Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered

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

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

    Note to Wikipedia editors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to allow Alan to finish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another subheading added by Alan Liefting

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

Replies to comments:

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

A few more points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work being done anyway

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

Sweeping sockpuppetry accusations

User:FactStraight reverted an edit I made, and accused me in the edit summary of being a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I went to his talk page to tell him that I'm not a sock, and that he shouldn't call me one, and noticed that the last message left on his talk page was over the exact same issue. I looked through his edit history, and ~50% of his edit summaries seem to be "reverting sock of louisphillipecharles". It looks like he's using this edit summary as shorthand for "reverted IP editor I disagree with", and to avoid giving any rationale for his edits. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FS has already apologized. Nobody Ent 09:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does use that term "sock" a great deal in his edit summaries. Pulling up his last 500 contribs shows the word used 226 times, which is an extraordinary number. Since being called a "sock" is a pretty strong charge, might this be a bit excessive? Or maybe obsessive? I wonder what his track record is, which isn't easy to just pull up without doing a lot of homework, but that the sheer percentage of summaries that use the term is worrisome at the least. It might be fine, but a closer look might be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know he already apologised. This isn't about defending my personal honour against being called a sock, it's about the fact that he's accusing editors of being socks left right and centre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I decided to start by going to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive to review that history and FactStraight's involvement. LPC is indeed a major sockmaster who seems to edit in at least one of FS's areas of interest. Many of his block-evading socks have in fact been successfully reported by FS. The impression I'm getting is that FS is starting to get suspicious of any IP that edits in LPC's target area, especially IPs that begin with an 81, 85, 86, 89, or 90, and is seeing more ducks than there are. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that 89.100.207.51 has decided to escalate a dispute we are having on an un-related article to this forum, as evidenced by the fact that his initial charge against me failed to mention my prompt apology for reverting him as a sock of LouisPhilippeCharles -- clearly indicating good faith. The elephant in this room is the attempt to evaluate my behavior in isolation, without examining the focus of the edits to which the objections are being raised: LouisPhilippeCharless vandalism has not merely been persistent, but massive, resulting in his being blocked globally and indefinitely since 2010. Thereafter, I noticed that the exact same kinds of edits did not decrease, only they were done under different account names -- some brand new, others revived after months or years of dormancy -- or, most often, under anonymous IPs. I reported these frequently, in detail, and most were blocked. LouisPhilippeCharles is a vandal, not an idiot: he figured out that he could increase the likelihood of his edits sticking by doing them massively, using numerous anons and socks, making innocuous corrections that others would defend, and by varying them enough to make detection difficult for those unfamiliar with his edit pattern. Nonetheless, I continue to take some responsibility for reverting his edits when they appear on my watchlist. Yes, most of those reverts are based on the DUCK principle, which is a widely used criterion -- perhaps the most widely used -- for identifying socks and removing their vandalism. It isn't about content I dislike: often LouisPhilippeCharles's edits are innocuous or corrections (I know some disagree with Wikipedia's policy that "good" edits made by blocked editors shouldn't be reverted, but I don't know how else "blocking" makes sense). I largely revert based, not on the edit, but on whether the topic and the editor's past history of edits to such topics resembles that of LouisPhilippeCharles. The contention that my judgement is clouded or I'm "obsessive" because I make occasional errors is unfair and unreasonable: there is no fool-proof test for detecting sockpuppetry and perfection in attempts to revert it is not and cannot be Wikipedia's required standard. Nor is there any such infraction as "stalking" a blocked editor who is evading the block. Other admins and editors who know of him have acknowledged how prolific the vandalism of LouisPhilippeCharles is. He himself recently complained (in the guise of what he admitted was a sock, HammyDoo) that half of his edits are being reverted. I'm doing most. And by his own admission, I am failing by half! So given that kind of volume, wouldn't some errors in correction be expected? As soon as a reverted editor expresses an objection I re-examine the edit and desist if the behavior or our dialogue is distinguishable from that of LouisPhilippeCharles (remember: Wikipedia places the burden of proof for unsourced additions on the editor). If the community wants me to exercise more restraint to reduce my error count I am willing to do that, altho I think that's an over-reaction. But if the charge here is stalking and imperfection -- that there is something inherently vindictive, suspicious or inappropriate in my doing a lot of reverts of an indefinitely and globally blocked vandal, with occasional errors that are corrected when noted -- yet there is a refusal to look at whether or not the vandalism is, in fact, occurring in high volume (225+ page moves & 1,000+ edits by dozens of identified anons & socks) and whether I am mostly, honestly taking that on, I must object: that would be an attempt to punish those who uphold Wikipedia policy in favor of those who flout it. By far the biggest beneficiary will be the vandal, and the loss will be to Wikipedia article quality. FactStraight (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you do incredibly good work, and you can and should take on LPC and his army of socks. Please keep that work up. Secondly, none of us advocate anything more complicated than "don't call someone a sock until you've filed the SPI." That's it. If you suspect someone is a sock of LPC, revert them and report them, but it's uncivil to call someone a sock if they aren't, and this way you avoid accidentally biting any newcomers on false positives. The other thing that has been suggested is that the community keep an eye on your SPI reports, and caution you if your false positive rate gets too high. Would you be willing to accept that as a solution? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometime ago this guy was blanking entire articles to put redirects on them, and when I revert his edits he started accusing me of being a sock of LPC. It's incredible how someone can attack another's reputation and nothing's happen.-Ilhador- (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind providing at least one diff of each of those (a blank, your revert, and his accusation)? I'm curious to see what's going on with FS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's here [3] and here [4], then when I posted a warning on his talk page he replied calling me a sock and made a formal accusation on that LPC thread.-Ilhador- (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering I can tell just by looking at your contribs that your primary area of interest is probably the Thirty Years War or the Protestant Reformation, not the House of Bourbon, I'd say my initial assessment is correct. FactStraight seems to be exhibiting a certain level of paranoia - they're accusing a lot of people who make edits in an area LPC might frequent, if that person makes an edit they disagree with. I think they need to take a step back, as their WP:DUCK senses are picking up geese, swans, and herons as well and calling them all ducks. My suggestion is that FS should be required to not accuse anyone of being an LPC sock, in or out of SPI, unless they first get a second opinion as to whether there's a reasonable DUCK suspicion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

4 of his 6 edits so far today have been summarised as "rv sock of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles". That's is a bit ridulous. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does a lot of good work, but I think the use of "sock" is a bit obsessive. I'm not worried about a second opinion, but as a rule of thumb: If you aren't willing to put your own neck on the line and file an SPI, then you shouldn't use the term "sock" in describing another editor. That way, if we get too many false positives at SPI, we can deal with it there (or bring it here). Otherwise, it is just a free pass to revert on sight. And he does file a lot at SPI, but I'm not sure if he is filing all of these. I had hoped FS would have come here and at least given us some insight, confirm if he is or isn't reporting all his claims or not, but he has only made 6 edits since this report was filed. And yes, 3 were claiming reverts of socks. I don't doubt that he is right most of the time, but his is one area where you need to be right virtually all the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does FS think this is an edit of LPC? Nobody Ent 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User Ronnie42 - Account used solely for disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AndyTheGrump

Customary report to ANI regarding AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs); making a personal attack in response to a final warning is one of the silliest things you could do. As one of the targets of Andy's personal attacks, I first asked him to retract his attacks which was met by a reversion. Seeing as he is incapable of contributing to discussions without resorting to personal attacks (I, for one, was having a civil discussion with Collect (talk · contribs) before he came in and resumed the attacks), he needs at least a cluebatting, maybe even a block; I've felt somewhat uncomfortable editing because of his constant personal attacks on me (see from last month: [5][6][7][8]). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've read this:

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

If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun. [9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is 'deliberately avoiding the article'? [10]. Really?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre one week block

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Another fine mess"
— Laurel Hardy

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposal for Sceptre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Just so you know, it did come up at the Article 32 hearing. [11]. That's the angle that I've been discussing it from the past day or so. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question for everyone involved in this discussion

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

Alternate proposal: Topic probation for Sceptre

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

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

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

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

User:Cjdude12

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

---

A brand new user account tagging various articles with {{stub}} which are already categorized into appropriate stub categories and removing speedy deletion templates. I find it odd that a brand new user would begin his/her editing career thusly but the editing continues despite lots of chatter on talk page about bad editing. Would someone convince him/her to mend his/her ways or do the needful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you at least try to converse with the user before bringing this here? --MuZemike 05:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but at the bottom of the pages your create I see that Wikipedia says its a stub. I may have a new account, but that doesn't mean I'm not experienced. Before I created this account, I used an ip for a year. Now I don't use the ip anymore. Please seriously consider what your are starting here. Cjdude12 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipeida says it's a stub because it's already tagged as such... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's was automated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdude12 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Cjdude12 - I've left a message on your talk page which I hope will explain the problem to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, Beyond My Ken. Cjdude12 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your response, but you are seriously not getting it, so I suggest you explain here why you are adding the plain vanilla "stub" tags to articles that already have "xxxxx-stub" on them, and why you are not understanding the good faith efforts of other editors to point this out to you as a mistake. This is either a WP:IDHT problem or a WP:CIR one, and your explanation here may be the factor that prevents you from getting blocked for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given this response to the explanation of what he was doing wrong I'm struggling for reasons not to go ahead and block per WP:CIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User has only added stub tags to pages without them since. Dru of Id (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

...and he wants confirmed status, and doesn't want a welcome message. I have declined the first, and provided the second as he's a little clueless here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And cluelessness continues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Ha ha ha very funny." does seem to be extraordinarily clueless. Not sure if this is CIR or carefully crafted trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Drop a CIR and troll bomb on them. They're clearly cruisin' for a bruisin'. Blackmane (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This user popped onto my talk page today to inform me that because I apparently created a page which I actually deleted I am therefore a sockpuppet [13]--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm teetering on giving an indef for CIR as we speak. The only thing holding me back is a lot of experienced admins are also involved here, and I would defer to their wisdom should they think it not a good idea, but this editor appears to lack the sufficient clue to avoid being an ongoing disruption. Perhaps they are just a kid and not sufficiently mature, perhaps they are not and have the same problem, but regardless of why, the problem seems clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban would be better. I agree with Dennis that the user is clearly both clueless AND ignorant, which is a problem. I am just not sure it's so severe to warrant an indef. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban for what, though? Adding stub tags? That seems to be sorted out, but overall I don't see the required WP:COMPETENCE. Dennis, feel free from my end to block away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the editor. Perhaps at some time in the future, they will be capable of being a contributing member of the community, but it is obvious to me that this isn't possible now, if ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Dolphin51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all honesty I can write the following:

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

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

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

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

request block review of WilliamJE

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

---

I have blocked WilliamJE (talk · contribs) for edit warring, violating the spirit of WP:3RR, and not resolving the dispute at {{Criminal due process‎‎}} in good faith. I welcome comments, insight, suggestions, and even other admins rescinding the block if it seems appropriate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed this? The user has requested unblocking. —EncMstr (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He actually has not requested unblocking ... although I have given him some advice if he does wish to amend it. Can you explain if you, the blocking admin, have actually been WP:INVOLVED with the article as per his claim? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block, not only edit warring, but showed a combative attitude and not listening when it suits him. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see—he flubbed the template.

Yes, I did comment on the talk page. There are two (edit summaries as diff links): WP:REDNOT: not just navigation; +2 good examples of navtemplates with redlinks, and WP:REDNOT: not OSE, but see WP:REDLINK, MOS:DAB, and WP:SETINDEX. —EncMstr (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty borderline involved. EncMstr made a couple of comments, but I wouldn't really consider it as being a full blown dispute like WilliamJE had with Savidan. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr, I can't really see that level of assistance as being involved. As per my decline of his unblock, I think it was also the right call (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the extra eyes and minds. —EncMstr (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. The "I agree with..." language might have been a bit unfortunate, but that's what it is - simple agreement, not WP:INVOLVEment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not good, per involved. If you felt a 3rr violation occurred should have filed at 3rr. Nobody Ent 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Except he wasn't involved. And there was no 3RR violation, but there was edit warring. Sometimes it seems that admins can't win - if you made so much as a peep in the subject before, you're "involved"; if you didn't, you're a "drive-by admin". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (Emphasis mine.) 3rr says: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. Nobody Ent 01:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, although not necessarily for 3RR. WilliamJE seems to have a battlefield mindset here, especially with the reversions against consensus on the REDNOT discussion. I did not see EncMstr as being involved. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As outlined above, EncMstr is clearly involved per WP policy as currently written. Given that policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive, if it is the community consensus that the fact pattern in this case does not constitute involved then the policy page should be updated to reflect that consensus. Nobody Ent 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As the admin has recently stated support for the opposing position as the user he blocked it is marginally involved yes - but he brought it here and it is marginally - and there is support for the block here - I don't think community support is against wp:involved so that it needs changing just there are limited occasions when minor involvement such as this level might occur - It should perhaps better be discussed on the policy talkpage - but I don't think there would be consensus in a RFC that this level of involvement would be allowed or written into policy as acceptable. Youreallycan 14:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

TopGun and DarknessShines

The thread got archived so, fyi, I'm going to close it there. Will be away from Wikipedia for a bit so if anyone objects and wants to undo it (with good reason!), go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't object to closing but don't think it should be done on archived thread, so I've unarchived it (below). Nobody Ent 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll notify both editors as well. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible outing and certain personal attacks on an AfD

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

---

PeterPiperPickles (talk · contribs)

The above user posted a rather bizarre screed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Bowyer. I'm not quite sure who they're addressing, but it smells strongly of WP:OUTING to me - can others take a look at it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks somewhere between that, a legal threat, or an actual threat to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Borderline outing threat, watching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor has retracted their remarks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin comment - This user came into IRC earlier. Xe claimed to be dyslexic, and accused all of the editors who had commented before of being socks of the same user. The conversation was a little confusing, to be honest, but the whole "they're after me" mentality of this user stood out clear. I wish I had logs, but I never log #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a disorder related to recognition of written characters and can cause people to read more slowly, but doesn't affect intelligence, mood, or behaviour. Blaming threatening behaviour or general craziness on dyslexia is no more valid than blaming it on tennis elbow or an ingrown toenail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Constant Harassment from Hong Kong IP Addresses

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

---

I am constantly being belittled and bashed on by Hong Kong IP addresses. The newest one is 220.246.155.179 and I have severe confidence that this is an editor possibly on this site attempting to go against WP:PERSONAL on me after an AN/I investigation I opened. I'm tired of being harassed by this changing IP and certain people on this site. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see one post to your talkpage recently, but nothing else ... can you provide links? I was willing to protect your talkpage, but with such little IP activity, it was hard to justify (and would have normally gone to WP:RFPP) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

They've done it beyond my talk page. They did it last time to my last AN/I thread and did nothing but bash me and belittle me. And do it on others talk pages. I'm tired of coming on here and having editors/IPs tell me what a horrible person and editor I am. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Sorta part of the game. What little harassment you've experienced is... nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I find that as unfair, especially when they suffered zero consequence last time. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody claimed it was fair. IPs get to harass you all they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't ever become an admin then. IP's and registered userid's get to bash, belittle, and tell you how horrible of an editor AND admin you are :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me, BWilkins! You're a horrible editor AND admin. Now hold still while I hit you with a braid of wet noodles... – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak7676, don't worry too much about comments like that. Even the best-behaved and diplomatic editors here end up ruffling someone's feathers. Chalk it up as vandalism by someone too cowardly to use their registered account, start a counter of 'number of times my talk page has been vandalised' and wear it like a trophy ;) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have proof that all of these IP addresses come from the same person? Farine (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ultimatedriver

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

---

This user has made many inappropriate articles after I gave him/her a final warning. See User talk:Ultimatedriver the plethora of warnings this user has received.
Diffs:
[14]-1st inappr. page after final warning
[15]-2nd inappr. page after final warning
[16]-3rd inappr. page after final warning

I think this justifies an immediate block. I will notify in a second Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I loathe when people come here and say "you should give him an immediate block", there have been so many inappropriate articles created by this editor, even after multiple warnings, I've given them an "it's about time you pay attention here" block. I'm AGF'ing that they are trying, but simply missing the definition of "notable" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty preachy about giving final warnings before you block someone when possible, but this is one of those cases where it does make sense, even if an "offlabel" block. Warnings don't cure deafness, and actions without negative consequences tend to get repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note that USAToday still calls it an "uprising".[17] I suppose it doesn't become a "civil war" until the other side has a reasonable chance of winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Restoration or "rollback" of material in The Beatles

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

---

Sorry to bother busy admins, however I need some outside input. I may well be wrong, overreacting, or both, however I am having an issue with User:DocKino at The Beatles. IMO, said user is inappropriately "rolling-back" sections of the article to one of their preferred versions, here or maybe here, without any prior discussion at the talk page or regard for the hours of work that had been put into the material since the last incarnation they endorsed. Disclosure: During my extensive copyedit of the article, I did in fact make many undiscussed deletions, however, to my knowledge no one ever reverted any of them of any substance, objected to or even discussed anything in that regard with me while I was devoting numerous hours copyediting the article. Indeed I have over 11,000 edits to my credit, over 1,000 at the Beatles article, and in 2.5 years only 47 total deleted edits. I would have been more than willing to discuss any of my edits, as they were occuring, however I do not think rolling them back months later, without any discussion is appropriate. Are these "restorations" of content or the use of "rollbacks" in a content dispute?

Examples:

• a sub rosa "rollback"
• another "rollback", with a potentially misleading edit summary
• another rollback, with a possibly deceptive edit summary
• rollback
• edit summary says restore, but seems more like a rollback to me
• a rollback with no edit summary
• rollback
• rollback
• rollback

I've omitted several examples that if taken alone, look like perfectly good content work, however, if you study the edits carefully, in their totality, you'll notice that 80-90% or more of the restored material is included nearly verbatim in either the FA version from nearly three years ago or this version from November 2011.

I've made numerous attempts to resolve issues with them at Talk:The Beatles, as well as at DocKino's talk page, to which I received no reply. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this content dispute belongs here. WP:ROLLBACK is a technical term at Wikipedia, and none of these changes is a rollback in that sense. In fact, DocKino doesn't have rollback rights. In the list of diffs above, the first two are dupes. Many of the first ones are quite old (some going back to April). There is a discussion on the Beatles Talk page. Continue it, and if it doesn't resolve to your satisfaction, proceed to the next steps (WP:DR). DocKino doesn't have to respond to you on his Talk page if he doesn't wish to, particularly in the case of article content where the Talk page is generally a better venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for a user to be blocked from editing African American page

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

---

Look at recent edits by the user "B-Machine". He strikes me as a person trying to push an agenda although due to the flying boomerang I am reluctant to use the word "racist" as I have in the past. Am I allowed to state that, as a person of European and Hispanic descent, I personally feel some of his comments to be racist and offensive, and that he seems to have a strongly anti-Hispanic, anti-European agenda? Just a small selection of his comments I have come across:

• He rants about how wikipedia shouldn't "honor white slaveowners": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930

• He also rants about how "white slaveowners raped white slaves" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779.

• "Africans have the most diverse DNA on the planet, which proves the black man is the original man and the black woman is the original woman." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgia_Bird&diff=454402069&oldid=454241724

• "The overwhelming majority of black people in the U.S. have no trace of Indian heritage at all. A few do, but most don't. All of that lightness is from white European men having their way with black African women. It could be a romanticization of our past, which is wrong because it attempts to rewrite our history since some Indian tribes had black slaves and treated them like shit"

• "AfricanAmericans don't really engage in interracial screwing" (even though there is huge scientific to the contrary)

• "jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black" (all those non-black performers of these music?).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_hop&diff=prev&oldid=470789940. In the article it stated "Hip-Hop originated from African-American and Hispanic roots", he edits out the "Hispanic" and puts in "SOLELY African-American", under the reasoning of "Sorry but it's true"

The above points are gleaned from just looking through a tiny section of his editing history, I'm sure there is much more stuff and probably much more serious stuff.

I could be wrong but he has a history of disruptive editing, lots of ANIs about him. I don't come on Wikipedia much and I am a beginner editor, so apologies if I've done something wrong here, I just worry this kind of hatred will worm its way onto WP. At best, I find him to have a highly non-NPOV. At worst, I truthfully find him highly offensive and racist, although perhaps B-machine doesn't mean it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Leaf Green Warrior, reading through the article talk pages and my experiences with your history at ANI makes it clear that your threshold for who and what is "racist" is quite low, as it is a term you have a habit of throwing around a bit too often and a bit too casually. You and B-machine both have quite fixed POVs, and I would suggest you simply take articles to WP:DRN. I don't see a need for a boomerang right now, but I do see two sides of the same coin with both of you often equally wrong just in different ways, which is why you need to go to dispute resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute. I haven't been on Wikipedia for many weeks. I dropped in and saw what I personally see as more racism from this user, hence this ANI. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I dunno, Leaf. I can understand your feathers getting ruffled by his comments, but they were on the talk page, not the article, and don't seem overtly uncivil. Just charged opinion statements, common in this type of article which require thick skin to edit. I'd suggest avoiding the term "racist", even if you believe it to be true, and use "non-NPOV" instead. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@LGW: So you just happen to be on User talk:Georgia Bird or are you following B-machine around? I'm trying to figure out why you are here, if there is some issue between you and he, or if you are just running to tell on him or what. I'm not inclined to go spank him for simply having an opinion that others disagree with, on talk pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is unfamiliar with some of the history here, I recommend, LGW, that you spend less time at ANI and more time contributing to articles. And if there are disagreements about content, focus on the content not the editors involved, even if you think they don't and no mattter how much of an "agenda" you think they have. Your diffs above are from late April, early May, which is about the time you were at ANI before, then you take a break, and come right back to ANI. This is not a help desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE can we stick to the central point here. Here is the central point: I feel the comments of the above user are racist and offensive to me personally. If the admin agrees, then please can action be taken against the user. If the admin does not agree then I respect your opinion but would be saddened that you do not share my view.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you are directly asking for Admin response, I (being a non-admin) will not comment further unless asked, other than to say that I think you are missing the point here. No one, admin or not, is in a position to agree/disagree what personally offends you. The question is what are they (admins) going to do about it? Probably nothing and close this as pointless discussion. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We are sticking to the point, just not necessarily the way you wish us to. I don't know who "the admin" is, but the consensus is that this topic doesn't belong here. Most of the stuff you complain of is back-and-forth on Talk pages and doesn't warrant sanctions. Your diff about the Hip hop article is from January 2012 and B-machine's change has long since been removed. I'll give you another opportunity to respond and then I'll close this unless someone beats me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"the consensus is that this topic doesn't belong here" I see. Where do you suggest that I complain about this, and where can I request that this user be banned for these comments (which, in my opinion, are racist and highly offensive)? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere. You don't have enough to propose, let alone impose, a topic ban (I can't imagine you mean a total ban). You need to continue to work on the articles and work with the editors who also work on the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how liberal Wikipedia admins are with total bans, but I would personally hope for a total ban for this user (at least for a period of time). As stated, I personally find comments made by this user to be offensive and racist, and I don't believe a total ban is out of the question. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for a user to be blocked from editing African American page

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

---

Trying this again as the admin who closed my last one refused to answer why he closed it, telling me to, I quote, "go away". Politely request that the admin (Bbb23) in question stays away from this ANI as he seems unable to grasp it

Look at recent edits by the user "B-Machine". He strikes me as a person trying to push an agenda although due to the flying boomerang I am reluctant to use the word "racist" as I have in the past. Am I allowed to state that, as a person of European and Hispanic descent, I personally feel some of his comments to be racist and offensive, and that he seems to have a strongly anti-Hispanic, anti-European agenda? Just a small selection of his comments I have come across:

• He rants about how wikipedia shouldn't "honor white slaveowners": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930

• He also rants about how "white slaveowners raped white slaves" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779.

• "Africans have the most diverse DNA on the planet, which proves the black man is the original man and the black woman is the original woman." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgia_Bird&diff=454402069&oldid=454241724

• "The overwhelming majority of black people in the U.S. have no trace of Indian heritage at all. A few do, but most don't. All of that lightness is from white European men having their way with black African women. It could be a romanticization of our past, which is wrong because it attempts to rewrite our history since some Indian tribes had black slaves and treated them like shit"

• "AfricanAmericans don't really engage in interracial screwing" (even though there is huge scientific to the contrary)

• "jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black" (all those non-black performers of these music?).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_hop&diff=prev&oldid=470789940. In the article it stated "Hip-Hop originated from African-American and Hispanic roots", he edits out the "Hispanic" and puts in "SOLELY African-American", under the reasoning of "Sorry but it's true"

The above points are gleaned from just looking through a tiny section of his editing history, I'm sure there is much more stuff and probably much more serious stuff.

I could be wrong but he has a history of disruptive editing, lots of ANIs about him. I don't come on Wikipedia much and I am a beginner editor, so apologies if I've done something wrong here, I just worry this kind of hatred will worm its way onto WP. At best, I find him to have a highly non-NPOV. At worst, I truthfully find him highly offensive and racist, although perhaps B-machine doesn't mean it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I considered reverting this, but that wouldn't afford me the opportunity to request that LGW be sanctioned. Please see discussion on my Talk page. Apparently, LGW is unable/unwilling to contribute in a productive manner. BTW, LGW, I am not an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to discuss the topic then please refrain from posting in this ANI. If you have unrelated things you would like to say, then my talk page is open. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In summary, I feel offended by this user and personally believe many of the comments he made to be racist. If an admin agrees with this then please can action be taken against the user, such as a total ban or a topic ban. If an admin disagrees with this then I respect your opinion on the matter. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the quote of Bbb23 you made is from his personal Talk page, he did, in fact, answer you above with "OP advised to spend more time contributing to articles not to ANI". This is not a flowchart where you say "this guy is racist" and someone is required to answer "yes, he is racist" or "no, he isn't". A valid response to you might be, "Why do you keep saying this guy is racist?" or "What actions have you taken leading up to this?"

Considering that you have called someone racist more times in two months than I have in 2 years, you might be well-served by a little introspection into what racist is and is not. -- Avanu (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why do you keep saying this guy is racist?" see the examples given in my original post above for reasons why I personally feel offended by these (in my opinion) racist comments. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please stay on topic. Are the edits made by this editor racist? If so, I request sanctions be taken against him. Thank you. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Starkiller88

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

---

Moved from WQA

 – Nobody Ent 18:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Following a long series of trolling/vandalism by Starkiller88, he was finally blocked and banned indefinitely. He pleaded to the administrators for another chance and was allowed to continue editing, but to abstain from certain topics. Since then, he has started a harrassment campaign on my talk page and introduced false information in my user page: [18]. His messages range from pleads to "redemption" [19], claims a compulsion to vandalize [20], and lately, blaming me for infecting his computer with a computer virus/trojan [21]. Today he escalated with personal attacks: [22], [23]. He also does edits under IP numbers starting with 115. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this from WQA as I believe admin action is appropriate. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:Starkiller88 Nobody Ent 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've indef blocked him since the last indef block appears to not have been long enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• • If he really was topic banned he clearly went straight back to editing about the Russian space programme and I can't see what else he would have been topic banned from as his previous disruption was Phobos Grunt related. Secretlondon (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

I received this [24] message on my talk regarding Abhay Kumar because I had previously reverted vandalism on that article via Huggle. But when I started looking at the talk pages of the suspected vandals, I found this threat[25] by the editor who originally requested my assistance. "I've called the police on you," sure looks like a legal threat to me. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Morgan Katarn

I've been casually monitoring the behavior of Morgan Katarn (talk · contribs) and I feel that his attitude as an editor is so disruptive he is a major detriment to the encyclopedia. He appears to lack basic competence as an editor - he is a native German speaker, and in English repeatedly makes serious grammatical errors [26] [27] (and often edit wars to maintain them [28] ). Other common editing patterns include adding trivial or non-notable information to articles [29] , original research [30] [31] , etc. He seems to have a fundemental misunderstanding of things like sourcing [32].

He has a significant pattern of edit warrings to maintain his poor-quality edits. You can just search his contributions for the word "reverted", but here is a recent example [33] .

He has a habit of threatening other users who try to revert his poor quality edits, and even inappropriately report them as vandals [34] . He also commits personal attacks [35] [36].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support I was originally going to oppose per the three reasonable conditions listed above. Then I looked a little further and could see that his behavior has been consistently disruptive and uncivil. This [37] is an example of removing a BLP Prod tag. Later, he introduces the subject's own website as a "reliable" source and then reacts with hostility when it is removed [38]. An old revision of his talk page at sections June 2012 and June 2012 (2), shows: several recent warnings (disruptive behavior, personal attacks, and edit warring), a recent block, and one of his responses where he refers to another editor as a "retard". This seems to be a purely disruptive account. Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bans are very long time disruptive editors. Don't see along time pattern here. Disruptive in some cases, but not a long time pattern that would require a ban.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of my actions at Bus monitor bullying video

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

---

I've recently revdel'd some content on this article as it revealed the names of the minor's involved and ask that someone double checks my actions seeing as how it;s been questioned on the talk page. As I stated at my RfA I'm not very strong on BLP and only come across this as the article due to it being mentioned at Greece Athena High School, an article I had watchlisted for copyright reasons.

I also suspect that this article may generally need more eyes. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved this to WP:BLPN which is a better venue. That is all they do there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly redirecting and self-reverting article without explanation

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

---

Resolved

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

I am seeking opinions on unusual behavior by Breezo057 (talk · contribs). I noticed through Recent Changes that a redirect of Nightclub (album) had been made to WWE. When I looked at the revision history I noticed that the same editor has been redirecting and subsequently self-reverting the same article for weeks. I asked him on his talk page [39] why he is doing this. I have not received a reply (and he has made the redirect again since I left the message [40], [41]). I also noticed on his talk page that he has written "Welcome to my official talk page, maintained by Puppy Love Entertainment" [42] at the top. So it appears the account has commercial interests: the article states in the intro [43] that the executive producer of the album and founder of Puppy Love Entertainment is Darrion Brown. Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you please explain me then why they talk that way when it comes to announce their orders: "Airbus had a record order intake of 1,608 (1,419 net) commercial aircraft, worth US$169 billion gross (US$140 billion net) at list prices"[44]. Yes, we've discussed this before and you still keep bringing revenue. This information has nothing to do with their revenue or the real prices they sell their airplanes for. This information is the value of their orders at their list prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want more proof "OSLO, Norway, Jan. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Norwegian have announced a firm order for 100 fuel-efficient 737 MAX airplanes and 22 Next-Generation 737-800s. The total order is valued at $11.4 billion at list prices and represents the largest-ever Boeing order from a European airline".[45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator EncMstr

EncMstr (talk · contribs)

First off EncMstr blocked me giving one of his reasons as 'violating the spirit of WP:3RR' when the record[47] and the comments of administrators here[48] and here at least said no 3RR occurred.

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

Now as for the violation of WP:INVOLVED. EncMstr made two contributions to the thread I am accused of edit warring over, one of which can't be called anything less than substantial. Only 5 editors were involved in the thread prior to my block[49], one of the five for just one edit, including EncMstr.

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

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

One administrator concurred on that.[50] Many more didn't. 3RR is very clear cut, this editor and I were on opposite sides of the discussion, and he should known Involved too and he blocked before coming to a board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I concur with The Bushranger - I understand your frustration and the feeling that you have to continue to press your point, but from my own personal experience on Wiki, I would encourage you to drop the matter. If you continue down this path, you will get blocked. Even if you are totally correct in your assessments, Wiki is guided by consensus, and if you are on the short side of the stick of the discussion, the best thing to do is tell yourself that this is not worth getting blocked over. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think I can add much more than I already did on the OP's talkpage. We don't expand or contract the meaning of WP:INVOLVED - we can ask for clarification. The blocking admin DID ask, and was found to have not contravened that policy. Point final. I don't think I've ever worked alongside the blocking admin, so this is certainly not a circling of the wagons. Drop the stick, back away from the ground-to-a-bloody-pulp carcass, and go and be a good editor. When you get valid interpretation of a policy from third party neutral people, accept it (even if you don't agree with it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nangparbat

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

---

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

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

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

Copyright infringement

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

---

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarred Land

Re-posting in light of most recent disruptions [51], [52], [53], [54]. AfD has already been discussed here, with numerous blocks of sock or meatpuppet accounts. Puerile campaign of intimidation continuing, with harassment of editor and attempts to pressure into changing or deleting comments, accusations of libel, etc. We went through the same crap at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

User:Studyukraine

The user Studyukraine has been making some edits which appear to be promotional in nature. Here is an example: [55] Here is another example: [56] This user has received a number of warnings on their talk page already. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:CoolKoon

There is a serious problem here, personal attacks from CoolKoon [57]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you were Arbmac'd from all Serbia history topics the other day [58] somebody gave you the good advice that "brevity is a virtue, and [...] admins don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count". Maybe you should take that to heart. (CoolKoon too.) Other than that, the answers to your questions are already in my earlier posting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed restrictions for User:Crzyclarks

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

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

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

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

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per [59] --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I honestly wonder if even 6 months is enough considering how the user in question acts. >_> --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the only way the editor is not going to end up indef blocked, which is where my finger has been hovering for much of today - the two further warnings on their talk page have been ignored. Black Kite (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as one last chance for an editor who refuses to listen - though I expect it will only delay their indef block by 6 months. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Am I allowed to do that lol? If it wasn't for the lack of neutrality in some of the edits I was reverting, I wouldn't be editing these articles as I have no interest in them. I think it would be best to look at the content of my edits and decide if I am biased when it comes to these articles. I was reverting one editor that caused this block discussion which doesn't seem right. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well in that case, if you don't have any interest in those topics, a ban from them won't be a problem for you. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If the topics had more neutral editors it wouldn't be a problem. Again, if you compare what I was reverting or adding, I think it's pretty obvious. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

African National Congress - Legal threat

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

---

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

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

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

Legal threat on User talk:Ben Ben

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nangparbat

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

---

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

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

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

Disruption at user:Leontopodium alpinum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of Intent to commit Sockpuppetry

Troll

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