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

Orlady

I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Wikipedia consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Wikipedia:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Wikipedia, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [1]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [2] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this case appears to star an inbound WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

• Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
• Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.

• Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I know this makes my position unique in a place bristling with admins. Orlady acknowledges that the topic has very little traffic and Gregbard is contributing to it. I suggest that the allegations of damage to the project be examined in detail, and an AN/I is not the place for that, as that would involve examination of content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been looking at this and I see an awful lot of heat having been generated, and I think that is not the best condition for deciding on topic bans. Gregbard has reacted emotionally to what has been happening, but "striking while the iron is hot" should not be the way we work here. With the consensus on article content being the way it is, I don't see any pressing need for a ban right now, so I think we'd be better to let things cool and let emotions subside - we can see how things develop once everyone has settled down again, and if any problem persists we can reconsider the issue with cooler heads all round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. This thread is too much to read, but Greg, it seems you believe you're right about something, can't gain consensus and it has upset you a lot. My suggestion is that you drop the subject for at least one month, then return to it with a series of article RfCs or requested-move discussions, or whatever is appropriate. But first you have to let the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Racing straight get the lynchin' rope again, obviously. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose --doncram 00:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. I think this sanction (applying to talk pages) is too severe, even so, but I wouldn't object to an indefinite ban on posts in other than talk pages where there is a consensus which he has agreed not to abide by. (A preposition is something one should never end a sentence with.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What statement of mine are you interpreting as "specifically agree[ing] 'not' to abide by consensus?" Greg Bard (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion to above

• Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:

• a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:

1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What he said. Also accusing people of being bullies doesn't help your case; 'I will immediately appeal' and 'Don't waste your time' are not words that help your position, either. The fact of the matter here, Greg, is that after reviewing your claim here - which you continue to insist is correct without even the slightest possibility of your being mistaken, despite everyone else contending you are, being considered - it is entirely without basis. If you make a claim that cannot be verified, such as 'county governments are agencies of state governments', and then personally attack people who call you on it while continuing in the aforementioned 'I'm right because I'm right' behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people start wondering if you're a net positive to the project. Your "huge contribution" matters not if you refuse to follow policies that are in the Five Pillars in your editing. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, accept that you are in the wrong, have some seafood, and move on - if you continue as you have been above, a topic ban is inevitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wise words, those are. Heed them, you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Wikipedia as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• comment Does it make any difference that Gredbard just so happens to be right? County government is an extension of the state government. Or does that matter? Just to use a bit of extreme hyperbole, I probably could find, if I tried hard enough, consensus that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Yet we all know the sun doesn't rise or set. The earth spins. It is simply our perception that leads us to believe the sun rises and sets. Same goes for county government. We perceive it one way, but in actuality it is an extension of state government in every state I know of.Redddbaron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, when it goes this far it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If someone can point to an easily available reference where it can easily be seen that a particular side in a dispute is correct, then of course the community would prefer that right triumph. However, it is clear that this matter cannot be so readily resolved, and the collaborative approach would be to say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I know that in due course it will be seen that I'm right, but I see that consensus is against me, so I'll drop the whole matter." Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm Easily available reference? You mean a simple easy reputable source that says plainly, "When our national government was formed, the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state."-National Association of Counties; Something like that? Takes about 30 seconds to find references like that. I seriously don't understand this big blow-up. Maybe the issue has nothing to do with the wiki pages at all. Maybe the big whole thing is about personalities instead? I mean it is pretty obvious that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." You think GregBard forgot that wisdom and over reacted himself, so that the two of them together kept tensions increasing as each one over-reacted to the other? It's pretty clear to me that Greg wasn't actually rude, just dismissive ie... scornful of the ignorance on such a simple and obvious mistake that any first year student of civics should know. A reaction most anyone might have. Using my previous example of rising sun and setting sun. If an editor actually did try to make a consensus that the sun rotates around the earth rising in the east and setting in the west, it would be a very likely reaction by any educated person in science to be dismissive and just change it back. Editors do that all the time on many wiki pages. They have to. But some people would take offence to that when no offense or rudeness was intended. Just fixing a silly mistake. Why exactly has wiki allowed this to escalate this far in the first place? Just find a wiki admin to change it to what Greg said. He is right. And then take the time to explain it in a way that is not scornful, so the "consensus coalition" don't go crazy getting "revenge" for perceived insults.68.229.213.209 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I forgot to log in so the signature is an IP Redddbaron (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not quite so easy as you portray - the very next paragraph of that reference you cited discusses how local governments have since changed to being heavily autonomous. I don't think any of this is about personalities at all. For me, I simply can't see how GregBard's argument is supported by any of the references he provides (and I've examined every single one of them). I'm more than willing to be persuaded on the basis of factual accuracy, but so far everything I have been shown supports the consensus position. Manning (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I can support the idea of restricting Gregbard to talk pages on the topic of government for a short period, to try to encourage an approach more closely aligned with our consensus ethos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, no, I think any sanction would only make things worse at this point, and I see no likelihood of damage to the project - we need voluntary disengagement for a little while. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I oppose any action without evidence that he has and that he would continue to do damage to the project. It is regardless of his behaviour here, such as calling those who are critical of him "shameless" ashamed of themselves, he may do well to strike that out, as it is only making his case worse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I hope he steps away from this for a few weeks, but by persuasion not force. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is not an area I'm very familiar with. However, my understanding is that there is a difference between being a state agency and being under the authority of the state. Per Dillon's Rule, local government is under the authority of the state and doesn't have the same federalism protection which states have from the federal government, but that doesn't mean local government is a state agency (and some jurisdictions may not follow Dillon's Rule, but rather Cooley's Rule). Whether or not a county is a "local government" is a semantic question which probably hasn't been worth answering in most cases, but generally my impression is that country government is thought of as local government. In any case, generalizing about the law of United States is quite difficult and should be done very carefully. Orlady has shown in User:Orlady/County_by_state that the sources Gregbard is bringing really aren't up for it. In the case of Colorado, it does appear that If Gregbard used law review articles or perhaps textbooks, maybe you could start to describe the situation: a start might be looking at sources which cite Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government or perhaps getting access to Conducting Research on Counties in the 21st Century: A New Agenda and Database Considerations or County Governments: “Forgotten” Subjects in Local Government Courses?. As a further comment, think about the word 'agency' and consider the law of agency. State agencies are literally agents of the state, whose principal is the state's governor (and ultimately, the state's population) and a legislature which represents the state as a whole. On the other hand, counties typically have their own elections on a regional basis. II | (t - c) 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Still too severe a result for an early report of problematic behavior. For the record, @Gregbard: Counties are not agencies of state government, they are independent administrative divisions of state territories. Each county has its own charter and bylaws. County administrative structure varies from place to place. Counties are subject to state law. This is all axiomatic; do not attempt a novel reinterpretation of reality, if this is what you are doing. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The relationship between county and states is not a "Paris is in france" kind of thing and best determined by reliable sources, not assumption, and may, in fact, vary from state to state. NE Ent 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. --doncram 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

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

---

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Wikipedia's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Wikipedia community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Wikipedia grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.

'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.

PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Wikipedia works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to the admin abuse claim

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

• I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.

I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)

As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Wikipedia consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.

The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.

• The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.

Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?

The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.

I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Wikipedia. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Wikipedia consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.

As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Wikipedia because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.

People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.

We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.

When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.

The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Wikipedia, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page [3] after being requested not to [4]. That "defer" diff [5]? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Wikipedia:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of potential additional relevance

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

My recommendation and final comments

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Wikipedia equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Wikipedia does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.

OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.

Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.

An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.

So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.

So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. That statement isn't an example of maturity (I mean they have 70000 edits and have been around for 7 years.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You take an authoritarian theory of maturity that no reasonable and decent person should ever take, and certainly not an administrator. I have every right to bring attention to this issue. The proposal is to ban me for three months because I told someone their comments "weren't helpful" and "won't respect a consensus" that is barely three days old. This all came without warning, and since the insane proposal to ban me, I haven't edited anything due to this hostile and abusive environment. I obviously take the issue more seriously than the people who were trusted with the power to determine the outcome of the issue. Rolling over and dying rather than defending ones self is not the measure of maturity. Greg Bard (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:DIVA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg Bard the proposal for ban is because it is perceived by the community that your edits to the topics under the scope of the ban aren't constructive. It isn't for your comments. Threats of taking action in "real life" against perceived wrongs done on Wikipedia does look less than mature to me. I've seen that said by new editors, I am surprised that it comes from someone 70k edits old. I think you ought to strike out the "names'" you've called editors here and promise to let other editors to judge your contributions to the said topic. You've to trust the Wikipedia process of consensus building, if your idea is good then its day would come. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

GregBard's incivility

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

---

DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Wikipedia, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:

I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.

And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.

I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.

I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.

I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:

• This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Wikipedia, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
• The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which [User:Acdixon] also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment (2nd warning)

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

---

I have already raised the issue of bullying here once before. I haven't done anything for the past three days other than defend myself. So calls for me to "knock it off" cannot reasonably be associated with any issues of which I was originally accused (and which I continue to maintain my innocence). I have had several admins post to my talk page with the presumption of trying to teach me a lesson. If admins want to ask me sincere questions about why I think this attack on my user privileges is unwarranted, then I invite your correspondence. However, this is a second warning to stop harassing me and intimidating me from defending myself. I will interpret any further such attempts as harassment, and I am conspicuously and publicly informing the community that I will interpret it as harassment. I realize that the Wikimedia Board of Directors does not have direct control over whether or not admins harass me. However they do have control over creating and sustaining a hostile environment that allows and encourages such harassment. I have not violated any policy, and I do not intend to. Drop and withdraw the proposal to sanction me in any way and leave me in peace immediately. Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice: stop defending yourself and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your demand above essentially boils down to "I will edit in whatever manner I choose, and the community MUST leave me alone". Sorry, that will NEVER happen. Extensive text above indicates several admins (including myself) feel quite strongly that you HAVE violated a great number of policies. (See earlier discussion, I'm not going to re-list them all). Let me be clear: I will NOT drop the proposal I have made. It was made in my best judgment and it was created for other admins to review and consider. If anything, your conduct since I made the proposal has strengthened my (initially hesitant) resolve. No harassment has occurred. We have made numerous attempts to engage with you in a constructive fashion, all of which have been met with your histrionics eg. [6]. You have repeatedly characterised this as "bullying", which is baseless.

Your numerous threats to engage in wholesale disruption in order to get your own way are forcing us collectively into a course I genuinely did not wish to be on. I have already stated I will not take any punitive action against you, lest you take the opinion that this is a personal conflict between you and I. But unless there is a substantial change in your tactics, sooner or later the admin body will be forced to respond. Manning (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not constructive at all. It should be obvious by now that engaging Gregbard in an authoritarian manner is not going to "work" if the goal is to actually keep him as an active editor, and miscasting his statement isn't helpful either. NE Ent 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except, I don't see that at all in Manning's response. He's simply presenting his prediction of future events, and laying them out for Greg to see and understand. I actually find your comments, NE Ent, unhelpful and quite frankly, interfering with the discussion. Greg has to be told what's going to happen if he continues down this path. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ne Ent - In general I would fully agree with your dissent on authoritarianism. However all other methods on interaction have been tried and failed, as far as I can tell. If you have a better approach for getting GregBard to accept the apparent consensus and conform to community practices, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. Manning (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

This is a formal written complaint against User:Viriditas for a willful act of harassment, not more than few hours after a second warning to cease and desist from such behavior. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is of course written, but it's hardly formal (or persuasive) without a diff. Precisely what are you complaining about? -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hoary - The complaint is about this pair of posts.

The key phrase in the Harassment policy is "repeated". A scan of your talk page history indicates User:Viriditas has never contacted you previously. Viriditas has made a total of two posts, the second only to clarify the intent of the first. Hence no harassment has occurred. I also note you have failed to leave a notification on User_talk:Viriditas, as the AN/I policy clearly states (and which would have been visible when you composed your post).

Unfortunately your "warning" has no meaning or substance within the Wikipedia framework - you have effectively demanded that the entire community leave you alone to edit in any manner you see fit. As stated above, this will never happen. Manning (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, please drop it. This complaint isn't productive. Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:johncheverly

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Wikipedia talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Wikipedia does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" [7], rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", [8] and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Wikipedia talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later [9]. This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Wikipedia is not censored [edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Wikipedia:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Wikipedia

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The attacks on a subject of a Wikipedia article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well. John was just here a few weeks ago for incivility and disruptive edits. Whereas he can be given leeway with respect to those issues as he intends to improve, we cannot countenance ongoing BLP violations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He told me that he is done and wants his up and whatnot deleted. May as well indef block to enforce it. Go Phightins! 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in indeffing him if he has no intent to return, or even if he does return. We aren't even proposing a community ban, just editing restrictions, such as a topic ban, logged at WP:RESTRICT. If he really wants to leave the community there's nothing we can do to stop him though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If he'd really still like to draft up "a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case" (preferably in his own sandbox first), I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see it, as would all the guys (and gels) down in the dark woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mendaliv, if you would rather simply topic ban him at BLP, that would be fine too, but he has a history of questionable conduct no matter where he is. He notified me via email in no uncertain terms that he is fed up with Wikipedia, so at this point, I agree, it doesn't so much matter what we do. He's adamant that he's done. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people might call that a result. If only all interventions were as productive? I'd have nothing against him if he calmed down a bit and followed policy - editors can hold "unusual views" about justice if they wish to. But, since he started as an editor, how many main space edits has he made that could be considered "useful"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate his enthusiasm but in addition to policy he needs to listen to what other edits are saying. Martin, and other editors, asked him not to paste entire news articles into talk pages and to not spam other pages loosely related to the subject but he still continued to do so, including to my own talk page. Working with other editors to work towards consensus is really what wikipedia is all about and it seems that john is so passionate and got so excited that he disregarded that. It's hard to have a conversation about a subject when you have to scroll through long walls of text and several subsections all about the same subject.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. We need more enthusiastic editors, but that enthusiasm must be tempered. I understand that you've tried to mentor him, Go Phightins!, which is in part why I think an indef block-cum-community ban is inappropriate: I'd rather not see someone in whom other members of the community see potential sent packing because of a couple, or even a handful of incidents of butting heads. If we were so inflexible with our standards, there would be little doubt as to the fate of many other individuals on this page. :-) But BLPs and articles on high profile scandals are a big deal. So that's why I support a topic ban. But if John is actually gone, well, this all seems kind of moot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note that he has only been "gone" for two days, and nothing stops him from coming back the moment this is archived. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

“ The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion? ”

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" [10]. Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon ^talk 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Wikipedia isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Wikipedia would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified."[11] Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[12]. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Wikipedia reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Wikipedia, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor [13] and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP: SNOW Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productiv editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Please carefully read posts before commenting on them. I understand that the word "oppose" can appear similar to the word "close", but close was not said anywhere in my comment. However, I want this discussion to remain WP: CIVIL and without any WP: BATTLEGROUND actions. Therefore, do hope that you enjoy the cup of tea that I sent you. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that; distinction without a difference. You wrongly cited a WP page that has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever, and quite frankly your "explanation" makes it appear even more unwise. Your input into this matter thus far has been a resounding net negative. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Wikipedia editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, [14]; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• RFC and Categorization freeze — With an attempt to diffuse Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists blocked by community consensus, several editors are trying to create new categories. As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. The details of the categorization scheme to be applied, and which categories are diffusing or are not diffusing is not a matter for AN/I. However, we have some very active categorizers who can't seem to wait for consensus. This Incident appears to be an attempt to ask them to desist. I would suggest that (1) we have this conversation as a RFC on Category talk:American novelists; (2) preliminary conversation on the possible options begin immediately at Category talk:American novelists#Preparing an RFC; (3) No new categories should be created as subcategories of American novelists, and no members of Category talk:American novelists should be removed from the root category, until that discussion is complete; (4) (and here I lack an understanding of protocol for whether I may suggest this; I've edited in Wikipedia arenas where this kind of intervention is more common and hope I'm not overstepping boundaries:) An administrator formally warns all involved editors to not violate step 3, under penalty of a topic ban from American novelists.--Carwil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you should, or even could with any degree of efficacy, bar people from creating new categories that are sub-categories of American novelists. You are right that ANI isn't for policy discussion and that is because you often can't get meaningful community involvement. Likewise we shouldn't impose such substantive restrictions because a handful of people complain at ANI. Most in the CfD only objected to the consequence of a parent category becoming an all-male category due to a gender-specific sub-cat being created just for women, not the idea of gender-specific cats as a whole, or sub-cats in general. It is wikilawyering to take a literal reading of the admin's close as representative of the community position and then accuse people of going against consensus when they pursue a compromise that honors the community's actual concerns just because it seems to go against the literal reading of the admin's closing comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Are you seriously complaining about the fact that I created American western novelists and American adventure novelists cats? Silverseren^C 05:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists." There has never been an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. Why do people not understand that? The full list of American novelists was NEVER Category:American novelists, any more than we would expect Category:American writers to have a full list of writers or Category:American politicians to have a full list of politicians. The *only* way to get all of them today is recursive enumeration, which, surprise surprise, is now available as a link at the top of Category:American novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TDA, this is not about "winning" or just expanding the Admin's closing into some general law. It's about a pattern of pointless escalation. A subgcategory (Category:American women novelists) is critiqued in the media and brought to CfD, where it fails. Meanwhile, editors create new categories (like Category:American humor novelists, Category:American realism novelists) representing not so-clearly-delineated sets of novelts. Some are brought to CfD. Meanwhile, editors create new categories dividing American novelists by century. This all happens in less than two weeks, while there is vigorous debate about each, and some editors (not necessarily me) are vocally advocating a large root category. Now, these subcats may or may not be the right choice (I tend to think that they fail WP:DEFINING), but they are being rushed into, despite active conversations. What makes this relevant to AN/I is that there's way too much bold and absolutely no willingness to wait for discuss before going on to the next scheme. While active conversations are going on, we have over-eager categorizers moving hundreds of articles. If they would slow down voluntarily, that would also be lovely.

Seren, I'm inviting you to join the discussion. There are multiple ways to divide this category, some of which will diffuse everyone. Some of them involve lots of non-defining characteristics ("satire novelists," "realist novelists," imho) that won't fully diffuse the category anyway. If the scheme leaves behind a residue of novelists in Category:American novelists it will be interpreted by the world as "the real American novelists." That's the tricky problem for us to solve, and it requires discussion. I assume that your new cats, as well as JPL's and Obi-wan's are all in good faith, but the issue has been raised by many and should be discussed before we continue our editing.

Obi-wan, I know that from the experienced editor POV, Category:American novelists does not equate to Complete list of real American novelists. However, this controversy demonstrates very very clearly that (1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list. If the question is, who are you gonna believe, me or the next random reader who sees/reads about the page, the answer that should guide our development of the site is the random reader. Many people have told you this; stop saying, "I didn't hear that." Also, I think recursive enumeration could be a lovely solution, if we avoid the "residue of real novelists" problem, or explicitly disclaim the idea that the list is the list of all American novelists in providing the link. But again, that's what the RFC is for. Please be willing to put some of the energy you have for editing into crafting a consensus everyone is happy with.--Carwil (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about "winning"? I sure didn't. No one in the media was criticizing sub-categories in general so I don't see how it is escalation to create them so editors can move men and women out of the parent category and into those sub-categories. Editors are trying to boldly resolve the dispute in a way that should satisfy everyone's concerns. So far no one has given a substantive objection to the creation of these sub-categories or their replacement with the parent category on articles. It is basically invoking a misrepresented CfD or complaining about how it makes us look. Should the editors doing that recategorization actualize their intent then it will basically look to outsiders like editors responded to the controversy by pursuing a course of action with categorization that did not emphasize gender and I doubt many who commented in the CfD will see a problem with the result either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering" = adversarial use of wiki policies; thus my reference to "winning." | I think there's a productive conversation going on right now. Maybe it will result in subcategories that empty AmN's; maybe there will be some other solution.--Carwil (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carwil, You said "(1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list". Which is this "public" you are talking about - I assume the general population of people who come to the website? If so, is that "public" also interested in a all-inclusive list of British novelists? And Canadian novelists too? Did you ask them? Or does this public *only* care about American novelists - not journalists, non-fiction writers, chefs, politicians, or any other job under the sun - just this _one_ category, which is more special than ALL the rest. What do you think? Personally, I think consistency is the most important thing - so if we need to create a template that we stick ontop of EVERY CATEGORY that says "the articles below do not represent the complete set of XXX, if you want such a link, please click here", I'm totally fine with that. If Jimmy Wales will stand up and say "media wiki category display does not recursively enumerate categories", that is fine too. If you want to pressure WMF to develop an option to recursively display all sub-cat members on any given category page, FINE - do that. And finally, if you want to say "For certain categories, we don't want them to diffuse, like Category:Presidents of the United States - that is also fine with me. But none of those things have been proposed, and no-one is talking about generic solutions - they are still focused on one special snowflake category - instead of spending time de-ghettoizing, which is what we all should be doing instead of this discussion. Any appeals to "users" should fall on deaf ears if you're not talking about addressing issues in a generic fashion, and not just for this one special cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Obiwankenobi per this edit. There is too much WP:IDHT going on. Set up an RFC and confirm that your position has consensus, or stop disrupting articles in this fashion when that consensus is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The outcome of the original CFD was not as sweeping as some seem to be assuming and it would be wrong to try to enforce anything but the actual close relating to the speciic category. A proper informed discussion is needed for the tree, not a confused mess where people are contributing without understanding what the arrangements and status quo antes are. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• comment I have already stated that I will not be further diffusing the bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women's novelists bios. I think, as Tim states, extending the definition of consensus wildly beyond the original CFD, and then punishing me for violating it, is not very fair. I also note that ~300 bios were diffused out of American novelists in the past few days, and I was not responsible for at least 299 of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren^C 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren^C 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren^C 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88 opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

consensus is as consensus does. Today, there are over 3000 novelists not in the main cat. Thus up till now, consensus has been pretty clear that diffusion is aok. You've made assertions but have not backed them up. Can you point me to the rfc or other dicsussion that says diffusion - for novelists, or for anyone else - is now not allowed? If you like, start one - but then, i dont see a consensus against diffusion of this or any other cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only diffusing men and I am not diffusing them into the American male novelists category (which may be deleted soon, from the CfD). So, basically, I am diffusing them the same exact way we have always done, via century and genre. And there is most certainly no current consensus against doing that. So, in short, no. Silverseren^C 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful way to determine whether or not to diffuse could be determined by this: is there literature discussing this diffusion? If there are books discussing as a topic American female novelists, by all means we should have a topic on that. If literature discusses American male novelists as American male novelists, then we should have one also. Sometimes literature about a topic puts more emphasis on one gender, and not another, and naturally Wikipedia would go by this. For instance "female incarceration" is treated as a special phenomenon. Most prisons house men and most prisoners are male, and so female prisons and prisoners are treated specially. Therefore I created the article incarceration of women. On this topic it is 100% acceptable to make a "women prisoners" category and devolve women to that category, and not devolve men as male prisoners. But this may not be the same for all topics. Examine the literature and see how it treats gender. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So a decision was reached as a result of wide discussion - "The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature" and this is interpreted to mean that "Category:American novelists" should be "diffused", ie emptied out so that there is nothing in it. I doubt that a single person who supported merging "Category:American women novelists" with ""Category:American novelists" had that in their mind, but the editors who deal with categories just insist that they are going to do what they want, because they understand the system and others do not. This is a ridiculous mess.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smeat75. there are basically 2 interpretations I can see:

1) all women novelists should always be in American novelists. fine, but this is mum on the men. If men can be diffused, the eventual result is, only women in American novelists - thus absurd. If men can't be diffused, the result is, every single novelist should be in american novelists, meaning, bubble up not only American women novelists, but every single other sub-cat which has been diffused for years. this is also an absurd result from a ruling on a single category.

2) All women novelists should always be in American novelists *OR* a non-gendered sub-cat. This is much more in line with the rest of the tree, everywhere in the wiki, and that's the interpretation some of us have been following.

Note: no-one, anywhere in the CfD, ever challenged the general notion of diffusion - just the idea of diffusing only based on gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said above is that gender should be diffused based on the distinctions between gender made in literature. Study the literature about American novelists to see how the literature diffuses men and women. For instance, in articles about prisons, the subject of women is diffused from the general body, while the subject of men is not diffused, because men are the default in the prison systems in various countries (in terms of prisoners and guards). "Incarceration of women" is treated as a distinct topic while "incarceration of men" AFAIK is not. So prison-related categories should diffuse women and not diffuse men. However it may be different with novelists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone has now decided to fight the dispersion of Raymond Chandler on the grounds that Filipacchi has not been dispersed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Someone" is me. Actually, I would describe the situation as "someone has decided to remove everyone from Category:American novelists except for Amanda Filipacchi" given the edit summary on this reversion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You gotta love this, people get all bent out of shape because someone was moving women out of the American novelists category and into a sub-category and not doing the same to men. So, people start moving men and women out of the American novelists category, but people object when one of the women was the person who pointed out the previous action. As a result people decide to just leave Filipacchi alone and focus on other novelists, yet people object that only she is being given special treatment. Do any of you realize that this is an absurd sequence of events?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DA, you left out a teensy little element in that sequence of absurd, I quite agree, events - there was a wide discussion on the matter and the result was in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, not moving everything out of that category so there is nothing in it. The clear result of the community consensus is being flouted, I do not understand why an admin has not intervened. Smeat75 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

By "the categories" what was meant was Category:American women novelists, not all sub-categories of Category:American novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this. The community consensus was to not move the women out of American novelists and it is being flouted. Treating Filipacchi as sui generis is ridiculous. Thus people decided to start moving only men out. This looks just as stupid as moving only women out. Just imagine if the mens-rights press gets wind of this. There ought to be a moratorium on taking anyone out of American novelists until the policy is figured out. Moving women out of American novelists at this point goes against community consensus, so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done." You raise a good point - what discussion? Where? We need a proper RFC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one is treating Filipacchie as sui generis - I tried to edit her categories, was reverted and brought before ANI as a result. So if you have an issue with Filipacchi's bio, ask those like Tarc who are defending the sanctity of those categories. Finally, I really want to emphasize again, for the millionth time, that no-body is being classified as a "no-longer-an-american-novelist-but-something-much-worse" - most bios have been placed in Category:20th-century American novelists, which contains the words "American novelists" - so moving a woman (or man) to that cat, which is non-gendered, is a completely different affair than moving someone to Category:American women novelists and not putting them in any *other* cats. It is simply a more specific, by-time category, the sort of diffusion that happens by the thousands every day here on the wiki - anyone in there is still an American novelist, in both word and deed! Before this whole thing blew up, Category:American novelists was a diffusing category - it even had a big tag on the top labeling it as such.

If you think the by-century category should be non-diffusing, or deleted, then bring to CFD. If you want to start an RFC, please be my guest - but don't throw editors under the bus for failing to comply with the as-yet-to-be-determined consensus of an as-not-written RFC on a as-yet-to-be-determined scope! A sample RFC is being drafted at talk here Category:American novelists - I do note though, that the Category:American novels category was fully diffused a few years back, by consensus of the novels wikiproject. In any case, if we do an RFC, I think we have bigger fish to fry - like how do we clean up the endemic ghettoization, which is what the hoopla was about! - rather than worrying so much about whether X is an Category:American novelists or a Category:20th-century American novelists (which was *not* what the hoopla was about), and going on witch-hunts after editors who were in good faith trying to clean up a mess by following long-extant editing guidelines like WP:Categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the same wikilawyer logic giving priority to the admin close over the actual community perspective. You look over all the various votes and it is pretty clear that people weren't voting "no moving anything out of the American novelists category", but "we shouldn't move anything out of the American novelists category if it gives one group exclusive representation in the category." In other words, the consensus was against unequal diffusion, not against diffusion in general.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I was not treating Filipacchi differently. I was going through the categorystarting at A, and was partly through C. I was not where near F, that was several pages ahead of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL - a little word to the wise - don't attempt any recategorization/diffusion on Filipacchi's page. I did a single edit, and was brought before ANI as a result. Let someone else deal with it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now Koavf has added Upton Sinclair back to category American novelists, citing the CfD in his edit summary. Wouldn't it be better to call a halt to all this until the best course of action is decided upon? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffusing Evidently, Category:American novelists is going to be a container diffused by century, ethnic origin, genre, and sex. So nothing should be in there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you put him back into it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems he added the cat at first to a bunch of articles, sometimes adding it to people who didn't even have it before this began, and then started removing them after a conversation on his talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Block of Blackcountrygirl

I'm concerned to note the recent block of Blackcountrygirl (talk · contribs), a good-faith editor, with no apparent prior discussion, and allegations of spamming. She last edited on April 8.

Disclosure: She's writing about the Black Country Museum, where I have previously run a Wikipedia "backstage pass" event. I don't know that I've ever met or corresponded with her, and have not been asked by them to intervene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of articles created by Blackcountrygirl which were deleted around the time she was blocked, they were all promotional in nature (and as far as I can tell, all concerning the Black Country Museum) but these were created back in April, around the time she last edited. I'm not convinced a block serves any useful purpose in this case given the user hasn't been editing at all for a month. There are other issues here, it looks like Blackcountrygirl has been uploading copyright material from the Black Country Museum too, so someone is going to have to spend time going over the various policies with her. A generic copyright violation template, a CSD tag and block notice are almost certainly going to leave this user confused and disheartened, indeed I wouldn't be too surprised if that's why they've not been back to edit in a month. Nick (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, if some other admin want to unblock her and take her by the hand, I'm not going to get all pouty about it; but it appears to me that she really, really doesn't understand the limits on promotion, WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. She basically created a whole article on every little display in the museum, sourced solely to her venue's own website and often copyright-violative. (Yes, some kind soul did give her links that could have been used to waive copyright.) There's a line between AGF and allowing shameless advocacy, and it seems to me that she crossed it long ago. Nick: "back in April" can mean "four days ago". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of blocking someone who hadn't edited in weeks for 31 hours for an offense committed weeks ago? That's not a preventative block, that's a nonsensically weak punitive block. If you were going to block, it should have been indefinite; and, you should not have blocked. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

She last edited on April 8 - hardly "four days ago". Please explain why you blocked someone who has not edited for almost a month; and why you did so with no warning, let alone an offer of advice. Your reference to "every little display in the museum" is a gross exaggeration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy - Seven articles - now deleted - on exhibits at the museum. I agree with Mike's assertion that a line has been crossed with regards to promotion and shameless advocacy. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seven articles - each of which will meet WP:N with a little more research - is not "every little display in the museum". She's not blocked for breaching WP:N, nor copyvio, but for spamming, With no warning or discussion of that. Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I put to Mike? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how e.g. Lench's Oliver Shop would ever meet WP:N, let alone "with a little more research". The only reliable source for this is the Museum, which is not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your false claim about a supposed "only reliable source" ignores journal and press articles, in print not online, about the relocation of the shop. How is this relevant to a block based on an undiscussed allegation of spamming, made a month after the event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a false claim at all: the article had only this to offer, "Black Country Museum (2012) Black Country Museum Guide, p21". Deletion was valid. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic was the potential for evidencing the article's notability in the future, not its state when deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lench's Oliver Shop opens up a rich seam of important topics which we have poorly covered. Industrial history is a neglected field and we should be supporting a museum which covers it, rather than persecuting them. The editor in question should be unblocked and an apology given. Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike, sorry, meant to say a month ago rather than last month. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked. I'm not really sure I see where the surprising or unusual aspect of this case comes in. That said, their whole problem relates to this one museum, so I would support an unblock with a firm agreement not to edit within that area again in the future. I think the risk of this account doing other, generalised spamming is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." You realize that blocking is preventative, not punative, right? Blocking for only 31 hours nearly a month after their last edit makes no sense whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." Where? Where were they warned for it? I see no reason or policy basis to topic ban a new editor for being enthusiastic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the museum or its contents - the articles may or may not have ended up acceptable over time, I dunno. But the user's talk page runs as follows: Copyvio notice, Copyvio notice, Link to Donating Materials, Copyvio notice, Block. Not once is the editor told that she may be blocked, nor is she told to discuss the matter. Now, if I post repeated copyvio, damn straight I expect to be blocked - but I'm not an editor who registered in March 2013 and has 81 undeleted edits. The block may be valid, but I think that one note saying "Stop posting this and discuss the matter" would have sufficed rather than a block. Of course, that note may not have had an effect since the editor stopped editing a month ago! What urgency was there in blocking her today? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps an experienced admin could advise OrangeMike on the appropriate use of his tools; and the potential harm caused by misusing them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The two factor test applies: 1) is the name promotional, or violating the username policy. In this case, without looking at the edits it's borderline. Test 2) is the promotional/COI edits, which in this case is apparent (whether or not the possible articles are "notable"). In this case, the articles are promotional/COI and provide a direct link to the inadmissibility of the username. As such, the block appears correct - no matter when the block has been made (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor had stopped editing on April 8th, what harm to the project was prevented by this block? Even if it was a correct block (a fact I do not stipulate), what purpose is served by blocking in this instance without issuing a final warning, as is standard? Put another way, if this was sent to AIV I would have likely warned the editor - but would also have declined the report as stale. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you said, if there was any block, an indefinite block would apply - but a 31 hour block? That makes no sense at all. What do you mean "no matter when the block has been made"? How does a 31 hour block a month after they last edited prevent any further damage? --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter tosh. The Black Country is a geographical region of the United Kingdom; the username is no different to "NewYorkGuy" or "BerlinBabe". The alleged "promotional/COI" nature of the articles has not been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. It has been demonstrated by the mentions of their speedily-deleted articles, and you know as well as anyone else does that, in this case, it very much appears that the Black Country part of their name references the museum as much as it does the area. The reason it's a borderline username issue is that it IS ambiguous, even with the apparent COI nature of this account. That said, I do agree that the block is rather too late and rather odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles were deleted as copy vios, not for promotional content. As for your assertions about what I know, it appears that you neither understand my mind, nor the culture of the Black Country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have more idea than you imply, but whatever. Copyvios of primary sources are automatically promotional anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that all the questions about this central issue are being studiously ignored. Instead the answers are all "promotion is very wrong, mmmkay". Wikipedia is in dire need of outreach, particularly to cultural institutions We have absolutely no need for this kind of mildly xenophobic , principled clamp-down on minor, easily fixed mistakes.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• How the hell does xenophobia come into this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect because suddenly someone thinks we're parsing the name as "Black, Country Girl" and blocking due to racial overtones? It would be patently ridiculous to suggest such ... but it's the only possible explanation I can see for the use of "xenophobic" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the unmotivated bureaucratic hostility aimed at an outsider who obviously was not a threat to Wikipedia. At the very least not to an extent that merited a block. If you find the wording too harsh, then perhaps "insular" is a more appropriate description.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so simply trying to strengthen your personal opinion by including incendiary rhetoric - Peter, I'm surprised - I thought that you were above such action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No shock intended. And I assume you have an opinion about this too.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The block was bad, because it was clearly punitive and not preventative. GiantSnowman 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of us have already greeted her on her talk page and offered to assist her. As she hasn't edited in a bit, she likely hasn't even seen the block. I do think the block was unnecessary and less than optimal, considering all the circumstances, but I'm more concerned about helping the editor, rather than debating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:LarryTr7

LarryTr7 (talk · contribs) is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. They've been previously blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry, and their raison d'etre is to spew bile and violate WP:BLP in a crusade against Ping Fu. I thought they'd lapsed into inactivity, but they've come back again, with [15] and [16]. Given their history, and the fact they've never contributed anywhere else, I'm asking for an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• His previous statements on that talk page before being blocked for socking are more worrisome than these, which he attempts to use sources for. Unreliable sources, but sources. There does seem to be an inner POV warrior attitude at play here. His previous comments there to Yworo [17] [18] border on at attempt at outing, if they don't outright violate it, and are at the very least personal attacks. Had he not already been blocked for socking back then, he might have been blocked or at least strongly warned for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• After reviewing the case more, including the activity of his socks, it seems apparent that he is here for a single purpose, and that single purpose isn't the topic of Ping Fu, but rather to insure his particular perspective of Ping Fu is represented in the article (WP:NPOV). In other words, I think Luke is right here. I'm inclined to indef the editor as there isn't any specific time limit that will prevent the disruption, but would prefer input from others first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Those diffs were simply today's two edits, I wasn't portraying them to be the worst this user has posted. I thought about providing more diffs, but the contributions of this user are small enough and focused enough on disparaging Ping Fu, that I didn't feel the need to. And that's not listing anything this user has made in deleted articles, or with their socks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has made four edits in last two months; none are particularly disruptive. Yes there's some oblique reference to off wiki Amazon stuff, but multiple editors have done so. Talk:Ping Fu is a cesspit of Ad hominem attacks, so picking LT77's out of the heap isn't compelling to me. WP:NOTHERE isn't a blockable offense but rather a shorthand for actual policy violations (e.g. disruptive editing), and "Focusing on niche topic areas" is in the WP:NOTNOTHERE rather than "not here", anyway. Sockpuppetry is historic; editor was already sanctioned for it so bringing it up ANI again is escalatory. I encourage OP to stay focused on content discussion and don't think there's anything actionable. NE Ent 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is certainly a factor when determining a block duration or necessity. The underlying problem in different cases might be spam, or disruptive edits, or POV warrioring, but when someone is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and doesn't mind disrupting the entire encyclopedia to push their agenda, it does form part of the rationale to block them. This kind of disruption goes beyond the boundaries of a single article, affects retention, and wastes time. The sockpuppetry was just a vehicle to continue doing what is the primary problem, pushing a POV agenda, so it absolutely part of a pattern. I'm not inclined to not block someone simply because other POV warriors exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent, I presume you haven't realized that a vast majority of the SPAs at the Ping Fu article turned out to be related to LarryTr7 - and confirmed by CU, not just a "likely". As such, all the confirmed socks' edits may be treated as this editor's, and you get gems such as [19]. Bringing up sockpuppetry is perfectly relevant when discussing the history, especially with a CU confirmed set of socks, which means that the accounts belong to one person. It's apparent to me that LarryTr7 is going to keep popping up, just when it seems the battles have died down, to relight the fires (so to speak... why am I being poetic? :D) and the user is not a benefit to the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence of socking after 13 March? (If yes, it should be added to the existing SPI.) NE Ent 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not to my knowledge, and there doesn't need to be. I think you're missing the point; CU confirmed socks' edits should be treated alongside the master's edits, especially when they're one and the same format. Even aside from the sockpuppeting, we've got an SPA with an agenda that violates BLP, almost all of their edits are POV-pushing, if not downright unacceptable, so they don't benefit the encyclopedia and should not be able to remain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ent, if the events were unrelated, I would agree, but they are actually all acts in the same play, all connected to the same problem, all indicating a singular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• They've posted again with another POV push: [20] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I won't link their latest message here, but I did send it to Dennis Brown on his talk page, and NE Ent has seen it (and removed a BLP-violating section) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since no one else has opined here, and Ent appears to be firmly of the belief that a block isn't the proper solution (a belief I respect, but don't share) I will refrain. Ent has left a message on his talk page pointing him to read WP:BLP. Future problems are likely to have a different result, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what title to put here

Hello. I am largely unfamiliar with administrative processes on wikipedia, though I am a longtime editor, so please assume good faith if I say something erroneous.

This all started with me Boldly removing content which did not meet wikipedia's criteria for RS. [21] Sonicyouth86 demanded that I reach consensus before making edits, which is not part of wikipedia policy WP:EDITCONCENSUS. He then accused me of "arbitrary removals of people's comments [22][23]".

1. In the first case, I removed a small section of South19's comment, in which he referred to a suicide victim as a domestic terrorist, in violation of WP:BDP. I made the edit as transparent as possible, inserting red text in brackets that I had redacted it for violating WP:BDP, and by leaving a message on South19's talk page [24]. My comment was arguably uncivil, though I wonder what sort of reaction South19 expected when calling a suicide victim a terrorist. I quickly struck out the contentious part of my comment [25]
2. In the second case, I wasn't arbitrarily removing anything. I was attempting to delete a section I had accidentally duplicated, when attempting to refactor the talk page. It just so happened that in the time between duplication and my deletion, Sonicyouth86 had posted a single comment, which I then deleted and re-deleted without knowing.

Initial argument and confusion on my part

Now, in that context, I also didn't closely look at who's username I was responding to, assuming that it was South19 complaining about me editing his terrorism statement, since that was the only comment I was aware I had removed. At the time, there was a large amount of editing on the talk page, and I kept running into edit conflicts, so I did not take the time to carefully read nor carefully reply as I normally would. Here is how I responded [26] Insinuating that Sonicyouth86 is dense was due to my misunderstanding, in thinking that he was South19 and really trying to put up an argument that calling someone a domestic terrorist isn't a violation of WP:BDP. I was also responding to his incredulity regarding my edits, in calling them arbitrary, when they most certainly were not, and in demanding that I adhere to his personal editing rules. I would hope that a reasonable observer understands that I had good reasons for both of my edits, though one had unintended consequences, and that I was following WP:BOLD and WP:Consensus in edits to the actual article. A reasonable observer should also see that I should not have called him dense. I take responsibility for that, and I almost immediately redacted it, as well: [27]. WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is the relevant policy for properly retracting uncivil statements.

Escalation to ANI

Now, Sonicyouth86 immediately took the matter to ANI [28]. He claimed that I had been warned by two seperate editors (himself and User:Slp1), when slp1 had in fact been the editor involved in a small revert war over the duplicate section, which I admitted my error to immediately upon realising it. I don't think Slp1 was complaining that I was deleting Sonicyouth86's comments, but that I was deleting the entire duplicate section, and I think he quickly realised why I was removing the section. I replied to him saying that. Sonicyouth86 then [29] claimed that I "deleted comments by User:South19 because you dislike to his opinions [3]. "People like you disgust me", that's what you wrote as an explanation why you removed his comments.", which is not true. I deleted it because he violated WP:BDP, which Sonicyouth86 was well aware of, because I said that exact thing in the edit summary, in the replacement text of the comment, and on South19's talk page. Sonicyouth86, knowing full well this fact, decided to frame it as me POV pushing by deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. That, itself, is a violation of WP:Civil section "2.(d). Lying" and "2.(e). quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;".

My attempts to explain myself and resolve the dispute

I responded to his post on ANI [30] by attempting to clear up all of the confusion, in a civil manner. He took offense to me saying he was confused, which I don't really see how it's an insult to say that someone doesn't have all the facts. It was then, at the first mention that I had been uncivil, that I agreed to and promptly stuck out the edits which Sonicyouth86 had identified as being uncivil. Does that mean I'm absolved of all wrongdoing? No, not at all. It does show that I admitted I was wrong and wanted to reconcile. I also immediately posted this apology [31] to Sonicyouth86's talk page, attempting to explain my actions and defuse the situation. Sonicyouth86 immediately deleted my apology and continued to argue with me. I then admitted my error on AN/I [32], in mixing up who I was talking to, and that that might explain why I reacted so strongly to Sonicyouth86's rebukes, since I thought he was the one who had called someone a terrorist.

Sonicyouth86 then reiterated [33] that I had acted uncivilly, which I had both admitted to, apologized for, and redacted. I don't know why he continued to push that point when it was already settled. Based off of his edit summary, I think it's safe to assume he wanted to "teach me a lesson".

Here was my final response: [34] before being topic banned by User:TParis. I still stand by what I said. South19 should be ashamed of what he said. South19 should apologize and redact his statements. It is reprehensible to say such a thing about another person. It is a violation of wikipedia policy. WP:Civil says nothing about calling out a person's behavior for what it is, but it does say something about the type of comment South19 left originally, which started this whole ordeal. Here is my complete justification for my first edit: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -WP:BLP TParis told me that I should have brought the violation to his attention instead of editing South19's comment, which contradicts this very clear policy.

Topic Ban appeal and continued WP:Harassment by sonicyouth86

The reason TParis provided for the topic ban was such: [35] "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive. In the future, when you feel there is a violation of WP:BDP to address, feel free to take the issue up to myself or another uninvolved administrator." Since I did neither in the manner that he understood me as having done, I argue that this ban was placed erroneously and should be removed. I have also posted an apology for my behavior to both Sonicyouth86's talk page [36] and to TParis's talk page [37]. Sonicyouth86 proceeded to delete that apology immediately, and continue to attack me, adding unnecessary confusion to an already confusing AN/I discussion by repeatedly demanding that other editors discard good faith assumptions [38]. He then went on to post on my talk page [39], showing that he still fails to Wikipedia:Forgive_and_forget and continues to push the same tired points which have already been discussed in great detail. He's essentially beating a dead horse hoping candy will fall out. The threat to take me to AN/I (when we're already there?) was a cute touch. So, here I am, taking this to AN/I, so that I have a chance to take the time to fully explain my action and the series of events that led to the situation we have now.

Discussion of AN/I topic this morning, in which I accidentally violated the topic ban due to my own confusion

Also, relevant reading might be the above AN/I topic from earlier today. As I said numerous times, though Sonicyouth86 repeatedly denies I could be telling the truth, I did not understand the nature of a ban on wikipedia. In every other sphere, a ban is an enforced ban from editing content. As I was still able to edit the page I was supposedly banned from, I was very confused. Because TParis was inconsistent in notifying me of the ban, and because I had posted on his talk page asking him to reconsider, I incorrectly believed that he must have either decided not to ban me, or had removed the ban. I checked my block log, and seeing that it was empty, made the assumption that he had decided not to follow through with banning. Considering that I made two edits, one to show that I was not banned (lol oops) and another under the assumption that I was not banned, and that Sonicyouth86 was just trying to stir up trouble, I think it's hardly fair to impose further punishment on me for such a thing, especially considering I immediately reverted the edits when it became clear to me that I was in fact not allowed to have done that. Please take into account the fact that I have been an editor for many years, yes, but that I have never been involved with administrative action until very recently, and am still pretty unfamiliar with it. I am also unfamiliar with the pace of some of these more contentious articles, and I am unfamiliar with some of the distinctions between how editors in the social sciences expect others to act and how hard scientists (which I am) expect others to act.

Also, I have made this case to WP:AE to appeal the ban, and they redirected me here. Rgambord (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [40][41][42]

Hi. I'm gonna respond to this before someone in a crabby mood does. Currently several of your diffs are incorrect (probably just misadventures in copy-pasting), and there are several things you reference that you don't link to any diffs for. While a lengthy ANI post is usually a bad idea, I understand it's your first time posting here, and would strongly encourage other editors to not respond to this with a simple "TL;DR" or the ever-ridiculous "massive wall of text—block nom". I, for one, would happily read through all this, but at the moment it's too hard to tell what you're talking about. I'd also suggest that if you can find any way to make your post a bit shorter, you do so. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into the diff issues and try to shorten things. I know it's a lot of text, but it's a big complicated scenario full of misunderstandings and animosity that all needs to be addressed, IMO. I ask that commenting is refrained until I have fixed the diffs. Thanks. !Rgambord (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found one diff that was incorrect. The others seem to work for me? A couple links are to sections on old revisions of pages so that it's easy to see the whole discussion as it progressed. Hopefully this is ok? If I'm still missing something please point it out and I'll fix it as best I can. I've added section headers to divide up the text into more comprehensible chunks. Hopefully this helps. I don't want to get TL;DR! Thanks again. Rgambord (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rgambord didn't just merge section on Talk:Men's rights movement. He also refactored comments of editors he was in a dispute with [43] and deleted others' comments [44] so that I had to restore [45] them. He also removed sections [46].
  Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy states that any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I made an ANI thread [47] on April 23 about Rgambord's personal attacks against editors involved in the men's rights movement article including "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" and "you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you disgust me." Other instances of personal attacks and/or incivility on April 23 include [48][49][50][51] in addition to assumptions of bad faith [52].
  Today Rgambord violated his topic [53] or article ban [54] twice [55][56] and continues to accuse me and others of wrongdoing, including harassment and erroneous admin actions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was not involved in a dispute with the editor who's comment I edited as per wikipedia policy WP:BDP, which I stated many, many times, and you continue to post boldfaced lies about me to the contrary and it's a very clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Not once did I comment in that section, yet you continue to lie saying I was in a dispute with him. You are using the fact that I deleted a section which I created to request that the talk page be cleaned up, as evidence of me making disruptive edits, even though that makes no reasonable sense to anyone except you. You are a liar. you are lying. You have been caught lying. I have pointed it out multiple times that you are not telling the truth. How many different ways do I need to say this before admins take appropriate action? You are now harassing me. Did you even bother to read the post that I made? Or did you just copy and paste the same thing, as you've been doing this entire time? How many times can you beat a dead horse before it's dead? You have not responded AT ALL to any attempts I have made to reconcile. You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta. I may be sanctioned for this comment, so be it. I want nothing to do with a place that supports "contributors" like yourself. Rgambord (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sonicyouth is also disingenuously accusing me of violating my ban when everyone else can apparently see that I made a mistake, which I even addressed in this post, yet he somehow failed to respond to. This guy is simply making things up and twisting the evidence to paint me as a bad guy. I have done nothing to deserve that sort of treatment. I am being bullied and I am being harassed. Again, he's violating sections 2.d and 2.e of WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You violated your topic ban twice today. The diff links show that you violated your topic ban. The only question is whether you are experienced enough – you have stated on mutiple occasions that you've been an editor for many years – to know that you are not allowed to edit an article and its talk page if you are told by an administrator on your talk page that you are banned from editing the article and its talk page. Nothing about this simple chain of events – you were banned, your were informed that you were banned, you edited the article and talk page although you were banned – involves making things up. I provided diff links that you refactored and removed a comment and deleted a section on the mrm talk page. Prior to that you argued that the SPLC criticism should be removed and South19 disagreed with you (see talk "Is this section really necessary?") and you disagreed with me on various issues. You removed my comment and altered Soouth19's comment and the patrolling admin saw that as altering comments by users' you were in a dispute with.
I believe that it is quite obvious who is being abused. "You are a liar", "You are now harassing me", "You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta." I'll just add that to your other personal attacks including "jerk" [57], "People like you disgust me" and "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Provide the diff which you think proves I was involved in an argument with this editor. Could it perhaps be that upon going in to merge the three sections, I saw his top comment, in which he called someone a goddamn domestic terrorist, and corrected the material as it violates wikipedia policy which DEMANDS ITS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL. END OF STORY. PERIOD. NADA. I don't need to ask an admin. I don't need to ask you. I need to delete the material. I am objectively right that it violates WP:BLP, and so far NO ONE has argued that it does not and I was in the wrong in removing it. Provide an argument for WHY THAT EDIT VIOLATES SOME POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA. SHOW PROOF. Why are you defending those comments? Why are you defending South19's behavior? Why am I the bad person, when I'm not running around calling people terrorists. I ask again, did YOU MISS THAT PART? WHERE HE CALLS THE MAN A TERRORIST. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF COMMENT AND THE SORT OF ATMOSPHERE IT CREATES ON WIKIPEDIA? That is the atmosphere you are arguing to perpetuate.

So far, your entire argument has rested on the premise that I removed his comment due to a disagreement (false). That my reasoning was because he "disgusts me" (false -- the reasoning was provided 3 different places). That I maliciously removed sections on the talk page (false -- that was my own section, which had been created by me to request someone clean up the talk page. Do you think that if I was so skilled at talk page cleanup that I would have requested that someone else did it? Is it not such a stretch that given my lack of skill, that I would have deleted it, not thinking it particularly important to archive?). That I maliciously removed your comments from the page because I was in a disagreement with you (False -- we both know that was accidental, and I have explained myself numerous times, yet you persist in your claims).

Personal attacks: do you understand that lying about what I did, what my actions were, and failing to assume good faith, all of which you have done, are all violations of wikipedia policy which should require your removal from the articles in question? Do you you understand that following me around to different pages and constantly pushing for my punishment especially with a bunch of made up non-issues clearly trying to frame me as some horrible vandal IS harassment? Do you have some sort of obsession with me? I have tried to apologize on numerous occasions, but that would be too easy, right? Yes, I should not have called south19 disgusting, even though he is. I should not have called you dense, though everything you have posted tells me you are. I should not have called TParis a jerk, cause I was pissed off at the time. The really interesting thing here is that as of now, South19 has not been reprimanded for calling this man a terrorist. You've managed to completely distract everyone from the real issue here, which is South19's behavior. My response to it was not savory, but I did not run around calling people terrorists.

Now, I have wasted the better part of a day on this bullshit. And that is, in no uncertain terms, what it is. I am done trying to defend myself; I am done trying to stay civil with you, because insults and swearing were invented to express emotions, and that's what I am going to use them for. You are the greatest troll I have ever seen. Bravo. I come on here for fun because I am interested in the subjects and what better way to become better acquainted with them than through editing an encyclopedia on them. I do not come in here to see people calling other people terrorists because they disagree with their actions. I do not come in here to spend all of my time on ANI like I have (which seems to be your favorite fucking thing). I come in here to collaborate with other people. I neuter my language by imagining I am talking to a person face to face. In no uncertain terms, I held back a lot of negative comments for South19 and for the type of environment people like him create on wikipedia, and if we had spoken face to face, I would have said exactly what I posted on his talk page. I stand by what I said. South19 disgusts me, and should be ashamed of himself. So, I am done. You win. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The real issue is that you continue to personally attack editors, that you violated your article ban twice today, got caught, and started this thread to argue that you are the wronged party because I had the audacity to point out your ban and your behavior that led up to it. Yes, you called TParis a "jerk", you said repeatedly that people like User:South19 disgust you, you called me all the screw-ups under the sun – "You are the greatest troll I have ever seen" and "You are a liar" deserve extra-extra-special mention to show the originality of the insults – and you continue to accuse me of this and that (e.g., harassment, abuse, attacks, that I called you a "vandal", and what not) without providing any evidence in the form of diff links. Your violations of WP:NPA are so extreme as to be comical and I assume that that's the reason why you haven't been sanctioned yet.
I agree that you have wasted people's time with the attempt to get your ban rescinded, your denial that you are article banned, and this thread. Not to mention your verbose commentary on my and others' alleged character flaws and intellectual shortcomings. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment It looks like admin RHaworth deleted Rgambord's talk as a U1, but U1 specifically excludes talk pages. Unless Rgambord plans on WP:VANISH it's important we keep the talk page as a record. Sædon^talk 20:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. It's been archived elsewhere before deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Where has it been archived? There are no subpages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Rgambord/. Found it, for the record it's in the history of User_talk:Rgambord/adkljsdklsfi. Sædon^talk 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Sædon^talk 09:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones and Eugene Plotkin

Changed header from "User Smallbones is Blocking any Attempts to Modify an Article" for neutrality; as the top of the page says, "New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral". Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones has blocked any attempts to make edits or revisions to the article concerning Eugene Plotkin. Most recently, he has taken my significant revision of the article, including an expansion of scope, an addition of multiple new references, a streamlining of the writing, an incorporation of a broader NPOV, and he has rolled back all of those changes. A reading of the Talk Pages shows that user Smallbones has treated this article as Smallbones' private domain, aggressively rolling back any changes made to the article over many months. Smallbones has bullied any editors making changes on the article's Talk pages. An administrator's intervention would be greatly appreciated. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to notify Smallbones (I have done this for you). Also their most recent edit was reverting your page move, while WP:BOLD they are within their right to revert and open discussion. There also seems to be a big issue with sock puppets on this article. I suggest you try to discuss more on the talk page. Mike (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not notifying Smallbones sooner. I was planning on doing that. Thank you for making the notification.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Plotkin is notable for nothing but his involvement in an insider trading scheme, along with other individuals. There can be no justification whatsoever for a 'biography', but no article on the scheme. Either the scheme meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, or nothing does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say for now that I won't be prepared for a careful detailed discussion of this case for a few days. Everything I say here is just what I recall without checking diffs, etc. There are some quite delicate issues here that are difficult to discuss, e.g. BLP and OTRS issues. I'll just say for now that:

• About 5 years ago I wrote most of the Eugene Plotkin article based on a massive amount of material - articles in all the best financial sources from 3 or 4 continents.
• Almost all the info back then was on Plotkin with little or nothing on the other guy (There are also 4-5 "little fish" in the scheme, but these folks don't need to be highlighted). The amount of new info may have changed relatively but there are not so many new sources around, except perhaps the "American Greed" episode on the scandal which is a bit flamboyant and is perhaps a border-line reliable source.
• Near a fairly easily identifiable date, some very strange things began happening with the article, involving a whole flock of sockpuppets. The first adventure involved about 80% of the content and sources being deleted and then having the article nominated for deletion.
• On a fairly regular basis strange things keep on happening to the article.
• A request was made through OTRS about the article. I believe the thrust of the complaint was that Plotkin didn't plead guilty to many of the things the article said he did. A quick check of the press release issued by the *Federal Court* showed that he did plead guilty to everything I was asked about. The OTRS volunteer quietly disappeared.
• There are some incredibly bizarre aspects of this case that I haven't highlighted in the article and don't see any need to, e.g. the stripper scheme. The grand juror scheme should probably be highlighted as it seems to be a first in insider trading - but - if I remember this correctly - the juror turned state's evidence and got off with probation, and Plotkin only pled guilty to something related to what appears to be part of that scheme. Info on that part of the scheme is fairly hard to get. The really bizarre part is the movie that those convicted made before getting caught.
• The most believable criticism that I have heard of the article during these regular strange periods is that this is about a single event - after all, only one trial for Plotkin - just one scheme. Well actually not - there were convictions on about 25 individual stocks spread out over a year's trading, multiple schemes, e.g. trading on pre-publication info and the schemes mentioned above.

Frankly, I feel a bit constrained discussing this at all in public - the sources speak for themselves (when not removed!). Is there a way to have a private hearing on this, short of the Arb Committee. Actually I'd be willing to have it go to the Arb Committee if we could get a final ruling, and I wouldn't have to deal with it every 6 months.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Arb Committee doesn't decide content disputes. Can you explain why we have an article supposedly about Plotkin, rather than about an insider trading scheme involving multiple individuals - the one thing that Plotkin is supposedly notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that this has died down, but the article refers to both and it's at the name of one of them. I say either move the page to Eugene Plotkin and David Pajčin (or something else! Goldman Sachs insider trading controversy is not unreasonable) or separate the two articles - I'm quite happy to do either, but I want consensus one way or another before I do anything.--Launchballer 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones makes a number of factual errors in his discussion of the article above. The Grand Juror that he notes got off with probation is Jason Smith, who actually received 33 months for his involvement. When the case initially broke in the news in 2005, it focused on Pajcin and his aunt. There were multiple news stories at the time, which are easily accessible via a simple Google search. Plotkin did not appear until April of 2006, when he was arrested. Coverage at that time centered on not only Plotkin, but also Shpigelman. In any event, whether or not there are bizarre components to this article's history or its story is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here. Factchecker25 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason the article was originally written about Plotkin was because all the information from reliables sources was about Plotkin. The other guy was just a shadowy figure who appeared in passing in the multitude of reliable sources. There may be better information now, but I haven't seen it. So-called Factchecker hasn't offered any good sources as far as I can tell - but what he seems to have done is put in vague, undocumented accusations against the other guy and in the process hide or confuse the documented facts (that Plotkin pled guilty to, or appeared in the Wall Street Journal together with other sources such as the Financial Times and New York Times, etc.) I frankly don't have anything to say about the other guy - most of what Factchecker says could be made up as far as I can tell. Before you start an article entitled "Joe X and Bob Y" please make sure you have documented facts and you've checked them yourself personally. If it turns out to be then case that the other guy has as much to do with the case, then please go ahead and write it. I certainly haven't seen anything that says they got equal sentences.

As far as a Z company insider trading conspiracy I don't think that would work because the perhaps 2.5 guys who seemed to have run it, seem to have worked for at least 4 companies. Also note that it can't be named a "controversy", there's nothing controversial about their convictions, it was a conspiracy or perhaps a scheme. If you were to pick the most commonly used name - there's no true nifty name here - it would probably be "Plotkin's insider trading" or the "Underwear seamstress insider trading conspiracy". I'm very serious about the last, that little juicy detail seems to have caught everybody's imagination but nobody would actually publish that name (all the while emphasizing the not so important detail), so a catchy name was never thought up. I've asked Factchecker for a better name, but haven't seen one yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The name is irrelevant. Either the insider dealing scheme (which involved more than just Plotkin) was notable, in which case we should have an article on it, or it isn't, in which case we cannot have an article on Plotkin. This bogus 'biography' simply doesn't comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A note for those unfamiliar with the subject: the so called "other guy [who] was just a shadowy figure" is David Pajčin, Plotkin's co-conspirator, who's trading first attracted the SEC's interest. It was the investigation of Pajčin that led them to Plotkin. [58] Far from being a 'shadowy figure',Pajčin was central to the case. Furthermore, there are sources dating from 2006 which cover Pajčin's involvement perfectly well. Smallbones' arguments simply don't add up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy's being a bit grumpy here. I don't think there is any rule that says you have to have an article on the insider trading case before you can have an article on the insider trader. Michael Milkin and Ivan Boesky are handled by us under the person's name with no articles on either case. And yes, there were many other people involved in each of those cases. The weight that I put on the different people in the case reflects the weight of the sources I had when I wrote it. It would probably be slightly different now, but I'll say that "Eugene Plotkin" gets more than 2 times the google hits than "David Pajcin" and "Stanislav Shpigelman" gets almost none. We should just take this to the article's talk page. There's no great injustice or violation of the rules. There's just a convicted con man ... or two or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Before we "take this to the article's talk page", would you care to expand on why you accused Factchecker25 of having a "possible COI" in an edit summary? [59] Given that Factchecker25 hadn't edited the article previously, it is difficult to see how you could have arrived at such a conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Factchecker25 edited the article and the talk page last August 23. This was about the same time somebody sent in an OTRS request, which as far as I can tell was about the article saying "was convicted of" when the OTRS sender wanted the wording "was accused of". A brief review of the court documents showed that Plotkin pled guilty and was "convicted of" in every case I was asked about. The diff shows Factchecker25 changing "convicted of" to "accused of" and a similar or same edit was done later by an anon. There is a history of SPAs and sockpuppets making similar types of obstructive edits. Looks like a possible COI to me.

I'd like to ask everybody who is involved in this to take some reasonable precautions. Plotkin pled guilty and was convicted of a couple of dozen counts of fraud - theft by deception. The words "insider trading" are commonly used in the papers, but the actual crime is fraud, "insider trading" is just one way to prove fraud (sorry for being a bit technical). Given that there is a history of deception in the actual case, and a history of sockpuppets and similar tricks here on Wikipedia, I'll suggest that you occasionally ask yourself - "Am I being deceived here?" You can still AGF, but just check everything very carefully and in detail. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If previous edits of an article imply COI, then surely Smallbones you ought to explain why you have such a vested interest in keeping the article in the original form in which it was created. Surely you will agree that Wikipedia is about being objective and presenting the most unbiased viewpoint available. Its power is in its community of editors working together. You are fighting tooth and nail to preserve a particular version of the article, which you yourself created, even though there is a tremendous amount of objective coverage which suggests that a Plotkin biography alone does not meet the BLP1E guideline. You also claim repeatedly that there was no coverage prior to the coverage of Plotkin and you make outrageous claims that "most of what Factchecker says could be made up". My edits, which you chose to indiscriminately roll back, were based on references, which were listed and which you also chose to delete. Here are just a few stories dealing with Pajcin well before Plotkin even came into the picture: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. And here are stories dealing with Pajcin well after Plotkin disappeared from the news: [65] [66] [67] [68]. My concern here is that you clearly have a reason to be fighting tooth and nail against any change to the article. I cannot find any objective explanation for this behavior other than that you have some personal vested interest. Otherwise, why would you be against a more objective article with more references that considers the conspiracy as a whole, and is consistent with the media coverage. As far as your argument that a search for Eugene Plotkin brings up more results, it is a specious argument at best, as Eugene Plotkin is a far more common name than either David Pajcin or Stanislav Shpigelman, so you are seeing results related to many Eugene Plotkins who are not THIS Eugene Plotkin. Rather than focus on the community feedback, Wikipedia guidelines, and the actual media coverage, you resort to making accusations regarding other editors' motives. Your implication that because the article deals with a case of fraud, this implies that editors (other than you) contributing to this article are themselves engaged in fraud is absurd and, once again, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would like to try and bring the discussion back to the issue so well-elucidated by others: if the conspiracy is notable, then there should be an article about the conspiracy. A BLP does not apply here. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think factchecker25 needs to read WP:NPA. I think I should respond to his writting that "My concern here is that you clearly have a reason to be fighting tooth and nail against any change to the article. I cannot find any objective explanation for this behavior other than that you have some personal vested interest."

Like most long-time Wikipedia editors I tend to specialize in various topics. My specialties include photography and writing about buildings on the NRHP, Quaker meetinghouses, local history, public art, MOOCs, and insider trading and other financial con games. I'm sure that nobody on Wikipedia will find fault that I have my specializations. Since I have some academic and professional background in financial scandals (no-not the way you might be thinking!), I think some of these articles may be among my best work. For example, I started the Bernard Madoff article and wrote about the first 4.5k of the article in the 4 hours or so that I had the article mostly to myself. Then I guided it through several months where everybody wanted to edit it, including anti-Semites, those seeking revenge, and the generally clueless. There are particular challenges writing articles on financial scandals - for some reason some folks think that insider trading is not a real crime and just delete material on it. It worked this way for a long time with the apparent fans of Martha Stewart in her article. There was another case where an editor had a username of a famous insider trader and claimed to be that trader and a couple of times removed well documented material. He calmed down quite a bit when he learned that somebody was watching the article. So in this area - even more so than other areas of Wikipedia - I've learned to check my facts, and check "facts" offered up by SPAs. I don't think that anybody on Wikipedia will fault me on that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with specializing in certain topics, as long as an editor is able to remain objective and not bully others whose views may differ from his or her own. I was very surprised to discover Smallbones rolling back my revision of an article when my revision provided significantly more facts, significantly more material, and significantly more references. Upon a detailed review of the article's history, I was sufficiently concerned as to refer the incident to this Noticeboard. Since that time, watching the Talk Page for that article, my concern has unfortunately only increased. Factchecker25 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful when blocking

As per Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Orange_bar.2C_prominent_talk-page_notifications, the famous Orange Talk Page Notification Bar (tactfully and lovingly nicknamed the OBOD) has been deactivated. Until the issue is fixed next workweek (hopefully), I suggest that administrators be much gentler with good-faith editors that appear to be ignoring messages on their talk pages--they probably legitimately are not noticing them through no real fault of their own. My suggestion is, for the short term, to avoid blocking editors except where there is clear, outright vandalism or other evidence of outright bad faith. Red Slash 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea even with the orange bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although note that the bar is working for IPs. What does OBOD stand for, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange bar of Death. Tiderolls 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do have a suggestion, if community consensus is in favor, Writ Keeper wrote a script that can be installed in the common js page so it's re-enabled again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC may as well close already. Even though it's only been four days, consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of restoring it, and I really can't see it swinging away from that stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that consensus is fine, but we are talking about the developers and the Foundation. They are not obligated to follow consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • True, but perhaps we should remind them what happens when the owners of the website thumb their noses at the community. It's sickening to see the lack of respect shown by the WMF people; this isn't some legal thing, and it's not even a good idea that conflicts with a few higherups' blindly-held positions — it's a simple formatting thing over which they're toying with us. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Where on earth have you got that viewpoint from? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The saga over Sign In To Edit (requested via a heavily-supported petition by the community, lolno'd by WMF) says it all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• My impression is that the Foundation and developers are being responsive to the community, but they sometimes have different timetables than we do, so I'm just saying the changes may not be instantaneous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In a previous position,after I told someone one evening that I would take action to restore missing access to a single journal the following day, I received such a response from my supervisor that I learned to be ready to immediately start to actually do something however temporary, while an underlying problem was being addressed, rather than promise to do it in the future. What is currently promised is they will meet early next week to discuss how to fix it, and propose some possibilities. I am not sure what we should do about it here, but I think the failure of those responsible to take action for a week to correct what by great consensus is a serious problem is essentially passive vandalism against the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the Foundation doesn't have a supervisor. Even Jimbo is relatively powerless to force them to do anything, in any given time period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifying on ANI

With the new notifications system, all you have to do is mention them here to get their attention. Should we still notify users?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• We could mandate the linking of a user's name as an alternative.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI. When my name was mentioned here - and it was in the section header - the new system did not notify me. Also, as mentioned on several other message boards the new notification system is easy to miss (especially if someone were color blind) so I would suggest that we continue to notify users and IPs with a message on their talk page. It is a simple courtesy to perform. MarnetteD | Talk 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. NE Ent 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the talk page? I've had the same problem as Marnette; I've not yet gotten any notifications except for messages at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had at least one person on the noticeboards use my linked user name, and I did not receive a notification. Can someone test it to see if it actually works? I thought it only worked on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you getting a notification, Viriditas or Nyttend? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just got one from this message; it's the first I've received. Thank you, King of Hearts. Something must have changed, since Writ Keeper's orange bar script just came back. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's working now. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would still suggest that we keep the instruction to notify manually for a couple reasons. My username often gets shortened by people leaving off the capital D at the end. Perhaps they thing it is a smile or something else. Also we have any number of users whose full username does not match the visible username in their signature. Thus if I opened a thread about "user Manning" "user Manning Bartlett" would not be notified about it - and my apologies to MB if this turns on an ANI notification for you yours was simply the first name I came to on this page to use as an example. IMO If any of use are going to take the time to bring an IP or user to this noticeboard we should take the extra minute or so to inform them. MarnetteD | Talk 05:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The policy on notifying people hasn't changed, and I would expect it will not change since adding text at the bottom of their page is better than a blip at the top. I would be against changing the policy, although it is doubtful it will be modified due to Notifications/Echo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I stumbled on this thread by accident. @MarnetteD, Just for the record, I got no notification that my name had been mentioned. In this reply, I deliberately linked your name, I'm curious if you get an alert or not. Regards, Manning (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another point to consider is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no publicly available archive of a user's notifications - whereas I can link to the diff of their talk page showing that they were notified. A minor thing, surely, but useful to keep a record. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did get a notice this time Manning Bartlett. It look like you do have to link the name (which is why I linked yours to see if it works for you) rather than just type it in. It seems that Dennis Brown's assurance that notifying users on their talk page is still policy should take care of our concerns. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good point Ultraexactzz, I hadn't thought of that. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to see each other's notifications, as that would be too easy a target for wikihounding. Even more so than contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD - yes, I got it. The new system is cool, and certainly useful. (I pity any AN/I admin who takes a wikibreak however). To the main point, and as Ultra correctly points out, formal notification still remains necessary for targets of a discussion, else we'll have no record. Manning (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of PA/threats to block from user S.Rich

Resolved

 – My misunderstanding that Srich had admin powers -- and the ability to block me -- led me to incorrectly believe that his statement was a threat. Given that he lacks this power, our dispute has no relevance to admin. Steeletrap (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to a spurious public accusation of libel made against me by user CarolmooreDc, made on my talk page and the talk page for Hans Hermann Hoppe (the person I supposedly libeled), I wrote the following message(posted to my talk page and the Hoppe talk page):

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

USer S.Rich -- who has acted in an intimidating manner toward me, including making imputing bad faith and speculating on my motives without evidence, despite my being a noob, responded thusly --

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here [69] and here: [70] and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

His threats are unacceptable given that my comments constitute no personal attack. As can be seen, my words were solely focused on refuting a particular accusation. I ask that he be rebuked for his intimidating/harassing behavior against me, a noob someone who has been here for 17 days. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• 17 days, and you're already making multiple postings to the admin boards? That's a new one. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've got a plugged up garbage disposal at home and some plumbing is needed. So, rather than deal with 2 aggravations at the same time, I'll respond tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While Srich is welcome to defend himself, I must say that I no longer think this is an issue where admin intervention is needed. As a noob, I was under the false impression that SRich actually had the power to block me, and that this was an "appeal" of sorts. His above threat, detached as it is from WP Policy, is effectively meaningless, and I do not care enough about this to pursue it, and wouldn't have wasted Admin time if I knew yesterday what I know now. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect to characterize my messages as "threats", when they are in fact template warnings. (That means the basic messages are pre-written.) But with your willingness to drop the matter, I think the discussion here can be closed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic admin closes

Copied here from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

LFaraone, an admin, hasn't made a significant number of edits in about 4 years [71]. Yet he has returned and started closing discussions where there are only a few comments.

In the article I nominated, based on policy and guidelines I can see no justification for closing that discussion as keep, rather than relisting for more input Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(3rd_nomination). The justification made here: User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD seems, quite frankly, a bit bizarre. Especially considering that when he says "User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that", even though Dricherby panned Phraedrus's reasons; what consensus was he reading? If this was an isolated case I would take it to deletion review, but there appear to be many other discussions closed by the now-active editor which I think are problematic.

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Powerking One comment of "Per nom" and it was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Writopia_Lab One comment which says they have press coverage and links to their page resulted in a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments No comments actually address notability, yet it was kept
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vince_Conti One comment, said they couldn't find sources, was deleted

This list is not an exhaustive one, I only selected a minimum number for demonstration. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, when editors brought up closings they felt were incorrect, I have occasionally revised the outcome. However, I believe in general that my actions in interpreting consensus are reasonable and fall within the realm of administrative discretion. If you have issues with specific deletion discussions, couldn't you have otherwise resolved them amicably by bringing them up at deletion review? I disagree that my gap in editing indicates, as you said on your talk page, being "out of touch" with policy, and stand by these closures. LFaraone 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a large amount of problematic closes; and it would be non-trivial to bring them all to deletion review.

Many are where there is little input but they are closed, here are some more examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Courchaine_(ice_hockey_b._1989)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Smith_(Charity_CEO): one comment
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Wolf_At_Your_Door_Records: one comment, basically a per nom, was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saving_Aimee_(3rd_nomination) I fail to see the consensus.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

David Talbott close seems to reflect consensus. NE Ent 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I looked through the examples here, which I assume are the "worst of the worst". Some were relisted twice, others once. I also think it was kind of quick to bring it here. We can debate each close individually at WP:DRV but from what I see, the main problem was low participation, even after relisting. In this one, the nomination was weak, this didn't have a single keep, this one didn't have a delete, etc. I don't see abuse nor obviously bad judgement. I do think that DRV would have been the better venue. Some AFDs just don't get any attention, which can be evidenced by at least one of the examples being relisted twice. I don't agree that we should run every AFD until it gets $x votes, which is the only other alternative. And the David Talbott article you nominated? This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you are telling me, that in your opinion: this is an appropriate close? Closing with keep or delete when there was a lack of participation is bad judgement, if there isn't enough participation we have "no consensus" or relisting.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments did have a delete; the nom and noone addressed the points he raised. Also with the Talbott article, saying that discussions years ago were closed keep and that means the current case is justified is rather strange justification. Read the actual keep arguments; one hints at possible reviews of a book, one of the keeps makes irrelevant points that the first keep voter countered as well, and the third keep voter said he would have voted delete if this wasn't a third nomination. These aren't the worst of the worst, since I didn't look through all their recent closes. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, that is an entirely appropriate close in my book. Perhaps it should have been WP:SOFTDELETEed - i.e. treated as if it were an expred PROD - but I don't see anything wrong with that closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie on this. The level of participation and the number of keep "votes" should have nothing at all to do with the closing decision. An AfD is not a vote! That is a core Wikipedia policy. AfDs should be closed with reference to the stated policy positions, not the popularity of the subject. Policy should always triumph over votes or sentiments. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an anarchy, but anarchy is surely the result when policy is thrown out the window. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary must be a concern with the participants — if policy were always to triumph over votes, we would have no need for deletion discussions. An admin taking your perspective will frequently exercise a supervote. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with a slight clarification that if the participation is very low, people can't generally gauge the general consensus, and it should probably be relisted, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm certainly not against relisting. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, relisting is definitely the best strategy if there are very few !votes, especially if it hasn't gotten already got two relists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

However, if it's already had two relists and zilch on the participation front, that's what a WP:SOFTDELETE is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, an admin is expected to weigh up the discussion in the eyes in of policy (WP:NOTAVOTE and all that). The number of votes are mostly irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The only "incident" I see here is that IRWolfie didn't like the outcome of an AfD debate, and is trying to turn that into a completely unwarranted attack on the closing admin. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I echo this. Pick five of what you think are the worst and haul them to deletion review. If you go 5-for-5 there overturning the closure, then maybe you have a case. The Saving Aimee close was fine, for example — just making a laundry list of things one disagrees with does not an actual problem make. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to make an observation but Carrite beat me to it. While I appreciate the point that IRWolfie used as justification to bring it here (one or two odd results should go to DR, but this looks like a pattern), however, I agree with Carrite that the sequence is wrong. Go to DR, get several overturned, and then you have the evidence to raise the wider question . Instead, we are having a mini-DR review here, with mixed results.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Carrite does nail the solution. These AFDs are less than optimal, but I still maintain that participation was the issue, not the close. As closer, you are stuck with what you are given below the close, and if no one participates and it has already been relisted once, you do the best you can. There is nothing that is sticking out that says "problem" with them as a whole. And while we don't count votes, the count isn't completely irrelevant when they are based in sound reasoning, particularly when the votes are all on one side of delete or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a few to DRV if that is the consensus here. Separately I assume? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You can mention the others, but I think 1 per is best for 4 or 5 of them since the issue isn't the sum total yet, just the individual closes. Since this isn't about abuse, we are always better to first answer "is there a problem?" at the right venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samuel, considering you were edit warring to attack me at my own editor review in the past [72][73][74] and made your feelings towards me abundantly clear, don't be offended if I ignore what you say, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a huge problem here - a bit of one, but only that I don't think the closer is quite evaluating individual votes properly. Votes that don't relate to policy must be ignored. There are a few here I would have closed as "No Consensus" rather than Keep/Delete (thus borderline) but the only ones I'd have completely closed differently is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Courchaine (ice hockey b. 1989) where the "Keep" vote was refuted and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (3rd nomination) where none of the Keep votes actually made any policy-based reason to keep. These should probably be relisted. Apart from that, there's nothing outrageously improper here. The closer does need to make themselves clearer on deletion policy, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Has any of this been at WP:DRV before bringing it to AN/I? — Ched :  ?  21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The obvious answer to that, of course, is that if hardly anyone cared enough to comment on the AfDs, there's really unlikely to be anyone who'll bother to take them to DRV. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of bringing it to AN (it was at AN originally but was moved) was because of there being a large number of AfDs involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• question 2 - ok, (and ty for the replies) after reading a bit more here, my next question is: What administrative action is being requested? — Ched :  ?  21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

the necessary action is a reminder to the admin that, while 4 years ago we did routinely close afds in the manner he has been closing them, now we commonly expect a greater degree of participation. This has been a gradual change in custom, not in rules, and it's just a matter of updating ones expectations. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DGG - that's exactly what I wanted to know. — Ched :  ?  00:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. This whole thread has been quite informative, and will enable me to do a better job of closing discussions going forward. LFaraone 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

InconvenientCritic not here to contribute

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

---

Could an admin please block InconvenientCritic (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? He does not seem to be interested in helping construct the encyclopedia, and in fact seems just to be here to try to stir up trouble on talk pages, as Tarc points out. If InconvenientCritic does want the help with the encyclopedia, by all means we should let him. But we don't need more people here to just create more drama. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to propose a community ban WP:AN is usaully the place to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the user's contributions and have taken a firm decision to completely ignore them. I strongly suggest everyone else does likewise. --Shirt58 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the contributions are close to blockable. While I'm mildly curious about who it might be, if the editor doesn't have the courage to be honest, then their contributions get the reduced credibility they deserve.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Darkness Shines

User:Darkness Shines has repeatedly inserted the same material into the article British Pakistanis, after I deleted it as a gross misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, the article claimed that there were riots in Bradford in 2001 "between the city's majority white population and its visible ethnic minorities". None of the sources cited state this: [75][76][77]. The 'majority' of the population, (regardless of ethnicity) took no part in riots. The initial flashpoint for the riots was a march by fascist BNP and NF outsiders, and a counter-demonstration by (mostly white) anti-fascists. Though later there were ethnically-driven disturbances (started by white youths attacking Asian-owned businesses), it is entirely misleading to present these events as a simple ethnic conflict - and highly questionable to include such material at all in an article about a particular ethnic minority. Given this clear and fundamental breach of Wikipedia policies (i.e. regarding neutrality and accurately representing sources), can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Boring Do the sources say this? Why yes, yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More sloppy sourcing - though I'm glad to see you have conceded that your earlier reverts were invalid. Now how about explaining why an article on British Pakistanis needs to cover this at all? Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources are just fine, and I am conceding nothing, I added references for content you removed. As to why an article on british Pakistanis should cover this, I suppose because the majority of the Asian lads rioting were, you know, British Pakistanis. But as that is a content dispute it has no place here, in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use WP:DRN for content disputes. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Already the editors are under 3RR, please be careful and discuss it. Agreed with Andy's point. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Darkness Shines is now citing off-topic Google-mined material from sources entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature', 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' and the like [78] to justify inclusion of the disputed material - a clear violation of WP:NPOV, in that he has selected sources not for their general content, and not in order to present the opinions of the authors, (Personal attack removed) He is refusing to accept the developing consensus on the talk page, and insists that he will include the material, regardless of the comments of others. I note that Darkness Shines was previously blocked for "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing despite streams of requests to stop", [79] and suggest that at this point in time a topic ban might be more appropriate, since he singularly fails to get the message that his POV-pushing isn't welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note ATG has already begun to use his usual fallback position of implying I am a racist, above and here in violation of WP:NPA. BTW, that block notice was given by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and is bullshit. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, it would be nice if ATG looked at the sources for a change. Cultural Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity written by Tracy J. Prince and she writes directly about British Pakistanis and the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can cherry-pick material to suit your aims doesn't alter the fact that such cherry-picking of off-topic material is a violation of WP:NPOV. Incidentally, I didn't call you a racist (and I don't actually think that you are one). I did however use the same language that was used in your block log, where you were described as engaging in "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing". Which you self-evidently were, and still are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Pakistani POV pushing" is not an accusation of racism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was, although it is a personal attack. However this most certainly implys I am a racist & from above "pursue his self-evident anti-Pakistani agenda", an obvious attack on me. And as this is not the first time Andy has resorted to such low tactics I feel a lack of good faith in him, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What about this comment by DS about Andy: "in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy.", Isn't it a Personal Attack?

• Comment: Majority white doesn't mean majority of white. Also Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? sounds OSEish. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines has repeatedly had problems with POV pushing, sometimes with misrepresenting sources but oftener by picking weak sources with extreme statements: The history of Rape in Pakistan is troubling. DS mis-represented a statistic on domestic violence as a statistic on rape, which was pulled from the DYK queue. In my experience, DS writes as if pushing an anti-Pakistani POV; I don't recall any instances where DS made a mistake in a pro-Pakistani or even soft-pedalled direction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And you have of course checked all my edits? [80] [81] Supporting Mar4d, a Pakistani editor. Saves the article Pakistani English from deletion[82] Majority of keeps came after I went and found sources. Votes keep on Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad [83] Went looking for the sources needed. Ya, I am so Anti Pakistani I even created Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution is simple: indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Pakistan or Pakistanis, broadly construed.--В и к и T 22:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content dispute, once again brought to the ANI to get rid of a content opponent. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am not really convinced that Darkness Shines is guilty of POV-pushing. However, the filer of this complaint is indeed engaged in POV-pushing and edit wars. For example, he repeatedly removed a large portion of well-sourced text with an edit summary requesting discussion [84], however his own comments on this article talk page [85] do not qualify as a meaningful discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you engage in 'meaningful discussion' yourself before restoring the material? Nope. Anyway, if you wish to start a thread on my deletion of what was self evidently coatrack material from the Victim blaming article, feel free to do so - but don't be surprised if you get told to stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem. One can reasonably argue that well-sourced and notable examples of victim blaming belong to article about victim blaming. By removing this good faith work by another contributor [86] that belongs to the article, you create a conflict. By "explaining" your edit simply as removing a coatrack (sorry, but this is not convincing at all), you increase the conflict. Perhaps your conflict with Darkness Shine followed the same scenario? By bringing someone to ANI without a sufficient and clear evidence, you involve a lot more people in the conflict. Doing so is disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to derail this discussion is disruptive. You failed to engage in talk page discussion before restoring the material to the Victim Blaming article: do so. I have no intention of discussing this irrelevance further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about victim blaming (although this frequently happens on the ANI), but about a behavior problem as I see it. How many ANI threads initiated by you failed and how many of them succeeded? Here are results of search. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"their views do not matter"

Having failed to obtain support for inclusion of disputed material in the British Pakistanis, article (so far seven people have commented: five have opposed inclusion, and only two support it), DarknessShines has apointed himself judge and jury of the talk page discussion, dismissing the opinions of those opposing with "their views do not matter". [87] I'd like to see comments from uninvolved contributors regarding this unilateral declaration of 'authority'. Is this indeed the way Wikipedia works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have written. "No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content." And that is policy, you cannot keep content out of an article without giving a reason within policy as to why it should be excluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several policies involved here: possibly the most significant one being WP:NPOV. You have singularly failed to explain why an article on a significant ethnic minority must include material relating to events in a northern English town over a few days in 2001. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained it to you a great deal on the article talk page. How about the source which says "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" and your response to that? I am misrepresenting it and taking it out of context. It is not possible to take that out of context at all. Again, this is a content dispute you wish to win by drama over discussion. This needs to be closed out for what it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that the source in question makes it clear that when referring to people 'involved in the riots', it is referring not just to active participants, but the local community in general (and not all those involved were local, as you well know). You are cherry-picking a phrase to suit your purposes. Anyway, this issue regarding the precise proportion of Bradford rioters who were a British Pakistanis is rather beside the point - the real issue is whether the Bradford riots merit inclusion in the article at all. And concerning that, your assertion that you alone can decide what is or isn't eligible for inclusion in an article isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. That content does not belong there as it is irrelevant REGARDLESS of how well it's been sourced because it violates the neutral point of view of the article. You saying "their views do not matter" is to my mind a personal attack. I see that it's already been reverted, but if I see it there I will remove it myself.--Launchballer 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to have a few lines on British Pakistanis rioting in Bradford in an article section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford? Feel free to use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why you are asserting the right to determine who's views are relevant, here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I already have, no argument within policy, no point in listening. Same as at an AFD. BTW in response to your other shit exists question British African-Caribbean people mentions every riot which involved them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"no argument within policy, no point in listening". Once again, Darkness Shines asserts his right to decide who's views matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So now you think that following policy is wrong? And that not wasting my time responding to people who use emotive arguments over policy is a bad thing? I follow policy, if an editor choose to say ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT I will ignore them. You are the only editor on that talk page who has tried to cite policy, if the others choose not to then no, I will not bother with their arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The more you two yap amongst yourselves, the harder this thread is to follow. What are we seeking here, again? Doc talk 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andy is after a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I after? At minimum, that Darkness Shines is told in no uncertain words that he isn't the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV (he's just slapped a POV tag on the British Pakistani article because it currently doesn't discuss events occurring in a northern English town over a few days in 2001). Beyond that, I think we need to ask ourselves whether DS is suited to editing articles relating to Pakistan in general - he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material to such articles, and failing to consider the opinions of others when the inclusion is questioned. He also seems to have a habit of claiming that sources say things that they in fact don't. So yes, I think a topic ban might well be appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

At least a week's block for disruption, wasting editors' time and for violating the NPOVs of articles, because that's about how much of his and our time he's wasted and a six month topic ban.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How the hell have I wasted a week of your time? You only just got involved in this content dispute. How am I violating NPOV? Adding well referenced content to an article is not a violation of NPOV, removing it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Our time = the time of every editor involved, if you cumulate all the comments in this thread. See? Misinterpreting sources.
2. What you have added to the article is too badly biased to be included in the article. If you have to put it on the site, bung it on the article of the event. It doesn't matter how well referenced it is - it isn't encyclopedic. Now drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.--Launchballer 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If we move it to an ivote stage, and end the "jibber jabber", it may get somewhere faster. Doc talk 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy made three points above. (1) "he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material". Adding well-sourced "negative" materials to any articles is not a problem, unless this is an obvious violation of NPOV or BLP. I do not see it. (2) "failing to consider the opinions of others". There is clearly a disagreement on the both sides. (3) Misinterpreting the sources, which means placing content that is clearly not in the source while referring to the source. This is a serious accusation. This should be easy to prove with a few diffs. Unfortunately, diffs above do not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifics? Take a look at this diff[88] I'd asked for a source that stated that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. DS cited The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy, p275. It simply doesn't say that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. [89] There are further examples on the article talk page, where DS quotes part of a sentence in such a way as to mislead. Unfortunately, since I'm only looking at the same Google-mined snippets that DS is, I can't quote the whole sentence either, but DS qoutes Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (p.75) as "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" (note the capital A, implying this is the start of the sentence). [90] From what Google shows us (incomplete, obviously), DS has omitted what came before: "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." It is simply impossible to use an incomplete sentence as an assertion of fact in the way DS does. Elsewhere, DS uses a statement regarding the proportion of local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters were British Pakistanis - a statement that the source doesn't make. [91]. Not everyone involved was local, as DS is well aware (there was a fascist march and counterdemonstration, which brought in many from outside), and we can't simply assume that the proportion of rioters equals the proportion arrested and charged. The real problem here is that DS engages in Google-mining to find 'sources' to back up his predetermined opinion, rather than looking for sources and then representing the views of the authors. An appallingly-bad practice if one is attempting to provide a neutral perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, again you misrepresent what I have said. You know full well that the majority of the protestors not local had left, I cited and quoted the source on the talk page. And BTW "demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" obviously supports the edit in question. I did not say that any of "local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters'" should be used as a source for the content in dispute, it is an example (which you asked for) that the majority of those arrested were BP. Of course had you left me to finish editing rather than starting this dramafest all this would be quite clear. I am not posting here again as it is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I know (or at least presume) that the majority of non-locals left at some point, I have no reason to assume that none of them were involved in rioting before they left. A quote from a sentence from which you haven't even read in full cannot possibly support anything. And where exactly did I ask for information regarding the proportion of people arrested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73 I had read it in full, and quoted it to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't support any general claim whatsoever regarding the proportion of rioters overall from any particular community. It says nothing regarding later incidents such as when white youths attacked Asian-owned businesses. A narrative relating to one point in time cannot be used to generalise regarding a whole series of events over several days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see just one point in the whole thread. Have a content dispute with someone -- take them to ANI and try to solve the dispute by getting the opponent banned. (Well, good use of ANI. No?) OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for DarknessShines

• I think this is the last straw. One-year ban from editing anything related to race, broadly construed. The drama just isn't worth it. --John (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - to include Pakistan and Pakistani people. I've seen a general tone of anti-Pakistan bias in DarknessShines' various ethnic disputes before (and he's had a block for it). This case looks like cherry-picking in order to include undue anti-Pakistani material (badly misrepresenting sources in the first instances). Adding the POV tag was just belligerence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on second thought, I'm going to keep out of this - don't have time for the drama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkness Shines can be a big pain in various unmentionable regions of the human body but this is really a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. If a tag is unwarranted, that should be discussed on the article talk page. If the tag is restored against consensus, the editor should be blocked. We have admins with the tools to block editors and protect articles so that we can properly harness the fact that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about. A battle between editors on controversial subjects is a good battle, it produces evidence in the form of sources and weight that other, more dispassionate editors, can examine and comment on. I suggest that we ask these editors to move on and seek dispute resolution where this weighing, examining and balancing can properly be done. --regentspark (comment) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my suggestion of one week block, six month topic ban.--Launchballer 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I see absolutely nothing wrong with the material DS was adding. When you have a list of different communities with a high number of a specific ethnic population and fail to note that there have been notable disturbances in some of them involving said ethnic population, that is a legitimate POV issue. Granted, the mention of that community is in the context of demographics so that is not exactly the right place for it, but it certainly seems appropriate to mention that there have been major civil disturbances involving an ethnic group. This could be presented elsewhere in the article with more meaningful context. However, that is strictly a content issue, not a conduct issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. What RegentsPark said above, basically.If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about - yep. Smeat75 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Barisan Nasional

• Barisan Nasional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of soapboxing, unsourced and BLP violations in the wake of recent election. I first requested page protection, then copy edited the lede with sources provided by another editor. Now the disruption is coming from the other direction, with attempts to delete sourced content. More eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm asking again for some administrative oversight to this. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must be a little bit patient. It's Sunday morning in the USA, where the majority of admins live, and not many are active. (I'm not an admin.) Also you should be aware that if any administrative action is taken, it will most likely be to fully protect the page for a few days, in whatever state it happens to be at the moment protection is applied. In the meantime it might be helpful if you would write a brief description of the problem on the talk page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I know--I'm on the east coast, and always thought that admins stay up 24/7 in the service of our venture here. And I trust that an admin will take the time to check the status of content before protecting the article. But for all the moderation I've tried to provide at the article I get this [92], so not everyone is sleeping in. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looie's right about admin activity, but some of us are around and performing thankless tasks. @99, I disagreed with a portion of your edit. I felt that the referral back to the "scandal", which was sourced to an article in January, smacked of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't see any mention of it in the current sources cited about the election itself. I've therefore edited the problematic material to remove that and, in my view, to improve it otherwise but in less important ways. I then semi-protected the article for 5 days. If necessary, I will lock it, but I'm hoping that won't be required. I did not feel I could leave it in the state it was in before protecting it because of the WP:BLP issues involved. You are, of course, welcome to argue that it should be reinserted, but, if so, it would be best for you to find a more current source that ties the issues to the election (or tell me where I missed something). (The warning on your talk page was not from an admin.) As I write this, I see another admin took a different view and removed all of the material. Fine by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb, though I can't imagine what could take precedence over maintaining an article about a Malaysian political party, but there you go. I know that the warning didn't come from an admin, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. As for content, I've no problem with the removal of material--I thought some of it was adequately sourced, but understand your point re: synthesis. Mostly I got the sense that this needed shutting down because of partisanship on both sides. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on User:Diannaa's talk page in case she was unaware of this thread (she removed the material). As I think more and more about the issues, Dianna's removal was the right action. I think perhaps the best thing to do might be to wait until the election is over and put in the results for the party, just as was done for the 2008 election.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I was drawn to the page is because I saw the RFPP request. I often patrol that board on the weekends, when there are few admins around. Sorry you experienced delays in getting a response. Regarding the content, the reason I removed it is because if material about voter fraud is placed into an article about one particular political party, it implies that they are the ones engaging in the activity. The source does not say that, and we should not imply it. Here's the source: Allegations of Foul Play in Cliffhanger Malaysia Election -- Dianna (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't run through all the sources from this search [93], but it appears that the allegations of voter fraud are being made by the opposition against the incumbents. Even if the claims are verified I agree, per Bbb above, that it's better to wait before adding this in. Even then, placing it in the lede looks undue. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Making Death Threat

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

---

See this threat on User talk:Bagumba. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a little stale, since they were subsequently warned by another administrator and they stopped, but I've blocked as obviously unacceptable behavior. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Alrofficial uploading copyrighted images with invalid, sometimes outright phony, PD claims

User:Alrofficial, over the last few days, had added images claimed as PD to quite a few articles. These images are their own uploads to commons, also made over the last few days. Many of the uploads have inadequate justifications, but that is, I suppose, a problem for Commons to deal with. However, because the editor's primary reason for uploading the images is to add them to en-Wiki articles, I believe it is appropriate and important to address the most serious misbehavior here.

First, User:Alrofficial has taken several images bearing copyright notices, cropped the images to remove the copyright notices, and uploaded the images claiming they were originally published without copyright notices. See File:Constance McCashin.JPG and File:Constance McCashin 1981.JPG. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for this misconduct other than intent to deceive. Both images were then added to the infobox of the McCashin article (the second replacing the first), a BLP where such nonfree images are not allowed.[94][95].

Second, User:Alrofficial has repeatedly uploaded images bearing copyright notices and simply declared they did not carry copyright notices. See, for example, File:Shelley Long 1987.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [96]) and File:Marsha Mason 1982.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [97]).

Third, User:Alrofficial has repeatedly uploaded recent copies/prints of older publicity photos, with sources providing no information regarding their original publication, and simply declared they were originally published without copyright notices. See, for example, File:Pamela Sue Martin.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [98]) and File:Shelley Long Publicity photo.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [99]).

I therefore proposed that User:Alrofficial be blocked (indefinitely), until they acknowledge that this behavior is grossly inappropriate and agree to refrain from it in the future; and that when the block is lifted, the editor be placed under a one-year topic ban on adding images to en-wiki BLPs.

I believe the block is justified by the gross misbehavior represented by removing copyright notices from images and uploading the as free, and that the topic ban would justified by the editor's failure to understand the importance and the substance of our policies regarding nonfree content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for downloading these images, but I thought that they meet the license about older publicity photos. I not will upload images with unknown license status --Alrofficial (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Since you are already familiar with which images are a problem, as well as copyright policy, and he seems to understand that he can't do this now, will you help him along a bit Hullaballoo? Just help tag them, revert usage in articles and explain the policy just a bit? I might have missed it, but I didn't see where you discussed it previously, and this would be the fastest way to conclude this as he has already stated how he will move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Discussion had been going on at Commons, and the user had been apprised of the problems there, going back to last year. While the user's understanding of policy details might have contributed here, I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor couldn't understand that chopping a copyright notice off an image, then claiming it never had one, or simply denying the existence of plainly visible copyright notices -- both matters that arose, so far as I could tell, only in the last few days -- were not appropriate editing. The editor stopped responding at Commons once I pointed it the cases where they removed copyright notices, but were still editing actively on en-Wiki without acknowledging the problems at either wiki. There are several hundred uploads to review there, plus a few dozen nonfree images here (which, to be fair, appear less problematic at first glance). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Oy. I didn't check commons (and what happens there is a bit out of our jurisdiction) , but saw a lack of recent images from him here. You might want to ping User:INeverCry, who is an admin both here and at Commons (and he will probably curse me for putting this off on him..;) so we can clean up all around. Now that he has clearly said he will not upload infringing images, I'm willing to give a little rope. The next time he does upload obviously copyright infringing material, he will likely get blocked quickly, however. He is probably better off if he doesn't upload any images, and request it instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this image with back is good for commons and this not? Okay, i not will work in commons now. --Alrofficial (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • The Kelsey image looks OK because no copyright notice is present, both the entire front and back of the image are shown, and the back of the image contains enough information for us to reliably determine the circumstances of the original publication. All three of these elements are necessary. The Harrison image fails both the second and third part of this test. I think it's prudent for you not to upload images to Commons, at least for a while; the rules for nonfree content can be very intricate, and it's easy to overlook essential details. But, as Canoe1967 points out below, it's better to stick to images before 1978, because it's very, very difficult to determine if copyrights for images were ever registered. I'm not familiar with the details of what Commons policy requires for such images. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to stop uploading or leave commons. Just find images like File:Annette Funicello on beach Frankie Avalon Dick Clark 1977.jpg. They need to be 1977 or earlier and show both sides to prove that there was no copyright notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why User:Jahoe nominated for deletion all my ebay images? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many others is ok for Commons licenses.--Alrofficial (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of those don't show the back of the photo. Again, I recommend not uploading until you become more familiar, to prevent any more unintentional violations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most files was with back of the photo. Jahoe says what eBay is not good as source for images, but why many another users upload images from ebay like me? If eBay not good source for publicity stills, maybe should all images in commons? this, this, this, this and others eBay stills not good, per Jahoe. --Alrofficial (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Commons, I have no ability to do anything about what they accept there. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies as well. That other copyright infringing photos exist doesn't allow us to simply add more. But again, we have no authority over what they do at Commons. Not our jobs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war at International Academy of Macomb

International Academy of Macomb has had unencyclopedic content persistently added. (hist) The disputed text contains peacock language and is more appropriate to a social media site than an encyclopedia. Not sure where to take this; it doesn't seem appropriate for WP:AIV since recent history shows four different accounts adding the content in question. I've kept reverting, have templated the talk pages of the two most recent editors doing this, and had a request for page protection turned down. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've left a detailed note on their talk page, with a proper warning. Lets just see if that starts discussion. If they keep putting the fluff back in without even discussing, it might require a block at that point, but I want to at least give them fair final warning first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It now looks like things are moving in a constructive direction there. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Imran Nazar Hosein has been reposted multiple times

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

---

The article Imran Nazar Hosein has been deleted three times, and it is still being reposted. I proposed it for speedy deletion and I suggest that the page be protected from writing/creating it again. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This should also apply to Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use RFPP next time. m.o.p 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Mau Mau Uprising

I have someone who is transparently using multiple IPs to remove material, add rubbish, falsify sources, and so on. The most recent beauty was my adding material from John Lonsdale—probably the leading scholar on African political history, a historian at Cambridge—indicating that part of what Mau Mau achieved was helping to secure African rule after decolonisation. The sock puppet's response? It deletes the sourced material with the explanation that "African rule was guaranteed once the British left." If you can discern any logic here, then do enlighten me.

His whole tendentious approach is Mau Mau is 100% evil, and achieved nothing. The Mau Mau Uprising is a contentious topic, and so may I request some permanent semi-protection for it? at least to save me what is now really the quite tedious task of constantly challenging persistent IP vandalism. LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the IP editor is not behaving so badly. It doesn't help your case that the phrase the IP editor removed is indeed a bit silly: "...or at least secured the prospect of African rule once the British left". As the IP's edit summary explained, African rule was guaranteed once the British left. Nobody except Africans were around at that point. Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if you choose to ignore the sense in which Lonsdale is using the term African (Black Kenyan, a member of the Black majority). Anyway, I changed the article to remove the ambiguity that Lonsdale's terminology appears to generate, and now I must bow out, since you and others have not found in my favour. Thank you for getting back to me. LudicrousTripe (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. There's no vandalism that I can see, and semiprotection isn't an option here. Please take your content dispute to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

IP genre waring

A series of genre changes to articles connected to classic heavy heavy metal bands, especially Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Uriah Heep, and usually including the removal of heavy metal music from the genre description in the infobox, have been a major problem over the last few months. The last two, today, were by 46.159.182.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 46.159.112.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Previous numbers include 46.159.15.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I could give diffs, but it much easier to just look at the contributions as this is the only purpose of these accounts and there is no response to talkpage requests or edit summaries. Is it possible to ban a range of ip numbers? This is a persistent issue and takes a great deal of work by myself and other regular editors since the IP routinely makes 20 to 40 changes at a time.--SabreBD (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is - see WP:RANGEBLOCK. On this occasion, the range to block is 46.159.0.0/16 (65,536 IPs).--Launchballer 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy has become a significant nuisance over the past few months, and this activity needs to stop. Reasoning with the individual has not worked, and this person may not stop this loathsome activity until if and when (s)he is forced to stop. Now to realize the editor has usurped two IPs in one day makes the matter quite pressing. I would support that range block. Is it possible to contact the person's ISP about this issue? Considering how (s)he has been at it since February or March, this is a long-term issue; this, however, does not have to continue to be long-term, because he or she can and must be halted. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

CACook7 threat of legal action

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

---

After previous discussion and warnings, user has now repeated his intention to bring legal action against WMF. See [100] --_nonsense ferret 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) See previous AN/I discussion at [101] the eventual outcome of which is noted here [102]. --_nonsense ferret 00:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. And just for the record, the editor went through his talk page and deleted all of his comments, while leaving everyone else's. Not sure of the intent, but here's the diff anyway. Manning (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Wine origins

Regarding the WINE page: I was able to trace the information from the corrupt reference link (reference link 2) that has been included, and it actually provides very little to promote the Georgian hypothesis In fact, that research, by Patrick Mcgovern and Jose Vouillamoz, suggests South Eastern Anatolia as the origin of wine making, although they make it very clear that they cannot rule out (due to lack of sampling) Iran and Trans-Caucasia, as the source of origin of wine-making. Furthermore, on his Penn Museum webpage, Mcgovern notes, "The earliest chemically attested grape wine in the world was discovered by my laboratory at Hajji Firuz in the northwestern Zagros Mountains of Iran, ca. 5400 B.C. (Early Neolithic Period)". However, he concludes with, "The upland areas of the Caucasus, Taurus, and Zagros Mountains are all possibilities for the earliest domestication and the beginning of winemaking. What especially makes me think that the origins of viniculture may be found here is that there is a great deal of archaeological and historical evidence for what can be called a “wine culture” gradually radiating out in time and space, from small beginnings in the northern mountains of the Near East in the Neolithic, to become a dominant economic, religious and social force throughout the region and later across Europe in the millennia to follow". - So basically, the editor for this page, is using a fake (intentionally broken) link, in order to support his Georgian hypothesis. Even worse, reference link 3, is in plain contradiction to the Georgian Hypothesis Today, when I made the prudent revisions to remove the bad links, I was blocked. Please help in resolving this issue, and unblock that IP address. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see anything of interest to admins, here, but WP:ANI is certainly more appropriate than WP:AN or WT:AN, so I deleted those sections. It does refer to a block of an IP (which may or may not have actually occured), which would be relevant to this board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the IP in question: 209.16.113.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How could there be nothing wrong with using a broken and a working link, both which were/are unquestionably contradictory to one's view? The wine page needs better monitoring against fascist editors. Please review the information for yourself and take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I can see the problem here. Regardless of the accuracy of the claims and the merits of your edits, your edits (I'm presuming you were IP 209) removed 2 sources and changed the dates and place with no edit summary or explanation. To your credit, after your first attempt, you did attempt to engage in discussion in the talk page (and later some's user page). Unfortunately you also continued to edit war against multiple other editors in very quick time and still left no edit summary. While I suspect it didn't help you are an IP which isn't fair, ultimately people are not mind readers. If you leave no edit summary, it's difficult to know what you're trying to do and people may not realise you've left comments on the talk page, even more so if you've already done the edit once without any explaination. And leaving comments in the talk page is no excuse to edit war. Even if a named account, if you try to force changes in such short time, particularly those that remove refs, people are generally going to be wary. You should give time for discussion and to come to consensus rather than trying to force your changes in such a short time. If you agree to stop edit warring and continue discussion in the talk page until consensus is achieved, it's possible your IP will be unblocked (although I see suggestions it's shared so perhaps not).

BTW, please take a read of WP:NPA. Calling editors fascists, does not help your case, it harms it. Also take a read of WP:AGF. You've made the claim 'fake (intentionally broken) link' yet I see no evidence presented for this claim. You haven't even provided a diff of when the reference was first added and I don't see how you've ruled out the reference working at the time. Furthermore, even if the reference never worked, are you sure it wasn't an error copying or whatever? Since the reference seems to exist, it's fairly difficult to claim someone is using a fake/intentionally broken link without good evidence so if you don't have good evidence you need to assume that the error, if there was an error, was not intentional. As for misrepresenting what a reference says, that's more complicated but again, it's difficult to make the claim with only one example even if we accept that the reference doesn't say what we're saying it says (which often could be an unfortunate but unintentional error). You'd generally need evidence from multiple cases that someone continually misrepresents what the reference says but considering I'm still not sure if you know who added the reference in the first place, I'm not sure that you can make the claim.

Anyway, as Arthur Rubin said, there doesn't seem to be anything here for ANI to deal with. As I said earlier, it's possible your IP will be unblocked if you agree to behave well, but there's an established process for that outlined at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which doesn't involved ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IP on Kurgan hypothesis

Hello. An anonymous, IP has been posting long, rambling posts full of ad hominem attacks and eyebrow-raising ideology on Kurgan hypothesis for some time now. Just look at the talk page and article space history. Can someone go ahead and ban this troll and protect the article to the fullest extent it can be protected? This is getting pretty old. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please. It's gone beyond "routinely annoying".Volunteer Marek 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for WP:NPA, rather than for WP:TE. If consensus is to extend the block for WP:EW or other reasons, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? Out of the all of the policies that this user was breaking over and over again, he or she gets a simple WP:NPA block? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You're welcome to request an edit warring block. I would have to do more research to support a block for edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, Bloodofox, the main problem very much was the personal attacks, in the edit summaries as well as on the talk page. The editor without an account had a valid point to make, but was seemingly incapable of making it in a manner unaccompanied by insults to everyone around xem. This is actually very sad, because if the editor without an account had actually had good communications skills, xe would probably still be here, citing academic sources to make a talk page argument. I've read the analysis of the Kurgat Hypothesis by professor Endre Bojtár, and I recommend reading it to all editors of that article. Yes, there is a problem that the article doesn't adequately cover the problems with the Hypothesis that other scholars have put forward. I see no mention of some of the linguistic problems, for example, in the article. There is a neutrality issue to address, by making the coverage of the subject more rounded. I suggest, Bloodofox, that you stop erroneously confusing blocks with bans, and actually read some of the sources that the editor with an account so hamfistedly and self-destructively put forward. There is actual work to be done, and a block of an editor for being such an all-round fool in dealing with other people that xe even thinks Arthur Rubin of all people to be a sockpuppet should not be taken as some sort of administrative endorsement of the article content, the positions on the talk page, or any failure to read scholarly sources that are cited down to the exact page number. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone disputes that there are legitmate criticisms of various forms of the theory, but the IP consistently confuses this with opposition to Gimbutas, who indeed had some very fringey ideas, which likewise, no-one disputes. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You aren't getting the point that I just made. The problem was not anything to do with the article-related part of the talk page discussion. The argument, sans the namecalling, rudeness, and patronizing attitude, was a valid talk page argument to make, especially given what Professor Bojtár et al. turn out to actually say when one reads the sources cited. The problem with the editor without an account was things like "trolling asshats", "teenage assholes"/"dumb pigs", and this. Arthur Rubin's block for personal attacks was addressing the real problem, despite the reaction of Bloodofox above. The actual content-related argument made by the editor without an account, once stripped of the insults, idiocy, irrelevant posturing, and general incompetence in dealing with other people, wasn't a problem in any way meriting administrator attention, and indeed had a point about the article neutrality. And if the person making it hadn't been such a unmitigated twerp in xyr interactions with other people, xe would still be pointing to scholarship to bolster a talk page argument. The right thing to do now is not to think that because the edit privileges have been removed, the content question raised against the article is thereby rendered invalid. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't getting the point I just made. If you are telling us that he is blocked for being an ass, and that if he hadn't been an ass he wouldn't have been blocked for it, I fail to the the value of this "information". If you are telling us that it is legitimate to raise questions about the theory using reliable sources, then again, I fail to see the relevance of this "information". We all know that. The point I was making is that the way the editor refers to sources mixes up various aspects of Gimbutas's ideas, making it an obsession with Gimbutas, not specific ideas. In this respect, the editor does not have "a point about the article neutrality". He/she (or Xe if you prefer) does not make sufficient sense to have any clear point. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I repeat: The editor without an account's content argument wasn't the problem, despite your going back to it repeatedly as if somehow it were, certainly not one relevant to this noticeboard. Arthur Rubin hit the nail on the head, and if you don't see the value in explaining that given that it was questioned immediately above, then you aren't even following this discussion. If you want, similarly, to hit the nail on the head, then you need to read the editor without an account's argument again, because there is a valid point about neutrality in there. I found it. You could too. (It doesn't take that much effort.) You're making exactly the error I'm cautioning against: trying to dismiss a valid argument simply because a fool made it offensively. As I've already both demonstrated and noted, it's quite possible to make it without calling complete strangers names. It's a common mistake to think that blocks equate to ending a dispute in favour of the non-blocked parties. And you can see people, like Bloodofox in this case, think that just going back to the status quo ante is just fine because the editor without an account has been "banned". A personal attacks block, however, really is for personal attacks, and doesn't imply that the person making the personal attacks is automatically wrong on the substantive content issue. That's just as much an ad hominem fallacy, ironically, as that made by the person who made the personal attacks. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've restarted the talk page discussion, collapsing the nitwittery, in support of the point that the content question is valid. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption on Irish War of Independence and other articles

User talk:MrFalala received a short block on 1st May for edit warring and disruption and is now back as User talk:92.7.12.36. The edit history here and on the talk page illustrate the issue. This is an editor on a mission, including claims that his great-grandfather killed Michael Collins. This has gone on for an extended period including Scottish issues ----Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent because the British still retained the Treaty ports which would be used to refuel the ships of the Royal Navy in any European war, making Ireland a target for enemy planes and submarines. My great-grandfather Denis "Sonny" O'Neill shot the British collaborator Michael Collins in 1922 because the Treaty did not equal independence from the UK. Like thousands of other republicans he wanted to keep the war going until real independence was achieved. (92.7.12.36 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

This board is not the place to decide content matters, re-enact the Irish Civil War or push The Truth. It is for handling user conduct and yours so far suggests further blocks may be in order. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place where we accepted original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to the edit warring going on, from the one user, I've given the article a semi-protection for two weeks. Seemed safer than handing out blocks that wouldn't stop an IP change. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Other article/page where this user engaged in edit warring: Talk:The Blitz, The Blitz, Bengal famine of 1943, Partition of Ireland, Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and Michael Collins (Irish leader). A very clear example of his POV-pushing can be found in an completely unrelated article: Fawlty Towers: The Germans. The Banner talk 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi protect. That said I think there is a clear case for a block on MrFalala over multiple articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo

I think I need some advise from more experienced administrators. Earlier today I closed the AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo, which I guess nobody wanted to close for two days since the most possible outcome implied merging seven articles. I closed it as merge, and started merging [103]. I got reverted [104] by Aquintero82, who then explained on my talk page that addition of this text breaks the structure of the page. Whereas I understand their argument, I am not quite sure what I should do now. Redirect all articles without merging? Withdraw my closure? Trying to impose some other consensus? I would appreciate some advise on this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure looks correct. You could redirect and let those who seem to think they know the target well to do the merge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do like you suggest. It is a pity we lose references, but I probably can not do anything about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing an AfD as merge doesn't require YOU to do the merge; you can put {{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}} at the top of the page and {{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}} on the target's talk page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close and hopefully someone else will do it. Normally if it's an easy one I'll just do it, if I think it will never get done I close as redirect and in my comments will offer to userfy it to anyone who wants to merge it, and will only use the templates if it is more work than I want to do but I think someone else will do it. J04n(talk page) 19:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Harassment

Hello, I reported this a few days ago, but the IP editor is at it again. An IP editor with whom I had a content dispute has been wiki hounding me. He has posted yet another personal attack on the Talk:BK Chicken Fries stating that my dyslexia makes me unfit to edit Wikipedia. This follows him going throuh my edit history and reverting several dozen edits. He has also posted comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink page just to be an ass. The most recent posting came from 12.154.167.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has been using these ranges:

• 12.154.167.xxx - registered to AT&T mobile
• 98.182.53.46.xxx - Registered to Cox
• 72.209.2.xxx - Registered to Cox

All of these addresses are in the Warwick, Rhode Island area.

Is there any way to make this guy quit? And I did not notify him. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to lay a range block on 12.154.167.128/25 (up to 128 users would be blocked). I will watch-list the problematic talk page and your talk page to collect further IPs. Repeated blocks do work; just be patient. If the person bothers you on other pages please collect the IPs and post on my talk page once you have at least two in the same range. -- Dianna (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jenks

OP has rethought their position. Tiderolls 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The person Jenks has been moving pages and entering the wrong information on the American Dad! seasons. I putted the dispute box on top of all the pages but the user User:davejohnsan that the person teamed up with keeps taking them off. I told him to stop but he still keeps doing it. --Archcaster (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You starting this page Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Jenks (I sent to MfD) is more than a little inappropriate, particularly since this use hasn't edited here since 20 January 2010. You just got here, have a few dozen edits to your name, and now filing a complaint against someone who hasn't edited in over three years....something isn't right here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I've just about deciphered that this is supposed to be about User:Jenks24 and is probably related to this RM, but lack of diffs anywhere make analysis of this report very difficult. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Jenks24 has one cite fix of an American Dad article, March 29 [105] in his last 500 edits, so I can't see how this is him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Duh, me. But still, the claims of the socks in that (now deleted) LTA was over the top. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I'm trying to deal with this on my and his talk page, after getting one page deleted, deleting another, etc. Jeez. Will see if Jenks24 was notified (probably not) and do so now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC) He means Jenks24 and the issue concerns the requested move that is already linked above. However, aside from reverting Archcaster's unnecessary use of the factual accuracy dispute tag, I have no involvement in this matter whatsoever. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) And as far as I'm concerned, this issue does not need to concern any administrator - at least not yet. I've already explained to Archaster that he is more than welcome to reopen the issue on whether there are eight or nine seasons of the show. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I WANT THIS POST TO BE OFF THE PAGE IMMEDIATELY! --Archcaster (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to talk page

A discussion regarding SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to this talk page was started today by User:Raeky who is not generally active on that talk page. The rationale was that although the topic ban from February 2013 on user:SuzanneOlsson allowed access to that talk page, no benefit from it can be detected, and it may in fact need to be viewed in the liability column given the cyclic nature of the discussion. I agreed with that assessment, and another user observed on that thread that since the ban Ms Olsson has not "supplied a single useful piece of information which would improve the article". And I agree with that statement too. In fact, as I stated there, we have not seen one WP:RS source from Ms Olsson. Not one. All we continue to get are statements like:

• Promotion of the movie trailer for her book

• Continued defense of original research as a strategy when blogs are questioned as sources

• Repeated source free discussion of the same inscriptions

And I again had to joke today that I was tempted to suggest a reading of WP:RS. I said that because as stated on the ban discussion before, back in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and was told to only use reliable sources by User:Paul Barlow and told about self-published items by user:Dougweller, etc. Now, it is just too ironic for me to weigh if I should suggest a reading of WP:RS again. We have all recommended that more times than I can remember.

The situation in February was this:

• The ban was put in place due to her clear conflict of interest on the page because she has self-published a book on it and it was agreed that she is just too close to the topic and treats it with a personal element.
• The idea of allowing talk page access was to obtain the benefit of information she may have which would help that page of the encyclopedia.

As user:In ictu oculi stated on the talk there, we have seen no benefit at all from anything Ms Olsson has typed since February, and none seems likely. Not "one piece of information" that can be used has been provided. Not one.

And I have come to see her closeness to the topic as a reflection of the fact that she believes the article is about her "private family tomb", as I mentioned on the talk there. I think Ms Olsson genuinely believes that she is the 59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth, and according to The Times of India has even attempted to excavate his body in India to compare its DNA with her own to prove it. So it would be an understatement to say that she is too attached to the topic.

I think User:Raeky's suggestion that the topic ban should extend to the few related talk pages is a good idea. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Full topic ban extended to all pages including user space. — raekyt 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It's hardly ever good to leave article talkpages as the only outlet for the energies of a topic banned SPA. If those energies are considerable, we're likely to get what we have here: the user owns the talkpage through insistence, repetitiousness, and passive resistance to Wikipedia's rules and principles. And, I'm sorry to be blunt, but please let's do it right this time, so the editor's agenda doesn't resurface at, say, Talk: Unknown years of Jesus and we have to open another thread about that in a month. This kind of attrition is very bad for talkpages and for productive editors. So, I support a topic ban from Roza Bal, related articles, and related talkpages. (Not sure about user space, though. Why, really? Have there been problems in user space?) Bishonen | talk 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I am not aware of any issues in user space. I agree with your characterization, and wording of the ban extension. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The editor needs to gain experience with other areas on Wikipedia to understand that relentless POV pushing on any page is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Bishonen is always very friendly, but I fail to see why leaving any wiggle room would be desirable, unless user space blogging on the topic is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• She does only one thing here. What's the point of keeping her around? Why is she not simply banned for self promotion, disruption, not getting the point, et cetera? Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - It's no secret that I've had some fairly in-depth discussions with Ms Olsson over a lengthy period of time and was jointly responsible for publishing her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. I know she has certainly been frustrated with the terms of her topic ban (having begrudgingly agreed to them in the first place) but has, as far as I can tell, complied with those conditions entirely. She has not edited the Roza Bal article directly, nor has she edited her own biography directly since it was moved to article space (though she has posted what is effectively an edit request on another user's talk page and on her own talk page). In both cases she has attempted to clarify why she made the claims she did and what she was attempting to do by making them. She has been given some advice about providing sources to balance the claims. It would be unfair, I think, to ignore her multiple clarifications and continue to claim that she "genuinely believes" something she has clearly disputed. I would urge editors to assume good faith and acknowledge that while her talk page contributions might not be particularly valuable, the editor in question is complying with the conditions of her topic bans and is contributing material that she believes is worthwhile. I think it would also be worth noting that during the period outlined above, Ms Olsson struggled with some major personal events that she fully disclosed to editors here. I've worked with History2007 in a number of contexts and I have faith that he wouldn't have brought this here except as a final resort. I totally understand his frustration and I'm certainly not suggesting this be swept under the carpet, so to speak. I only ask that editors and admins tread lightly and be conscious of past history. Stalwart111 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe she even remotely meets WP:GNG, and although she's kept to her topic ban, shes been nothing but disruptive to the Roza Bal talk page with 70 edits to it since the ban and nothing helpful or aimed at improving the article to our standards. — raekyt 02:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The question of her meeting WP:GNG was briefly discussed when the draft article was put up for deletion. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG hasn't really be questioned with any depth. I've been keeping an eye on Talk:Roza Bal and while I can certainly see content there that would be frustrating, there are a number of editors making all sorts of claims and providing all sorts of commentary, balanced out by the ever-calm clarifications of a few. Certainly I would agree that the talk page has somewhat strayed from its primary purpose of improving the article rather than discussing the subject. But those extensive discussions, useful or not, have produced a fairly balanced and well-written article that deals fairly analytically with a subject about which a good many people get very emotional. Given she is obviously not contributing directly to the article (per her topic ban), would it not be a better option to simply ignore her posts/threads and deal with those from others that you believe to be worth your time? If there's "nothing helpful" in her suggests/requests/comments why not ignore them? Change the timing/counter on the archive bot and if nobody responds within a few days, the thread will disappear. Stalwart111 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The AFD was for a non-article space page Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson, and therefore was a XfD, so not nearly as well looked at as an AfD would of. The sources stem from a single event as best I can tell, where she got herself thrown out of a country for trying to dig up some tomb to prove it was Jesus or something, hardly "in depth" coverage that meets WP:GNG. Theres a reason why we don't let people continuously disrupt talk pages see: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:HERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc... — raekyt 02:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, as I say, it was briefly discussed, but certainly not in depth. The articles are a bit broader than just that one event and cover a number of visits, to different countries and at different times, and some are more about her books, from memory. Anyway, that's not really the point of this discussion but I'm more than happy to have that discussion with you elsewhere. As I said, I can certainly agree that the talk page has strayed from its purpose, but I don't think it is entirely the fault of one person and I'm not convinced that good faith attempts (even misguided or mistaken ones) should be considered disruptive. Stalwart111 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Response - I am deeply saddened to see that all this is the direct result of harassment by History007. He has followed me relentlessly, always making negative comments to or about me or anything I contribute... and he undermines every contribution to Roza Bal page because apparently this is not in accordance with his personal religious beliefs. Just recently he is editing at least 14 pages on Christianity, a topic which he seems to regard himself as an "expert" whose opinion must prevail. Further, in his long rant above, he refers to my belief that "I am 59th descendant from Jesus"- knowing full well that I explained this in careful detail- why I made the statement in kashmir, and why I retracted it as soon as I left Kashmir... In other words,,,he is misleading all of you and not including all information. About my not contributing "anything valuable" on the Roza Bal page, that too is untrue..as seen by the comments from other editors. I have made several attempts to contribute valuable info, much of which History 2007 shoots down...I dont see this from any of the other editors there...I submit that History2007 has an agenda...a personal dislike of me that makes it impossible for him to be fair or impartial. Please ignore him. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 2:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Please ignore him"? Judging from some of the above comments, it doesn't seem like a simple one-sided attempt at smearing you. Doc talk 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Parappa664

WP:DENY sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who is Parappa664? I've stumbled across some interesting users today. I was looking through a gallery and found something uploaded by a user, Parappa664. This user is a cross-wiki vandal, apparently. He attacked this wiki + Wikimedia Commons + MediaWiki + Simple English. Extended content Wikimedia is not the only trolling bait for him. Within some research, I found that he doesn't just abuse accounts on wikis. I've stumbled across a forum, revealing that all of the accounts listed below have YouTube channels (or had). Parappa66- pattern; Parappa661 (most recent in the Parappa66- pattern), Parappa 662, Parappa663, Parappa664 (the one who started it all), Parappa665, User:Parappa 667, Parappa 668; user/Parappa664 Cuddles734; user/Cuddles734 Petunia465; user/Petunia465 Flaky465; user/Flaky465 Toothy7465, T7465; Closed BulbasaurCharmander6; Closed I noticed a pattern, obviously indicating Flaky465, Cuddles734, and Petunia465 are the same person. Take a look at their channel icons. They are all based off of Happy Tree Friends and they have the same type of funny drawn icon with minor changes to match the character in their name. That's definitely not a coincidence. Please compare these names and characters in the list of HTF characters. Toothy7465 matches as well, who escaped the check user and range block when Parappa's sock-puppetry was first revealed (but later blocked as soon at it expired). One of his videos was reuploaded. Why would someone reupload a video from a closed account without permission, and how? And then, the earliest YouTube account is Parappa664 (joined February 2008), the one who started it all. He seems to have survived his (suspected) other 2008 accounts being suspended, apparently (these might be connected to users like CaptianOlimar1234567890, Sunny Chan 564, etc.), though he claims them as his buddies. He has the longest pattern on here, containing accounts Parappa661-Parappa668 (minus Parappa666, I might know why). There is also Boingerbox, who has a YouTube channel, but the forum post contained no evidence of him (or...her?) being a sock, even after joining during the era of the other 2009 accounts, so she's not a sock. Also, the forum posted another sock, Flippy454, vur no user like that exists. He might be under one of these other people, though. Ezekiel53746 Please note Versageek claimed all of these accounts as Pickbothmanlol, but, judgung by "the IPs differ from the usual geolocation for Pickbothmanlol.", I think the wrong sockmaster was chosen. Now, let's look at our friend, Ezekiel53746. He was a good user in 2010, but went on a downfall in 2011, where he was just too...funny. He later tried appealing his block 2 months ago, and no luck. He then decides to accept it. The "coincidence"? After his autoblock expires, several more accounts go on the run. This includes newest addition Parappa661, "Pickbothanlol on cylinders", "Parappa664 on cylinders", "Mozilla Firefox", "Begindryly" (talk page abuser), and "Computeruser345", a user who was a constructive editor and got caught in collateral damage, getting "accidentally" blocked. Later, Ezekiel53746 got caught and every account got locked. I think it's time to ban this user from the community for failing to change. All of his accounts Here's his full list of accounts within some research. There is a pattern connected to all of the accounts with similarities. SunnyChan465 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (oldest account which never got noticed or blocked) Petunia465 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My name is the master of all of the 6's (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vanlalism warner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa663 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vanlalizer warner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) BulbasaurCharmander6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) CaptianOlimar1234567890 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) BC6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Giggles3254 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Flaky465 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Cuddles734 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa664 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa665 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa662 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Sunny Chan 564 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Handy2843 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My edits will not be constructive (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Toothy7465 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Bulbasaur the pokemon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Squirtle the pokemon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My name is the master of all of the 5's (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Toothy the beaver (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Petunia the skunk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Ezekiel63745 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (original Ezekiel account before the password got lost) Ezekiel53746 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Begindryly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Computeruser345 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa661 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa 668 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) The password is judahgrave (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Canibeblockedplease (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My edits will be constructive (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Computer Technologies Inc. (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Speerboys (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Jokesstone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Uw-usernameblock (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Mozilla Inc. (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) J delanoy on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Chekusers on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Gimbo on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Isis on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa664 on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Pickbothmanlol on tires (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) That adds up to 45 accounts. This is spiraling way out of control, and this has gone cross-wiki. I think it's time to community ban Parappa664 and end this. Also, all accounts should be hardblocked (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page). Alex2564 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Support as the proposer. Alex2564 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Not entirely sure I support hardblocking but yes, do block all as unauthorised sockpuppets.--Launchballer 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I think all should be hardblocked as a long term abuser. Alex2564 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Question: Alex, please explain how a community ban would, in your words, "end this". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) All of the accounts have made abusive unblock reports, so Parappa664 should be banned since there's no benefit in unblocking any of his accounts. Alex2564 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) That doesn't answer Floquenbeam's question. How will a community ban prevent the creation of sockpuppets or the filing of disruptive unblock requests? If not, why waste the time "discussing" this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User Kaiser von Europa adds publications from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals involved in plunder and ethnic cleansing into articles about Polish cities and history

User Kaiser von Europa[106] (which means "Emperor of Europe" in German) has been repeatedly inserting publications from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals involved in plunder and ethnic cleansing into articles about Polish cities and history to support his claims about German presence in Polish cities. I discovered during the course of my interaction with him that he is already indefinitely blocked on German wikipedia after engaging in sockpuppetry, pov pushing, and edit warring[107], an there is in fact a whole list of sock-puppets noted on German wiki(including ones where he made claims that modern Germany has right to Polish territory)

Two examples of inserting publication from Nazi Germany into article about Polish city(more can be presented):

• introduction of Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935, p. 25

• Example of inserting publication by Nazi war criminals and ideologists supporting ethnic cleansing of Poles and extreme nationalisminsertion of source labeled Ernst Bahr, Wolfgang La Baume, Kurt Forstreuter et al. (1981), pp. 72–73.

The source in question is a reprint of a book from 1966 by former Nazis involved with ethnic cleansing, abuse of Jewish slave labor and war plunder. Kurt Forstreuter is a known Nazi who was responsible for war plunder in Poland, Other people in the book are Erich Keyser who was a Nazi racist ideologist connected with supporting and organizing ethnic cleansing in Central Europe during Second World War and trying to re-invent German nationalism post-War by exploiting Cold War conflict with Eastern Europe. Wolfgang La Baume was responsible for propaganda claiming that most of Poland is German territory. Do note that much more could be added on Nazi background of the authors if needed. Also this is basically a simple reprint of an earlier book by Nazi Erich Weise who was responsible for exploiting Jewish slave labor and plundering Polish archives.

I discovered the background of the authors and list of them by myself-user Kaiser von Europa repeatedly evaded questions to reveal their names when asked on his talk page, instead posting statements like " I strongly recommend that you buy the book(...) The price of the book is only about 15 $, and you would own a really good book from which you could learn quite a lot indeed"[108]

Other actions besides adding Nazi and nationalist literature as source to Polish related articles include for example:

• Inserting claim that Nazi Germany in 1939 "integrated" Polish territories to Germany and removing information that they were occupied by Nazi Germany[109]

• Removing information in the same edit that Polish minority was persectued in German Empire and changing it from "Polish population suffered from heavy Germanization" to the "Polish minority complained about Germanization"

[110]

• Inserting information from 18th century German Protestant source to claim that all inhabitants of a Polish city taken by Prussia were actually Germans even if they spoke Polish language[111]

I have repeatedly asked user to change his stance and use modern, reliable sources instead of Nazis25 April Request,30 April request,1st May request to which he refused and in fact went as far as calling them absolutely reliable sources[112], while restoring sources from Nazi Germany and by known nationalist and Nazi authors(one example[113])

I am afraid the user has so far refused several friendly attempts to cease using Nazi sources and publications on Wikipedia and repeats the behavior that led to his ban on German Wikipedia. I have notified the user about this discussion[114] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This has already gone to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, where claims by MyMoloboaccount were already addressed by Herkus Monte [115]. As of the moment of writing, this discussion is intentionally not linked to by the OP.

I know of Der Große Brockhaus and I believe so do most German speakers. It's the German equivalent for Britannica and of highest quality. The year of publication is certainly not perfect, but for legal reasons Google Books cannot make more recent versions accessible. Calling the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie a "Nazi source" is highly inappropriate! --walkee^talkee 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, actually at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, all the uninvolved users (all two of them) agreed with MyMoloboAccount/OP that this was not a reliable source. While the modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable encyclopedia, the editions from the Nazi era, which are the ones Kaiser von Europa used, are, obviously, not reliable.

More fundamentally, the User account Kaiser von Europe has been indefinetly banned from German Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. In particular [116] [117] for spamming unreliable sources and sources which are more than two hundred years old (in violation of WP:PRIMARY), for misrepresenting sources and for making POV claims and edits. Per the linked comment it apparently took quite a while to clean up after this editor. Subsequently Kaiser von Europa ran an extensive sock farm on de-wiki to evade the block with over forty sock puppets identified (in addition to IP addresses) [118].

The bottom line here is that the book edited by the Nazi archivist Erich Weise (who was also in charge of looting Polish archives during WWII and using Jewish slave labor) which Kaiser is spamming into dozens of articles is unreliable and this has been pointed out to Kaiser, here on en-Wiki.

Even more problematically, after Kaiser was questioned about the use of this source/requested not to use it, he began inserting the same source but without attributing it to Erich Weise, for example here [119] (lots more edits of this nature can be provided), in an apparent attempt to hide the association of the source with Erich Weise and make it harder to track down. And then it gets worse. When I asked him not to do this on this talk page he began inserting the same source but now attributing it to the historian Udo Alrnold, claiming that Arnold, not Weise, was the editor of the 1981 "edition" (in actuality, just a reprint of the 1966 work, not a new edition). This is false. Arnold merely wrote a very short blurb in the 1981 reprint stating that it's just an exact replication of the 1966 work. Neither Worldcat, nor google books, nor any library in the world lists Arnold as the editor of the volume. Kaiser willfully and deliberately began misrepresenting the source further (after attempting to obfuscate its origins by omitting Weise's editorship) by attributing it to Arnold. That actually gets us into WP:BLP issues, but nm.

So what we have here is a user pushing an extremist POV, obfuscating and deliberately mischaracterizing sources in pursuit of that objective and completely unwilling to change his behavior. The extensive sock puppetry and long term abuse at German Wikipedia don't exactly inspire hope either.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise. Note how the German article makes no mentions of war crimes at all, and how the article here reduces Erich Weise to a war criminal. It sure looks like his historical work is widely used by other historicans. I can't form an opinion on this but this content dispute is not for ANI anyway. NPOV probably lies somewhere in between. Now look who is the author of Erich Weise. I have not looked at Kaisers edits but maybe Molobo et al. are on a mission... 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise - you mean the version that a sockpuppet of Kaiser's POVed [120]? And you are ...? Volunteer Marek 03:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the German version looks good to me. But neither does your version here. Do you agree that he is used as source by other historians ? 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mobile edits

Has there been a sudden upsurge in the number of mobile edits lately, or is it just something I happened to notice? I haven't been RC patrolling a great deal recently, so maybe it's always like this. I wouldn't really consider it a problem, except that the overwhelming majority of those edits (about 90-95%) seem to be vandalism. It's nice that we want to make Wikipedia easier to edit, but we really don't need to make it any easier to vandalize. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same upsurge. Perhaps it was some change with the tagging that made it more noticeable or a change with the interface to make it more common.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about this also. A change in the tagging system makes sense. So far all the ones tagged this way on my watchlist have been vandalism. Hopefully that will change. MarnetteD | Talk 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I frequently browse WP on my Android phone, and in the last couple of days the UI has been updated to include edit links next to every section header. Previously I had to use en.wikipedia.org rather than en.m.wikipedia.org to edit. Now I can access the editing feature straight from the mobile site. I haven't tested it out yet, but I bet that new feature is why you're seeing an upsurge in mobile edits. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet that Cymru.lass has figured it out. I, too, often edit by Android and have never used the mobile site because I can't edit. I just pull up the standard site on my Droid RAZR. If the mobile site now accepts edits, it is logical that mobile editing has increased and will surge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the change on my droid device, but this would indeed make a difference. Editing on a mobile is very difficult--lengthy sections, tables, info boxes, other areas almost impossible. If you could access the mobile site and edit through that interface it would make it much easier. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)