes like incentives.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to employ the the slippery slope for a moment. If we allow "a tasteful mention and link stating that the editor is available to be paid to improve articles", why cannot we not allow a tasteful mention of my Amazon storefront and a link stating I have books for sale? This could go on ad nauseam. I feel if we make an exception allowing an established editor to advertise, the exception will open the door to a whole host of problems. TNXMan 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The key is that this is an advertisement directly related to the editing of Wikipedia. While there may be a slippery slope even then, it is much more difficult to envision a realistic bad result at the bottom of the slope. Monty845 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so while we're on that slippery slope, in terms of the effect on articles, how is paid editing any different than the WMF-promoted student editing for a grade-- programs in which participants can engage in coordinated editing (aka meatpuppetry) to affect consensus and in which classes/profs can promote a POV? The slippery slope Wikipedia finds itself on these days, whereby the days when we created content because we believed in a free project anyone could edit, are gone. Undone by paid WMF staff promoting projects outside of community consensus, and the arbs passing on paid COI. We've got a real goose-gander situation here, and it signals the end of editing as we knew it. Disclosure is better than none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was not about the idea of paid editing (I do not particularly care one way or the other). It's the userpage advertisement. If Cla68 wants to disclose that they are a paid editor, great. They should not be permitted to advertise their rates or otherwise advertise their services. TNXMan 18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone should offer him $1,000 to make featured articles out of a bunch of semi-notable subjects that will never have enough content to become featured. We'd get a ton of high-quality articles and not have to pay a dime. WIN! (Really, if someone can get paid to write articles that conform to guidelines then let them, it hurts nobody). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I'm not a fan of paid editing, but I accept it happens and could accept it as long as it's not biased editing. I'm not fine with using Wikipedia for advertising which is what putting that notice on a user page does. --Onorem♠Dil 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So only the foundation should have that privilege, or should those who make the content?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The foundation offers articles for cash? Link please. --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't know this was permitted now. I know a lot of marginally notable people who would be willing to pay $100 for stubs on themselves. Easy money! (Does the foundation report articles created to the IRS?) --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's happening now, worse than ever before, anyway. New page patrol is down, I'm shocked at what is getting by in Medicine new page patrol-- too much for me to address, and largely going unaddressed, all kinds of non-notable uncited bios and articles (including promotional) are getting through, and too many established editors who could be/would be doing something about it have given up. One of us, instead, spends most of her time (in vain) just trying to keep medical content free of poor student edits-- a program promoted by paid staff, and a program that doesn't seem responsive to community concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice story. It's completely off-topic and I have no information to dispute it with at the moment. What does it have to do with this discussion? --Onorem♠Dil 18:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (after four ecs) Well, since you admit you have no information, that may partly explain why you don't see the connection. There's too much to keep up with now in terms of articles that are already appearing on Wikipedia, likely for pay in some cases. Wrt the effect from the Education programs, what's the difference between being paid in $$$ or a grade? I'll tell you; for the grade, you have an entire WMF organization behind you, and you can engage in coordinated editing to affect consensus. What is worse: that, or one editor who declares on his userpage that he is for hire? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (many ecs later) Even better. Now I can go to the even less than marginally notable people I know and get them into wikipedia for $200 bucks a shot! In fact, the more work I do, the harder it'll be for admins to keep up. If I've understood this correctly, all I need to do is to announce my rates on my user page and then rake in the cash. Coming to think of it, I know quite a few doctors. Thanks for the tip Sandy! Now, if only someone will answer my question about the IRS,....! --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, this discussion is about a user advertising their services on Wikipedia. I'm completely baffled by whatever the hell you're trying to get at. I love great articles. I hate the idea of paying for them, but can live with it. I'm not fine with someone advertising their services in any way on their userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Historical note: There was a 2009 RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing in which 102 editors endorsed "Summary: Why you write content is irrelevant--is the content free to Wikipedia itself, and policy compliant?" with 66 supporting Jimbo's view that policy forbids "paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia. " Jimbo also said "I will personally block any cases that I am shown." Edison (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to join the ranks of those saying "Who cares?". I'm sure tons of people out there would like their articles improved and would be willing to pay for it. It's time for the WMF to start acting like a true non-profit with legions of volunteers at their disposal: Those volunteers who do best should have the possibility of a paid position. If they really want to avoid the potential pitfalls of article subjects paying editors directly, they should consider making productive editors paid employees of the foundation. Sounds like a good way to clear some backlogs. Oh, and why is this at AN/I? --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the RFC linked above. Our Founder said "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown." "Consider this to be policy as of right now." He then mentioned the possibility of a paid editor creating appropriately licensed article-like content on a website, which could be used (by someone else) to create an article, an interesting approach. We have lots of editors with huge numbers of "articles created" who merely cut and paste public domain or freely licensed content. Edison (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is his current stance, I agree with Jimbo...but don't agree with Jimbo as an argument. His opinion is useful, but not binding until he says it is...and on that day the volunteers disappear. --Onorem♠Dil 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And see the arb case linked twice on this page for how well that worked out for Jimbo. I'm not saying I like the current state of affairs, but Cla is following on trends already established on Wikipedia, and at least he disclosed. The volunteers are already disappearing as Wikipedia becomes more and more about paid advocacy, WMF paid staff programs, recruiting, and acceptance of COI. That horse is out of the barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as Cla68 is following our content policies, particularly WP:NPOV, I don't see a problem. Hell, we all deserve to get paid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; perhaps, given Cla68's specific rates, we cold start a pool and pay him to round out and complete as many of the core topics as possible. I'd be willing to start with $5,000. Any other takers? --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, of course) Great idea! Let's start a company "Wikipedia Admin Editors, Inc.". We get your point of view across! or "No negative information left undeleted!". We could all leave our day jobs and do this. In fact, the more admins we can recruit, the less likely our edits will be viewed as problematic. ErrantX, are you on? --regentspark (comment) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you may have misunderstood my comment as ironic or funny. But our core topic coverage is shit, and this could be a good opportunity to get one of our best writers on the job! I'm deadly serious, I would happily switch my yearly donation to WP (which will not run short for the lack of a few thousand dollars) to get 5 critical featured articles. --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm serious too. If everyone is going to be doing this (if one or two people start doing this then lots of people will) then I don't intend to miss out on the opportunity to monetize the time I've wasted here. I can assure you that for a professor in academia looking for consulting opportunities a wikipedia page is worth good money, so the idea that people won't pay for an article is bogus. And, like I said above, the more we're into this, the less likely that our edits will be seen as problematic. We'll be scratching each others backs. The capitalist encyclopedia, or "the best encyclopedia that money can buy", that's going to be the new slogan. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The question is now: who would ever want to co-operate with Cla now that we all know he's raking in money? Next time he nominates an article for FA, just say "I'll review it for $500". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For a limited time only, FAC reviews on sale for the low low price of $500 Support vote sold separately Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A professional Wikipedian? hahahahaha, that's hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, how many more of the "super writers" who dominate FAC, or admins have got their noses in the trough? How many here are taking payment? How can we trust that processes are not being corrupted? How can we trust a paid editor commenting on someone elses FAC? How can we be sure that they will not sabotage other "competing articles"? - and something like that is very easy to do. If we stand for this....Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point: we've already stood for this. Majorities of "the community" and of ArbCom believe that conflicts of interest are irrelevant, because of an (entirely misplaced) faith in our content policies to weed out biased editing. What Cla68 is doing is a natural extension of those trends. It's time to sleep in the bed we've made. MastCell Talk 21:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So we can all look forward to seeing more GA and FAC articles about notable people and organisations. But especially rich notable people and organisatiions. Wow, that sounds perfectly fair and equitable. The sort of good advertising you can't even see. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have the bed. I'll sleep on the couch. This isn't about paid editing. It's about advertising on a userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be applauded then, as it makes any bias more transparent. In fact, cummulative total reciepts will prove more of an encouragmeent to other editors than lists of DYKs and barnstars, yes? Mmmmm cosy, Zzzzzzz Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of highly-regarded, cream-of-the-top editors who are wringing their hands saying "the horse is out of the barn, there's nothing we can do, live with it, voluenteer editing is over", etc., is disgusting. If you have a principle, stand by it, don't say "well, we can't fight city hallWMF". Paid editing is never acceptable, regardless of what WMF or ArbCom says, and if we the community actually stand up and tell them so instead of running around in circles saying "the sky is falling!", we'd have a chance of salvaging things. But the voice cries in the wilderness... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There doesn't appear to be widespread "hand wringing", though. I know that I'm not particularly wringing my hands about it. I share Malleus's "so what?" reaction, along with the explanation that "it's about what he does, not how or why he does it". I never really understood the "Paid editing is never acceptable" position, even though I never personally planned to try to be a paid editor.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it ok to advertise for your business on your user page?

    Regardless of whether it's for paid editing or not, advertising your services or your business on your userpage falls afoul of WP:UP#PROMO. If he wants to get paid for writing articles, that's great. There are currently no rules against that, as long as it's done correctly. But keep the ads for your business off of your userpage. If Joe the plumber had a userpage on Wikipedia, we certainly wouldn't allow him to post "Hey, is your toilet backed up? I'll come over and pump all the crap out of your toilet for $1000! Just email me!" How is this situation different, because his business is more related to Wikipedia? To me, that doesn't make a difference. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree with SW here. Even if allow paid editing, it doesn't mean we have to allow people to use wikipedia to conduct their business. While the editing may be related to wikipedia, the paid part is not. Therefore they should conduct this part elsewhere and only come here to do the part which does concern us (i.e. the editing). In terms of disclosure, there's nothing wrong with them disclosing they may be paid to edit without advertising (i.e. without information on their rates, requests to contact them or anything of that sort). More meaningful disclosure would of course be to disclosure every time they are paid to edit, although since there's no requirement for disclosure at all, that's ultimately up to them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under current policy, editors are given broad discretion to use their userpage and userspace for activity related to editing Wikipedia. The advertisement here clearly qualifies. We would not let an editor advertise some random business on their userpage because it would be totally unrelated to editing or improving Wikipedia. Now I can certainly understand how some may believe that we should disallow the advertising of a clearly editing related business or service on a userpage, but current policy does not prohibit it (and even if you argue it does, it would be ambiguous at best). The solution is to initiate a policy driven discussion/RFC on the question, and ANI/I isn't the right place to do it. Monty845 19:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Broad discretion doesn't include adverts. If it does, I'm gonna start up a company that makes accounts by name and published adverts on their userpage. What a fantastic idea. No WP:POINT here....just going with what the current conversation says is fine. The idea here is that you can advertise your work on your userpage, right? --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also disagree on the interpretation that the policy allows this sort of advertisement. An advertisement for paid editing is first and foremost an advertisement, and the tenous connection to Wikipedia related activity does not overrule that fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          The entire point of the advertisement is that the advertiser is offering to edit wikipedia... that is hardly a tenuous connection. And again to Onorem, the key is that the advertisement is directly, and in fact exclusively, related to editing activity, not some unrelated business. Monty845 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What difference does it make what the key of the advertisement is? If Cla wants to make money by selling articles, fine. (ugh) He should not be able to advertise that on his userpage.
    • There seems to be a lack of clarity about the guidelines for the use of Wikipedia by public relations professionals or, in this case, persons seeking freelance public relations work. Wales is right to object to abuse of Wikipedia by public relations professionals. I agree with him on that. But if he wants to follow through, he should participate in this discussion. 19:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Tepper (talk • contribs)
    • WP:USERPAGE encourages stating "If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) which you wish to be open about in order to gain a good working relationship with the editing community." "Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion." It discourages "excessive unrelated content" such as "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." A blatant advertisement: "My website at www.jhjh shows how I can promote your company for very reasonable rates" would certainly be out of line. But informing other users that one edits for pay might fall under "Significant editing disclosures" which are allowed, if editing for pay is in fact permissible under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. A paid article which was Wikipedia:Spam would not be tolerable, but in the RFC from 2009 cited above, most editors had no problem with paid articles which otherwise met all standards, policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am in favor of users disclosing potential pov issues. I'm not in favor of them advertising them on their userpage. It is blatant promotion. Contact information conveniently provided... --Onorem♠Dil 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will do this for you for this amount of money. Here are 2 ways to contact me and we can negotiate if you want a separate level of service. (obviously paraphrased, but show me where I'm off)
      • How is that not blatantly promotional? --Onorem♠Dil 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are websites where one can find Wikipedia editors for hire-- that horse is out of the barn, so I see no reason not to have it announced in house, which will result in more scrutiny on those editors. I'm not saying I like the status quo, but that's what it is, and COI and paid editing has not been disallowed on Wikipedia, see the arb case referenced above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do those websites have to do with it? 'I edit articles for pay' is different from 'I offer this service for this much and here are several ways to contact me to employ my services' --Onorem♠Dil 20:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also in favor of disclosure of paid editing on userpages, and would rather have the editor advert on his/her userpage than not. It behooves us to know who is editing. I'm more concerned about paid editing that is undercover, and editing coordinated off-Wiki via student assignments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in favour of paid editors working on Wikipedia and collaborating alongside volunteers, just as the Red Cross has paid staff that works alongside volunteers. WP:COI strongly suggests declaring such a conflict of interest on his user page - however there is a difference between declaring a conflict of interest ("note that I edit for money, see this external link for more information") and advertising ("please hire me! here are my rates and contact information!"). Advertising on Wikipedia is not only against policy but bad marketing. Dcoetzee 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:NOTSOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Very clearly not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the question of paid editing and advertisement of editing services is basically an ethical question that can only be judged on a case by case basis. If the Ministry of Culture of Guatemala for example decided to pay User:Simon Burchell to become a fulltime wikipedia editor working on articles about the history of Guatemala as he has always done - i would have no problem with it. If Monsanto called me and offered me 10,000 bucks to make the criticism section in their article less harsh I hope I would be in an economic situation that would allow me to turn down the offer. I propose that we don't judge paid editors - but their work. The best way to do this is by knowing who they are and who pays them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The paid editing may be an issue of discussion, but there is no discussion that Wikipedia should be allowed to be a free advertising service for ANYTHING. Period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Getting focused on the "paid editing" part can make one forget the "advertising" part. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Not true at all, we regularly allow advertising of on Wiki groups and activities. Example: the {{User AfC}} Userbox is clearly an advertisement for the AFC project. The only fundamental difference here is the monetary consideration being requested, which is certainly a fair thing to consider, but its not what makes the difference between an advertisement and a non-advertisement. Both are ads, we just find one clearly acceptable, and the other we are discussing here. Monty845 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like things are getting twisted around here. Disclosure is one thing, advertisement is another. Disclosure is "I write Wikipedia articles for money." or "I wrote this particular article for money." Advertising is "I offer a service whereby I write Wikipedia articles for money. I charge xyz dollars for my services. To hire me, send me an email at this address." They are two entirely different things, and this section is focused on discussing the latter. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst constructive paid-editing is acceptable, advertising on a user page is not. However, Cla68 is a highly-active editor, so I wonder if we may avoid drama in future by asking Cla to create a separate account through which all his "paid editing" will take place. AGK [•] 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This will inevitably become an endless argument about wording. For example, say Cla puts "I am an editor who accepts money to improve articles to GA or FA status." He then puts "If you have questions or concerns, please contact me through the Wikipedia mail service." OK. Then it's "If you would like to discuss this with me, please contact me through the Wikipedia mail service." Or "If you would like to suggest articles and discuss arrangements ..." Be worse than a civility discussion. Set general guidelines, and don't stress it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get it. WP:UPPROMO explicitl says "unrelated to Wikipedia." This is related to Wikipedia. I don't understand why we're having this discussion. Okay, I do, and it's because people are incensed about something because they have romantic assumptions about how Wikipedia gets edited, along with the idea that "money" is somehow a different, and more poisonous, motivator than all of the other reasons people might edit Wikipedia. But, as we always say here on ANI, if you want to change policy, please do so on the policy's talk page, not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While some may wikilawyer that the guideline WP:UP#PROMO does not apply because of "the connection to Wikipedia", the policy WP:SOAP is very clear "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Other things exist

    Is this really that different from, say, User:Peteforsyth advertising his consulting business on his user page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I also stumbled across an editor yesterday whose User page described his work in photography for Wikipedia, with links to contact him at his business. (Looked like nice work, too.) Unless the WMF says otherwise, I'm not seeing much reason to take up arms on this one. Advertising one's Wikipedia-related work on their Userpage has apparently been accepted by the community, through disinterest if nothing else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like "I work in this field" or "I work for this company" with a link are fine in my mind...as long as they are productive editors.
    Comments like "I work in this field and these are my rates and get in touch with me here" or "I work for this company and you should buy from them because..." are not fine. Saying what you do is OK. Advertising is not. --Onorem♠Dil 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm; so a somewhat obviously tongue-in-cheek user page note is not fine. But a link + promo text to a serious Wiki consultancy business is fine? If Cla68 made himself a website and linked to it that would then be fine would it? *sigh* --Errant (chat!) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "If Cla68 made himself a website and linked to it that would then be fine would it?" Yes, I think it would be - and moreover I think it's in his interest to do so, since employers are not likely to find him through his Wikipedia user page, but are likely to through a contractor listing on an external website. Dcoetzee 22:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have some sort of objection to User:Peteforsyth's page, please feel free to address it directly. I don't see the obviousness of the 'joke' on Cla68s page. People shouldn't be expected to be in on the joke to get it. --Onorem♠Dil 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cla68 Venue?

    All of this is somewhat interesting, but I have to again ask: why is this on AN/I? Shouldn't this be a more general RFC?
    On that note, would anyone object if someone moved the whole section to it's own page somewhere and slapped an RFC tag on it?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not difficult to see that Cla posted this offer knowing full well that it would provoke such a reaction. In fact, that was almost certainly his intention. Given that sort of intentionally disruptive behavior, I think ANI is the appropriate place to discuss it. Raul654 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So... you're proposing a block, due to disruption?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arb on conflict of interest editing from Feb 2012 said "2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed." and "3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above." Seems like a good time for the requested RFC. Edison (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a tad late, I'm afraid. It's just waiting on closure by an admin(s). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but this is more of a specific application. meh, it's probably too late now regardless. ErrantX is making this about OrangeMike's behavior now as well, so... off we go!
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, the pathetic search capabilities of Wikipedia and the sad lack of wikilinks did not allow me to find the existing RFC from all the preceding dramahs. Edison (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Commentators are missing the nature of the REAL problem

    ...which is that currently, as it stands, it appears that Cla68, having entered the industry early, has a monopoly on the provision of the advertised service. Basic economics tells you that monopolies are bad because they increase prices and restrict output (i.e. fewer quality articles are produced). What is needed is some healthy competition which would drive the prices down to a more competitive level, in line with the marginal costs of producing new featured articles.

    Or in other words, the prices that Cla68 is proposing to charge are outrageous, and a complete ripoff. THIS is the real travesty here. Hence I have taken the step of entering the market myself and I want it noted that I am offering fair, competitive, just and reasonable prices which are lower than Cla68's.

    Additionally I would like to request that Cla68 be banned for being a monopolist, and that anyone else who tries to enter the market in the future, once I'm there, is immediately banned because of obvious WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ABF, and WP:CANVASS and also for being incivil and making personal attacks.

    VolunteerMarek 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a Userbox could identify those who wish to be known as paid editors, with a standardized simple and unspammy announcement. Edison (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps we could have a userbox to identify those editors who hardly ever actually edit/improve articles and instead spend their time playing political games and drama mongering on AN/I. Like a userbox that says "only 20% of this editors edits actually involve encyclopedic content, rest is facebook-wanna-be-admin crap". Make a userbox that explicitly states the % of edits that are in article space vs. user talk pages and drama boards. Then we can talk about force-tagging paid editors.VolunteerMarek 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inclusion of his rates are the only problem that I have with his note. If he didn't have his note, then there would be absolutely no question about it (aside from the controversy surrounding paid editing---which if done in the open I don't see as a problem.) If Cla wants to take an article to FA where he's getting paid, then he should declare that as to ensure that people pay a little closer attention to the neutrality of the article. Beyond that, as for advertising... let's think of it this way. I am a professional balloon entertainer. If in my introduction or "about ballonman" I included a link to my business page, would anybody consider it advertising? If some body provides a link to their employer is it advertising? If they include a link to a business they own, is it advertising? I think the only difference here, is that he includes his rate---which is just tacky and not a good business practice.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The real money is probably in admining. It should be possible for an experienced admin to make himself available for investigating, deleting or undeleting pages, or blocking accounts. Of course, if I did this all my admin actions would be consistent with policy and would improve the encyclopedia, so I can't imagine anyone having any problems with that. Injecting some free-market discipline should also make people more willing to persue RfA, and also make admins more responsive, since losing rights would hit them in the wallet. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins can offer protective services to content editors, ensuring for a modest stipend that editors wishing to contribute to, or remain on Wikipedia are not additionally harassed and blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OrangeMike

    The conduct of the OP needs a little scrutiny here. His response to seeing this message from Cla68 was to post this thread (he must have known dramaz would ensue); there was no attempt (so far as I can see) to have dialogue with Cla68. He then didn't follow the basic rule of AN/I and notify him of the thread. And to cap it all, several hours later, after the thread apparently isn't going his way he is appealing to Jimbo. Given that Cla68 and Jimbo have been publicly sniping at each other for some time now it's not hard to guess what the response will be... And, finally, we have some wierd new reference to the site ToS in that talk page message - an as yet unexplored avenue for OM to bring here? I think it is fair to ask him to provide some answers on his actions here, because they certainly don't look healthy. --Errant (chat!) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC) on a side note if we are talking about self-promotion, his user page is certainly an education... ugh --Errant (chat!) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    LOLZ - great funny!!! cause you cannot POSSIBLY be serious. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see it being serious. Jumping straight to ANI, then forum shopping with an appeal to Jimbo... it's not exactly the best reaction to the situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is where I was coming from; it wouldn't do for this to be a witchhunt or too hard a boomerang. But I do seem to recall this happening before - Mike is very passionate about Wikipedia (and I feel a little taken up in his own mythos) which spills over into an overly aggressive reaction such as this (a quick look at recent editing shows derisive edit summaries r.e. poorer content, inadequate block message edit summaries). Someone he respects having a quiet word might help. --Errant (chat!) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather think it's obvious why KINGCINEPRODUCTIONS would be blocked, and I doubt that anyone would really question that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't Jimbo's home page say that bringing matters there isn't forum shopping? I once had somebody bring me up there right away because I quoted a few sentences from an abstract. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not let the WMF handle paid editing?

    Instead of the annoying funding drive every year, why not implement paid editing via the WMF? The WMF would then keep part of the money for themselves and hand out a fraction to the editors according to their contributions. There is a big market for this. E.g. we have many articles related to Romney and Obama, and they are going to spend billions of dollars on their campaigns. So, obviously, they would have a few million dollar to spare to improve wiki-articles relevant to the Presidential campaign. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you're kidding...?--MONGO 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It wouldn't make a dent in off-site solicitation of editors, and would just drive competition for who gets to edit articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the WMF should offer compensation to editors to improve the "core" topic articles. For $1,000 I would offer to take any one of them to FA-level quality. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not do it for free? That's kind of the idea behind this thing. It'd be great dealing with the COI problems that would come along with officially taking money for articles. That's a fantastic fucking idea. </sarcasm?> --Onorem♠Dil 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote MasterCard International Global Headquarters for free because I really enjoy architecture and find researching it a fun hobby. I could upgrade Country, but won't because I don't like it as much as I like researching architecture (or doing renames for that matter). If you offered me money to update Country instead of doing those other things, I would be more likely to do it. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand the concept of people liking money in return for work. I don't like the concept of people being paid to edit wiki. Bring on the banner ads. The dream is over. --Onorem♠Dil 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I look at it like sausage. I don't like watching it be made, but I love eating it. If it's shown that paying people to edit wiki (parts of generally) or even banner ads generally will result in a net increase of quality free-content, I'm all for it. My primary concerns are how to ensure quality and how to ensure that paying some people won't drive off other people. The goal is free content, that doesn't imply free creation. MBisanz talk 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the point to start with on this thread was not the paid edits, but the advertising of them on Wikipedia. I've made sausage. I don't mind seeing how it works...though I prefer eating the sausage I helped with just in case. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah. Now you got me hungry. Gonna have to thaw out some bambi for a late snack. --Onorem♠Dil 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Enjoy! I would generally be against turning userpages into adverts, but would like some voluntary method of identifying paid editors, like a category or userbox or wikiproject of some sort. MBisanz talk 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiproject? SilverserenC 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah...something like that. MBisanz talk 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%... paid editing isn't the problem, identifying those who are paid and by whom is. I remember an article I read a year or two ago about a coal mine or a fire in a coal mine. The article was undersgoing significant edits by a user. The user was the Museum Curator for a small community museum. His job was to update the signage at the Museum and increase the accuracy of the articles in wikipedia related to the Colorado Coal mining industry and the town where his museum was located. He declared his intentions and made it clear people knew his bias. Guess what, I have zero problem with that... and I have zero doubt that others have jobs where part of their job is to edit or at least monitor articles relative to their employers. Having paid editors, isn't the problem... identifying them is.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this Yule Marble? Asks, Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC) , not an administrator. And how did I even get here? Not to mention "Why?"[reply]

    Slippery Slope

    If you're ok with advertising prices for paid editing on your user page, then we're on a slippery slope. Question #1: Do you think it would benefit Wikipedia if a lot of users (hundreds or thousands) realized this was ok and started competitively advertising their prices for articles on their user page? You think we have a spam problem now with student editing...? Question #2: How would you respond if I put this on my user page:

    "I am available as a paid !voter. For a nominal fee of $20, I will post a !vote of your choice along with a well-reasoned argument (quoting the relevant policies and guidelines) to the XfD, RfC, RfA, ANI, or article talk page discussion of your choice. I believe my qualifications as an admin on Wikipedia speak for themselves; my opinions will not be overlooked and will often sway the discussion in the desired direction. Email me to work out payment terms. I accept PayPal!"

    ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't particularly care what anyone else does with their user page (within reason). However, paid voting would clearly be a "conflict of interest". Improving the encyclopedia is our main objective, so what's the problem with "pay me to make an article a Featured Article"? Paid advocacy to change Wikipedia's policies, or some such thing, would easily conflict with the core "improve the encyclopedia" interest though.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I hinted at that above. How about I charge $1,000.- for a FA and give $500.- to the reviewer who passes it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And then some of the editors who are also lawyers can advertise their services for drafting the contracts between the paid editors and whomever. We should have advertising banners on user pages as well. It'll be fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, I just don't find the "slippery slop" to be that convincing here (and I'm hardly one to triumphantly and dismissively scream "slippery slope argument!" either). There obviously are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but this isn't really one of them (...yet).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a slippery slope argument, let me make one about paid adminning, and paid shills. Not all those paid articles will be good; some of them will be obvious puffery. Some of the people who paid good money for the puffery will be angry if someone comes along and tries to delete it or make it neutral, and will be willing to pay for them to be blocked. Crowds of paid shills will show up at ANI to demand that people who are resisting paid POV pushes be blocked for some reason or other (perhaps removing peacock language from a biography will become a BLP violation). Then a paid admin will swoop in and block them. If exposed, those involved will claim that that they are making good blocks, and that whether a block is good or bad does not depend on whether it was paid for. Once that is accepted, the next frontier will be paid requests for arbitration ... Cardamon (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    POINT

    The editor has admitted the intent to disrupt the project [26] to prove a WP:POINT. I hope administrators will take appropriate actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT is mostly about abusing process to prove the point, here it is a much weaker case. In essence, your interpretation of WP:POINT is so broad that it would swallow up provocative edits that spur valuable discussions, and in fact would undermine the principle of WP:BRD. It was a bold edit, and it spurred valuable discussion, and to the extent any disruption has occurred, it was from editors being pointy in reaction... Monty845 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me to be classic disruption. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not spur discussion. We had an RfC, we'll probably have another, Jimbo weighed in a few times, ArbCom has an ambiguous ruling, and it comes up with alarming regularity. This user's "offer" looks like an attempt to skate on the edge of a block to make a point, in the "ha ha, this isn't technically against the rules but will make everyone mad" sort of way. My advice, block until he agrees to remove the note and stay away from poking things with a stick, close discussion on ANI, and let cooler heads prevail in a new RfC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As we use to say on Usenet, YHBT HAND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption.... pffffffft. It is time we started blocking the disruptive editors who keep running round trying to block everyone else. What Cla is attempting is fine. It just needs a little balancing and sensible discussion. Running a commercial operation based on Wikipedia itself is a different issue from normal business activity. Cla's business operation has to be balanced and placed in the wider framework. First off, Wikiedia should be charging him say $1000 a week for using Wikipedia to advertise his business. Secondly, the right for people like Cla to edit for a profit is a special case, and Wikipedia should impose a business charge of, say $1 for every word he adds or deletes. Alternatively, he could pay royalty charge, say 90% of his business profits, back to Wikipedia. People like Cla can potentially make money off the back of Wikipedia because people like me have put a huge unpaid effort into the project. If Cla is going to lever off that, then I expect the appropriate returns back to Wikipedia for providing the infrastructure his business requires. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to start detooling ban-happy administrators who try creatively adapting policy to strike down people or actions that they personally do not like, that's one opinion of mine. As for CLA — of course he's trying to provoke a reaction. Given the recent collapse of the COI policy RFA that was mandated by ArbCom — 25 different opinions and no consensus on anything outside of the fact that the situation is confusing and contradictory and needs resolution — a well-placed hand grenade to provoke a new round of discussion on the matter is probably overdue. If Orange Mike, whom I respect a lot even though we don't agree on this particular issue, has run off to JimmyTalk with this, he is forum shopping and to be criticized for that — I'll pop over there and take a look, I hope that is wrong. But even that's probably a worthwhile venture, come to think of it. The COI RFC has failed, time to see if a second go will result in some sort of coherent result. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need admin to block vandal

    WP:ANI is thataway.

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

    Resolved
     – Blocked by Tnxman307. Monty845 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    96.250.18.251 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive edits by IP 216.255.168.47

    IP blocked by power-wielding admin. Drmies (talk)

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

    IP-user 216.255.168.47 repeatedly edits articles to change the order in which consoles appear. It's generally agreed upon that consoles are listed in alphabetical order, however this user insists that the Xbox 360 should be listed first. These edits are generally disruptive. Here's a list of just a couple of his edits on the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier-page:

    There are a lot more of these edits. In fact, this user has already been blocked from editing twice. One of those times for this exact same reason.

    I've already warned this user four times, but to no avail. This is why I am requesting an administrator to take a look and help resolve this dispute. Rudiculous (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    adding...IP does nothing but disrupt, as apparent on their talkpage. Otherwise I would have tried something else (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:ONEDHARMA

    ONEDHARMA (talk · contribs) is continuing their disruptive editing that they were blocked for previously. They are mass-posting the same thing across all these forums and it's getting cumbersome. Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • They were blocked for harassment, not for inserting swaths of text. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think posting that stuff repeatedly on user talk pages counts as disruption; it's obvious that User:Sikh-history and the above user don't want it. I've given this user a final/only warning, but I think I know where this is headed. There's also 2.127.2.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to reckon with. Someone knowledgeable please look at Sanatan Singh Sabha. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The IP is likely the same editor as ONEDHARMA. There were occurences of edit warring on some pages as well. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    6badboy77 Removing deletion tags and suspected sockpuppetry

    I submitted the Michael T. Dunn page for deletion because of lack of notability. Twice now, 6badboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the deletion tag (here and again here.) I subsequently learned that the same person's vanity page was previously deleted here, but the name used then was Michael Thomas Dunn, so it appears to have gone undetected for some time.

    I have also grown to suspect that 6badboy77 is engaged in sockpuppetry, based on the information I have detailed here in my Sockpuppet investigation request. But, I figured I should report the deletion tag removal here, as well.JoelWhy (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A7 applied. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad to see there's a sockpuppet request in, as I was about to request one myself. There's been repeated attempts to re-add the articles about Dunn and his work to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to add that this has been going on for at least five years now, as evidenced by the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios If my suspicions are correct, there's been sockpuppeting and promotional/spamming going on for a while now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported you for violating Wikipedia rules (e.g. repeatedly removing the delete tag from the Michael Dunn page, deleting comments critical of Michael Dunn, etc) and for being a suspected sockpuppet. I've also submitted virtually all of your content on Wikipedia for deletion because it nearly all involves promotional material for a director who lacks notability. If that's harassment, I'm guilty as charged.JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Shared IP being disruptive and writing vile edit summaries.

    No admin intervention necessary. Tea and crumpets all around: let's all try to get along. Drmies (talk)

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

    Would it be possible for someone to look into this shared IP account, User talk:89.100.207.51. Following some rather obscure reversions on article Eurovision Song Contest 1969, in which the IP is altering a translation of the Monegasque song "maman, maman", despite prior agreement between the project about the reliable sources showing what the translation of the song should be. Also is it acceptable for the IP to refer to myself as an "impudent shit" in their edit summary?

    Thank you in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 21:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How were my edits obscure? The "reliable source" you directed me to wasn't referenced on the page so I couldn't possibly have known about it. When I checked it out, all I found was a self-published fan site. I could find no discussion on the talk page which would have lead to the consensus you're talking about. If you don't want to be referred to as an impudent shit, you shouldn't have referred to me as a vandal and called my edits disruptive and deliberately factually incorrect when I was clearly acting in good faith. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that a bizarre warning? You posted a vandalism warning to my page when I clearly wasn't vandalising, so I posted a warning to your page about your inappropriate use of warnings. Not at all bizarre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked at the entire history yet, but the IP is right on the latter point: there is nothing bizarre about that template. It might be incorrect, but it is certainly not bizarre. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. However, Wesley Mouse is also correct that being called an "impudent shit" is a personal attack. 89, even if you feel insulted, you do not get to retaliate like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calling someone a vandal is also a personal attack. In fact it is worse than what I retorted with, as it implies that I'm here to damage the project89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't matter whose was "worse." Retaliation is not the way to go. That said, you've both had your slap on the wrist. Take it to the article Talk page and see if you can work out the edit. If not, WP:DR is the way to go. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, the warning issued was from TW, and under the heading "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors" - there is no mention of vandalism in that heading, so that may be something technical that needs to be reviewed separately. As for the reliable sources I directed you to, it is clearly listed on the list of references shown at the bottom of the article, as Reference number 3. As for the project consensus to use the website Diggiloo Thrush, for the sake of translation of song titles, can be found in the archives of the project page WT:ESC and also in a very lengthy discussion on the ESC 2012 talk page. But to call someone an "impudent shit" is still unacceptable regardless. Wesley☀Mouse 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 3 is listed in line as referring to the language a song was recorded in, not to translations. I can find no such discussion in the archives of WT:ESC. The discussion on the ESC 2012 talk page only talks about using that site for listing the names of languages, not for translation. Further, it's simply a conversation between yourself and 'one' other editor- hardly project consensus. Calling someone a vandal is still unacceptable regardless. 89.100.207.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • Reference 3 is on the language column yes, although logically it is a site for song lyrics, and should really be reflinked to song columns too - something which I will look into correcting in due course. As for the conversation at ESC 2012 talk page which you say only 2 people took part, forgive me for being pedantic but I counted 10 users (both IP and registered) who took part in the entire discussion that lead up to the Diggiloo Thrush decision which was primarily about languages, but was also pointed out to myself at the time that as it is also a lyrics site, that their "English translation" for foreign songs, would be appropriate to use, rather than using translation services, which are not always the best of technology to use in any circumstances. Wesley☀Mouse 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's nonsense. You gave them a level-3 warning: all those warnings are for vandalism. Moreover, the change made by the IP can in no way be construed as "deliberately introducing factual errors" unless you're a mind reader, which you aren't. Mouse, the "deliberate" part means "vandalism". If you don't know what the warnings mean you shouldn't use them, and why you'd start off with a level-3 warning instead of a frigging note (with the information you just typed up) is a mystery to me. Sure, they shouldn't have said "shit", but you started with an assumption of bad faith. Methinks you don't like IP editors. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing--no, two. Wesley Mouse, you mentioned "obscure reversions". There was nothing obscure, and you were the first one to revert. Second, IP, please don't refer to Malik as a liar, please. I know it's old news, but still. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) "Introducing deliberate factual errors" is a direct accusation of vandalism. And that statement is included in the template. You went straight to a Level 3 warning for a simple content dispute. I'd say you've both done things incorrectly. It'd be helpful for each of you to slow down, have some WP:TEA, and discuss the sources on the article talk page. Consider it a learning experience, both of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) In response to 89's first comment on this thread, if one looks at the edit history on the article, one would note that the reversion was done in good faith. When it came to posting the automated warning using twinkle, the only warning that resembled the type of edit made, was the one listed down as "Introducing deliberate factual errors". I'm almost certain it was a general notice that I selected, so not sure how it was posted as a final warning. Could that be a technical error that we're not aware of? After the warning was posted, I had noticed the word "vandalize" appear in it, which did strike me as odd, as I never claimed the edits to be an act of vandalism. Which is why, if you also noticed, I posted a secondary comment shortly afterwards. Hope that clears up things in the slightest. Wesley☀Mouse 22:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies, I have nothing against IP's; as they are people after all who prefer to be known as a number rather than a name. In hindsight it does look like the level 3 warning has occurred accidentally, as I rarely issue level 3's. Those things scare the life out of me, so I rather use level 1's most of the time. I'll be a tad more cautious next time, and make sure I don't catch the level 3 option. @The Hand, Erm, I like the WP:TEA suggestion (milk, 1 sugar - thanks). If 89 wishes to discuss the reliable sources issue in more detail, then by all means, I'm open to a fair and civil discussion. Wesley☀Mouse 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, good. All those warnings of level 3 and higher mean "bad faith," by definition, as WP:UWUL makes very clear. I suggest you have a really good look at that page and the main page for that section, WP:WARN. I've said this before but it bears repeating: I get the distinct feeling that IP talk pages get slapped with warning templates all too easily. Use the higher levels but make sure you know what they mean and make sure they're justified. Now, let's move on. The Eurovision 1968 article probably needs copyediting. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad to hear it, Mouse. As I said to 89, you've both had your slap on the wrist. Talking out the edit on the article's page would be stellar. If that doesn't work out for some reason, WP:DR is the next step. Oh, and enjoy the tea. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here, here Drmies! I'm all in favour of a bit of bedtime-reading especially reading policies LOL. The thing about online translation services though is that they are not always correct, which is why the project itself tends to use Diggiloo Thrush website, as A) they are listed as notable enough by the European Broadcasting Union (who are the official body for the Song Contest), and B) the website alone covers a multitude of areas on the ESC projects, such as languages, translations - kills two birds with one stone (for choice of a phrase). Oh, and don't even mention the copyediting on ESC 1968, I keep looking at that one and then cringe in horror. Its on my "to-do" list though. Wesley☀Mouse 22:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:87.231.133.174 / Rachel Marsden

    Pop over a admin at Commons if necessary. Even the file doesn't exist to which you linked. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone at the IP address is claiming to be the subject of the article and the copyright owner of an image over at commons File:RachelMarsdenRTScreencap.jpg they want to use in the article. If anyone wishes to help the user go through the process to verify copyright owner ship (the image is supposedly from Russia Today television program, so I am not certain how the copyright fell into Marsden's hands) and and the release process, please feel free. And anyone who has admin rights at Commons who wishes to pop over there and remove the copyright image, you may do that as well.

    -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ignoring block while retiring

    IAR and letting it go is good enough for me. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I should probably point out that Armbrust (talk · contribs) is evading his block using Armbrust public (talk · contribs) for the purpose of retiring from Wikipedia. I want no part of taking action on this because I can't shake the feeling that I'm partially to blame and that doesn't sit well with my conscience. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He has posted a notice on his main talk page that he wants both accounts permanently blocked. So it looks to me like he is just tidying up his archives and stuff before he goes. -- Dianna (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a sad situation. He was always so friendly. It's also a technical violation, but not one I'm inclined to block over. MBisanz talk 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ks0stm, maybe you should pop over there and apologise. Couldn't do any harm, and it might keep him from leaving. -- Dianna (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you shouldn't per WP:IAR. Just let it go. Nobody Ent 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed topic ban for Hipocrite

    I have been noticing problems with the conduct of User:Hipocrite with regard to pornographic articles. Right now, there is a long discussion about the rewording of WP:PORNBIO going on. For some reason, Hipocrite was initially !voting "delete" in AfDs about possibly non-notable pornstars with the reasoning usually being something like, "Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated [sic] and should be disregarded." (Like the closing admin is just going to take his/her word for it?) I kept telling him/her that that isn't true; in fact, it came to the point that I had to issue him/her a warning (which also shows that I am not the only user to bring this to his/her attention). For a few days it seemed like s/he stopped, but I come home from work tonight and I discover that not only did s/he nominate a few of the articles I created for deletion ([27] [28] [29]), s/he didn't even notify me about it (check my talk page and even my talk page archive for proof). That all kind of reeks of bad faith. In addition, as you can see from the above diffs, lately s/he has now even been saying that WP:PORNBIO isn't a guideline at all.

    Because of all this, I propose a topic ban on Hipocrite for pornography-related articles until s/he understands that there's a difference between WP:IAR and just dismissing a guideline on the basis of just not liking it (being under discussion does not necessarily equate to being deleted). If a topic ban is deemed too harsh, is there any other way to get him/her to stop this behavior? This situation seems too intense for WP:WQA. (And for the record, unlike Hipocrite, I actually am going to notify him/her of this discussion.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Erpert, WP:PORNBIO is depreciated because it's too lax, and some editors refuse to update it. In the last years, the notability requirements have gotten stricter, and this guideline is showing its age. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of the problem: following Erpert's preferred wording of the guideline, if a group scene with half a dozen people receives a group award, then every every actor and actress in the scene are automatically via WP:PORNBIO and gets an article. Even if he/she doesn't have any coverage in any reliable sources beyond his/her name appearing in the award's list of names. Erpert has reverted several improvements to WP:PORNBIO [30][31][32], Erpert's opinion in bottom of the diff --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We can consider it to be de facto depreciated by the lack of consensus to enforce it. Guidelines and policies are reflective of community norms, not dictorial, and as of late there have been several points made against the guideline as written. My suggestion is to work out a new guideline asap. Oppose topic ban, but would ask that Hipocrite makes sure to remember to notify Erpert in the event he nominates his articles for deletion. I'm sure it was just an oversight. SÆdontalk 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite has already nominated Erpert's articles: Elexis Monroe AfD, Janet Mason AfD. And no, he has not remembered to notify Erpert :-( (why can't we all be friends and have a group hug?) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Enric, I explained those reversions on the talk page, and other users agreed with me in all those cases. But that's all I want to say about that here because I don't want to be accused of canvassing. But Saedon, I like to assume good faith, but do you really think it was an oversight every single time? I even told Hipocrite about it the first time s/he did it. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 09:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking too into it (it's way passed my bedtime) I agree it looks off, but I suppose that's where the A in AGF comes in. I would like to see Hipocrite's response. SÆdontalk 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never notified article creators about AFD. If that's part of the process, it should be added to the basic toolbox "nominate afd" that comes standard, or it should be noted on the article-page template, or it should be noted on the AFD page template, or it should be noted on the AFD instructions at Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. I ignored Erpert's templating of me because it started with a " Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed," which was false in all cases, combative, and a clear violation of WP:DTR. Hipocrite (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm...whenever I use the Twinkle interface to nom an article for AFD, it automagically notifies the creator. WP:TRR and all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not use twinkle. Hipocrite (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TTR maybe? Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Afd how to says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Therefore, while it would be better if Hipocrite notified editors, there's no justification for a topic ban (or another one sanction) if they chose not to. Nobody Ent 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't support a topic ban, not by a long stretch. If a user is saying something you don't like about content/policy/guidelines, shutting them up is rarely the answer. Instead I would suggest talking to them about the content/policy/guidelines. Also, it's courteous to notify the creator of an AfD but not required. If the article was recently created by an active user, they're most likely going to have it on their watchlist anyway. OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rinpoche Back Via Proxy

    User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

    Further to the above, as this guy incessantly returns to cause more disruption in various places under various sock accounts, I propose a full community ban from wikipedia, so that his edits can simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified.

    • Support as nom Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Superfluous As an indefinitely blocked user, his edits can already simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified. The only thing a community ban does is prevent admins from unblocking his accounts once they are aware that the account is a sock of Rinpoche. Is there really a risk of that happening?—Kww(talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would agree with you, but to give an example of why a ban would be useful: my most recent interaction with him involved an RfC started by a sock of his regarding an issue which had already been addressed. After he was blocked he could no longer flog the horse, but the RfC still had to be allowed to run its course because redacting comments made by blocked users is against guidelines, whereas doing the same for a banned user is recommended (if I understand things correctly). Blocks and bans are two different things; there are subtle differences in the way they are applied. I think a ban would be useful in this instance. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand correctly. All edits made by block evading editors and by banned editors are subject to precisely the same restrictions.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Identified by whom? Nobody Ent 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any good faith editor is the prevailing standard. There's no requirement to wait for a checkuser, SPI enquiry, or any form a elaborate consensus-seeking proposal.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=489301992"