Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive802

Unfair and biased topic ban imposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bear with me.

1. Context: There is a pair of very controversial articles, namely

   2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

   Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

   User Darkness Shines is pushing an obnoxious agenda supporting a version which I think is a blatant violation of wikipedia policies in each one of them. He created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as category of the same name and vehemently defended both of them in the AFD, DRV as well as CFD, blamed the closer, even when multiple editors tried to make him understand the issue. Darkness was blocked and then unblocked and that unblock was controversial to put it mildly. Let's not forget I told that this editor will not only lead to his own block but also others'. Now, it's no secret that because of some recent changes in his proclivities he has managed to garner a few hardcore sympathizers who would want has supported him in his struggle to see an exclusive and utterly one-sided focus on only anti-Muslim violence in India, who incessantly strive to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom". For more on Darkness Shines see this temporary repository.

2. I expanded one article few weeks ago, added literally hundreds of sources, 116 to be exact, but later it was reduced down to 3 sources with an allegation that I have turned it into a political screed by none other than FPaS. And with warning that seemed to me more like a threat that if I try to restore any of it again I will be banned no questions asked, and I didn't because I was scared I didn't want to be banned. I obviously felt bullied. I didn't like it even one bit. Save me all the repetition see this. I have asked him to explain what the problem was, I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Maybe that I could have handled it more finesse but he didn't even bother to explain anywhere what the issues were. Still I refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article because I respect the warning. I don't believe that I have IDHT yet. But when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing.
3. What happened in the past 24 hours has really managed to put big doubts in my mind about the whole establishment. Now in a separate article 2002 Gujarat violence added other sourced content which I think is pertinent enough and none of the involved editors protested against it (even the extra-scrupulous Darkness Shines let it stay). Again, maybe I am wrong in some subtle way but that is not a ground to assume bad faith on my part? I did not misrepresent the source, I encourage you to check it. I don't believe Wikipedia is censored but that belief is steadily languishing. Instead of talking with me or discussing with me, FPaS deemed it okay to ban me based on a subjective pretext interpretation of my actions for SIX months from any India-Pakistan related article. I have been editing that article for weeks, what happened this time that triggered the ban you may ask, I can only point to this banality. Note What Admin Spartaz wrote:

   ″I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages.″

   And he did it properly. I have no complaints against him.

4. BTW it is only me who is banned, not Darkness Shines whom FPaS himself recently warned by saying, [1],

   ″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″

I have in past in this very venue see things that have boggled my mind and yet I am astounded. I was in the middle of a discussion with Dlv999, Sarvajna, DS and Dharmadhyaksha. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, or misrepresented any source deliberately, or behaved uncivilly or any other way tried to disrupt wikipedia in last 7 days. What is the problem that I'm creating? Tell me and give me a chance! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: I have changed some content above because of a request by Salvio here. I know it's bad practice to change a post after it has been met with responses but it's a double edged sword for since Salvio said below he might block me, and he did, if I didn't change it. I don't know if it is up to the par even now, but please understand that much of what I have written here have less to do with faith, more with empirical evidence, objective observation and common sense. Some of these, I think, are indispensable to the validity of my appeal. Most of us might not understand the subtleties of the situation, albeit some can. Mrt3366 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• I'm not going to pretend I understand the subtleties on this affair, but based on [2] the banning admin was WP:INVOLVED in editing the topic area and was in a direct content disagreement with the banned editor. So someone else should impose the ban if it is necessary. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look at it carefully and in detail it is actually dead-simple. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why was the appeal made here and not at WP:AE using the standard appeal template? The topic ban was issued according to discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBIP. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed on ANI and, better yet, on AN (as a personal note, I prefer these venues to AE, but there are fellow Arbs who feel differently). That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After that, I will be blocked? WOOW! The things you call personal attacks are observations that are indispensable to my appeal. Most don't get how critical the situation is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I particularly like this, but I have just blocked MrT for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

*blink* You did whuh? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear assumption of bad faith by the admin who awarded a topic ban to MrT, he is very much involved with MrT in some other articles and was not happy with MrT so he banned him, and for what? Some edit made by MrT was given as the reason, so how many people felt that his edit was problematic? No one except that admin. I feel that we should not only remove the topic ban of MrT for this good faith edit but also there should be some action against this admin for misusing his admin rights. -sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be some sort of background between Mrt and FPaS (I have no idea when/how it started) and probably FPaS should had avoided any administrative action towards MrT and let an uninvolved admin doing eventual actions against him. In any case these two edits are problematic but likely not even worthy of a talk page warning (even if I don't consider reverting both of them as a wrong action). And even if FPaS was correct in imposing a ban, a six month ban is absolutely beyond measure. However, waiting to hear FPaS'explanations... Cavarrone 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In a normal situation what you say may be correct (obviously the details would need to be examined to determine whether "let an uninvolved admin..." is a reasonable summary). However, in a topic under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA), the situation is very different. Several major battles in real life are echoed in Wikipedia with editors on one side fighting editors on the other side over a wide range of articles for years. Little details such as the name of a town may seem incidental to the casual onlooker, but can have epic implications to those involved who recognize that one sequence of letters means their side is right, and another sequence of letters means the other side is showing their POV bias. In such circumstances, it is impossible for order to be maintained unless one or two volunteer admins adopt the dirty task of following the skirmishes, and every enthusiastic editor quickly becomes acquainted with the one or two admins who monitor the topic. If INVOLVED were hyper-applied, chaos would develop because it is not possible for completely uninvolved people (with no knowledge of the background and history) to follow all the details—that's why the problem went to Arbcom in the first place. Wikipedia is not an exercise in justice. An appeal should address the precise points mentioned in the topic ban, and should assume the admin is working in good faith—the purpose of an appeal is to show that the admin was incorrect in the particular case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The admin FPaS who unilaterally decided this ban is unfortunately WP:INVOLVED in making content decisions in the topic area. I was uninvolved in editing this area before this thread started, but it was easy for me to notice his !voter AfD participation in [3] and his decision to twice-stub the other article sans discussion. (Mr. T's version of the article had a horribly unfocused prose flow, so I found it easier to expand/[re]write from scratch rather than try to massage Mr. T's text toward more NPOV, but that's obviously a content decision.) This is unfortunately another regentspark-like situation, with an admin being closely enough involved in content-making decisions taking actions which are normally reserved for uninvolved ones. I realize from my own experience the difficulty in getting uninvolved admins to look at cases of long-term problematic conduct, but this is unfortunately how Wikipedia's policies and admin community are currently structured. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I too had edited the article on Minorities in Pakistan and I think I too should present my perspective. I am concerned that Wikipedia is doing a piss poor job of noting human rights violation in Pakistan and I have been trying to correct the situation as much as I can. FuturePerfectatSunrise seems to be super-sensitive to negative content about Pakistan and had edited that article whitewashing almost all of the (well sourced) negative content about Pakistan. I had created a section on "Women" and FuturePerfectatSunrise has deleted that too (without any explanation). They had threatened to block (without warning) anyone who edits the article in an "obviously non-neutral" way but would not explain what that "obviously non-neutral" thing might be. (Mrt3366 has requested them to explain things several times.) So, the result is that if I edit the article at all, I am at immediate risk of being blocked for editing in that mysterious but "obviously non-neutral" way. I am afraid I cannot deal with an ed who is whitewashing an article and is likely to block me (by doubling up as an admin on the same article). So, I had given up editing that article. If FuturePerfectatSunrise had explained their concerns, I would have liked to work with them, and address those concerns. But FuturePerfectatSunrise remains completely uncommunicative and just keeps waving the admin-gun and shooting. Looking at the way Mrt3366 has been victimized, my impulse to edit that article has eroded even further. As a non-admin, I cannot be expected to deal with an ed who wants to whitewash negative content and can block/ban me. It is up to the community to see if it is OK for admins to block/ban eds that they have content disputes with. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Women, in general, are not usually considered to be a minority. So that section is probably off-topic in that article, unless only women of some religious/ethnic minorities face extra discrimination, and in that case the issue is better phrased in those terms and diffused in some other section. Human rights in Pakistan and Women in Pakistan is an appropriate home for the general issue of women's human rights [violations] in Pakistan. Better communication/explanation from the editor deleting that would have saved you some aggravation, no doubt. On the other hand, some level of WP:COMPETENCE is required in writing about such topics. I've seen other editors who I suspect are motivated by deep personal biases throw in everything and the kitchen sink in some article, probably attempting to make some entity look as bad as possible. That's not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be structured. And it usually ends up badly for editors who repeatedly don't get that point; see this case for an example. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have two thoughts for those concerned about this case. First, it would be great if there were enough admins prepared to monitor topics under discretionary sanctions so that each admin could spend an hour justifying each statement, but such resources are not available. Second, any editor wanting to show unfair treatment should start with a diff of an edit where their change was to the advantage of one side, and another difff showing an edit on the opposite side. Neutral editors in a contentious area should find it easy to locate material that expresses each side. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I obviously agree, let's focus on my topic ban for now please? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. If you go through my edits carefully you will see as a whole I have never blindly opposed something. Again, perhaps I could have handled the situation in Minorities of Pakistan with a bit more tact but I wasn't even told anywhere what the issues were. Still I considered the possibility of me being biased with regards to that article and refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article. Does it not mean anything? Does it not mean that I am willing and I don't out-of-hand disregard such warnings based on a perception of my biases? I am not saying I am 100% neutral editor, I mean who can self-certify like that? It may very well be that I am biased right now. If that is the case then tell me what did I do to get accused of bias? Bear in mind that without a fair hearing, accusations of bias is tantamount to personal attack. Silence is not admission of guilt. Did I distort a source? Did I obdurately refuse to listen to others? Did I delete sourced content? I am the one who constantly gets vilified for adding sourced content, yet I usually don't outright retaliate by attacking others; I simply ask them to focus on content. If I get cautioned by an editor/admin that I am attacking someone (even unknowingly), I pay heed to that and rewrite my comment almost immediately. I mean does it not freaking say anything about my character? I have been asked to keep it focused on my topic ban but amidst all the disparity it's gradually becoming very hard not to point to other cases where greater NPOV violations have been dealt with much much more leniently. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the edit which according to the admin "the straw that broke the camel's back" for him. If you check that article, that content is still present in the article, it was not opposed by anyone, there was no discussion on talk opposing the inclusion of this in the article.I would consider this a good faith edit, did anyone try to explain MrT that there was some issue with that edit?No. Now the admin thought that it was some kind of tendentious edit, so he conveyed that with a topic ban. My conclusion is if an admin do not like my edits which were not opposed by anyone else then I run the risk of being banned. This is a very dangerous situation.-sarvajna (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that much-touted "tendentious edit" is still inside the article nobody removed it since then, it can mean only two things:

1. My edit is not seen as inappropriate till now, by any involved editor (who I must say have been very, very scrupulous about almost every other thing)
2. The banning admin's aim was not improvement of the article, had his goal been the improvement of the article he would probably have talked with me about it, at least reverted that edit. What was his aim then?

That means I am unilaterally banned for six months by an admin, who few weeks ago was involved in a direct content dispute with me on Minorities of Pakistan, for making an edit, in an article about a highly emotive subject, which nobody else (including those who were vehemently opposing me) deemed worthy of even a complaint? I am flabbergasted. Yet, I am expected to assume good and believe that everything is alright. And amazingly enough I am still assuming that people will see the inconsistency. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: Given how this has unfolded so far, I think it would be appropriate to get an uninvolved admin to look over this specific situation, and either advise MrT on what he did wrong (he cant fix his behaviour if he doesnt know what the issue is, the point of any non-permanent ban is to allow time for reflection, and behavioural adjustment); and to check the banning admins' rationale and then extend/reconfirm/minimise/remove ban as necessary (if required). If MrT has behaved incorrectly at some point, without being made aware of what exactly is the issue, it is extremely unlikely he will be able to modify his behaviour, and hopefully return to the topic as a changed man. -- Nbound (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is horrible! COMMONSENSE (or lets say ARBCOM, for people who follow book) would say that a non-involved admin should take up brooming tasks. We have like thousand admins and why do these same faces come up for imposing blocks and bans??? They are very involved as editors in these topics and they themselves, with a bit of dignity, should be avoiding using admin tools. Mr. T should not be banned as this admin is involved.
  In fact, various other admins should also rest their broomsticks when they are editing South Asian articles and at the same time acting as admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary sanctions says: "Administrators must also follow the Committee procedures set down at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions."

And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Discretionary_sanctions

"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

When Future perfect at Sunrise warned me he said, "You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this [15] edit is completely unacceptable. You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit." (my emphasis)

I didn't like the dismissive and angry tone of his comment yet kept my cool.

I later asked him specifically,

"I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again, What do you want to ban me from and based on what?"

His reply was, and I think this is the warning,

″Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions.″ -Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he ever explained to me what exactly he saw that deserved a ban. He kept on harping on my intellectual incompetency but never bothered to explain anything. Read the thread. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Mrt3366 was requested by Salvio giuliano to remove the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his initial report. He was very briefly blocked when Salvio misread a response of his. Since his unblock, he has not modified his initial posting. Several editors active in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA have commented here. A block issued under discretionary sanctions is hard to overturn and almost certainly that cannot happen based solely on the views of a small self-selected group of editors. The advantage of WP:AE is that discussions are more orderly and must stick to the point; there is also guaranteed input from uninvolved administrators, usually familiar with both the topic area and discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason comments are so orderly at AE is because few watch it partially because input from outsiders to the AE in group are generally ignored. MR T is clearly getting agitated which isn't helping their cause but a very quick 15 minute review shows that the user is telling the truth about one thing, that there does seem to be some evidence that some admins where out of line. For example, I personally get irritated when I see notices like the one here that all non-admin's are blocked. A seemingly automatic assumption that if your an admin, you must be right or that since their an admin they'll just unblock themselves, neither of which is a good response. I also agree that discretionary sanctions are hard to unblock but a consensus here should be enough to over rule it on a case by case basis. With that said, the articles in question have massive NPOV issues throughout them, they should both probably be fully protected to ensure discussions occur on the talk page and are only implemented after a consensus is reached. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit that broke the camel's back

I see two problems with that edit [4]:

• Ashok Patel is also identfied as a Bharatiya Janata Party member in the source, but this was left out in the edit. But, more importantly,
• How does that hearsay of some phrases allegedely uttered qualify as "Post-Godhra violence"??? And how is Patel's opinion about who started the original event relevant in the section about post-event violence?

In light of the previous problems of a similar nature in the article on Minorities in Pakistan, I think this edit was a case of breaking the camel's back as far as WP:COMPETENCE is concerned. Whether willingly or not Mr. T is adding enough irrelevant, WP:UNDUE material to require some sort of remedy to relieve others from repeated/massive clean-up after him. That's my take on this. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And I also note the rather unsurprising edit-warring over that addition from another editor apparently deeply vested in this [5]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't bring up Minorities of Pakistan I didn't repeat my edits and left it to others. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the first time somebody has come to talk to me about it. Bear this in mind while trying to justify the SIX months ban.

Second, it was added as an opinion, not an assertion of fact. That article is fraught with such assertions. I was not the first one to add opinions. (WP:GNG doesn't limit the content of an article.)

Third, I attributed all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. (cf. WP:BURDEN) I added a source which I found on the net [6]. Since that was the only thing missing from the article, I was actually trying to balance it (cf. WP:BALANCE). Needless to say, it may seem offensive to some. And this is the problem.

Fourth, do not assume bad faith please, I didn't willingly leave Bharatiya Janata Party-member part out. In fact, I think, it makes his claims more significant not less. We should NOT sit on judgement on whether an witness, who is BTW DEPOSING before an investigative commission, is telling the truth or not. That's not our job.
Also have you seen the article Saffron Terror? Anti-Muslim pogroms in India? Was the creator of that article also banned? I made an edit, one wrong edit maybe for which I was not approached by anybody, yet basing on that edit I was directly banned. Another guy initiates WP:RM to move a page from a neutral common name to an utterly biased name, initiates RFC to justify illegal reports from unconstitutional commission (see this) as though it matches the credibility of the official verdict from a court of law, creates an utterly deceptive and derogatory article based on selective sources, biased comments, nobody asks any questions about it. He is blocked and then unblocked and then blocked within days and then unblocked by an involved admin. Nobody cares to reblock him. That is bias. Yet, I make one edit, one edit, just one single edit that is not a contravention of any policy that I know of, I am right away banned for six months by an admin who clearly angry at me and was involved in content dispute with me. WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're posting in bold, allcaps, and have a template in your signature? What on Earth is wrong with you people? Any goodwill you have built is pretty much being torn down very quickly by the above - well done. You're effectively ensuring your topic ban continues, and putting huge walls up against any future complaints. Well done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And your signature has some symbols that i dont like. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha I think BWilkins is trying to help. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but his attempts to help are not actually helping. That observation about my signature was uncalled-for here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't changed upper-case to lower case, and as I said this place isn't for those who are sensitive to criticism especially when when they are the subject of a discussion. I know it is difficult, but that is the only thing that will work. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, goodwill and all. Yeah. This is your first comment and that too when I am starting to loose my calm. What is the use of such goodwill, if it can't make you comment on the right time at the right moment on the right thing. HUuuuuH? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you will recall that I have on several recent occasions predicted that topic bans would soon be enforced for various people contributing to articles such as these, Narendra Modi etc. You, DS, Dharmadhyaksha, OrangesRyellow and others are all going at it hammer-and-tongs, you are all displaying huge amounts of POV and the number of times that you were appearing on this board were bound to draw attention. The only thing that surprises me here is that the ban is not indefinite and that it has not been imposed (yet) on others. Go contribute to some subject matter where you would appear to have less of a vested interest and/or less of a battleground mentality. There must be at least 4 million other articles you could work on. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to count yourself as one of us, Sitush. [7], [8], [9], [10] Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 railing and ranting is not going to get you unbanned, I suggest you strike off or rephrase what has been considered as "personal attacks", unbold the bold etc. I've been the subject of a ban discussion motion against me that was carried and trust me drama doesn't help. Keep your cool. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What personal attack are you or anybody else referring to? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Savio wrote: "That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked." You ought to ask him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So you mean you yourself don't know what the issues are? BTW, I implored Salvio to explain ABF issues on my unblock request, here, he didn't say anything as of now. I am not creating this "drama" intentionally you know. I have been forced to make strident and explicit observations. That's all they are, observations from my stand-point. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No Mr. T, I don't know what is bugging Savio, I didn't say you were creating drama, I just said that drama doesn't help, my experience. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• This topic ban could have been seen coming from a hundred miles away. Mrt666 clearly chose not to get out of its way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Mr. T. His responses above indicate that he isn't likely to change his approach. I would support topic bans for a couple of other editors in this area, but that should be proposed separately, I suppose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on the edit that "broke camel's back"

So far only one edit [11] has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).

1. That edit was sourced.[12]
2. I didn't misrepresent the claim/quotes, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness DEPOSING before the investigative commission inquiring about the riots of 2002. We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it ought to be included.
3. Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. There was no discussion after that, I was directly banned!

May I know what the issue was? Mr T^(Talk?) 13:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom

While I think Mr. T's edits are biased, Future Perfect seems to be acting in an extremely heavy-handed manner when plainly WP:INVOLVED. This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124#Future Perfect at Sunrise. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to a temporary desysopping by ArbCom in the WP:ARBMAC2 case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that I have an "involvement" here is plain wrong. I have followed the current set of disputes involving DarknessShines and others from a neutral distance, and my engagement in it has been in an administrative role. I warned Mrt the other day, as an uninvolved administrator, and now I followed up on this warning. That was, as best I can remember, my first ever interaction with Mrt. I have given such warnings to several users, on all sides of these issues. In a small number of situations, I have also addressed and corrected issues of obviously bad use of sources and obvious tendentious content editing, including a handful of content edits on some of the disputed articles. These were "tie-breaker" edits, made in situations where I felt the opponents were so much entrenched in their POV squabbles, and their understanding of NPOV writing was so poor – on both sides – that it would be unreasonable to wait for them to work out a reasonable solution among themselves. These interventions fell on both sides of the dispute, but most of them were, if anything, in favour of Mrt's side. The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. (I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.)

As for the objective justification for the sanction imposed, as I clearly said here [13], the individual edit I pointed out was merely the "straw that broke the camel's back". Other admins had been making it equally clear to Mrt that his behaviour was unacceptable and that possible sanctions against him were being considered. The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus. This is sanctionable, and Mrt's repeated claims that he doesn't understand what he did wrong doesn't really make things any better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal for an arbcom case centred on Future Perfect at Sunrise is not new. A similar proposal was made in late December 2012. That proposal was fairly speedily rejected by the arbitration committee. Given the comments from informed parties like Bwilkins, Sitush and Maunus, a similar case would almost certainly be rejected now. RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not commented so far. He is an administrator who has an in-depth understanding of the POV-pushing going on around WP:ARBIPA. His comments would be valuable in interpreting the cumulative edits On Minorities in Pakistan.[14] (In his only actions on the page, FPaS protected the page on 7 June, returning it to a previous state prior to the large number of changes mainly by Mrt.) As I wrote before, it would have been better if the appeal had been made at WP:AE, where it could have proceeded in a more orderly way. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why people like RegentsPark, Sitush and Maunus should get greater weight in an arbcom case. Except for Bwilkins, you can see all the people you name on one side of the fence at talk:Narendra Modi and its archives. Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get Nazis to lord over Jews. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV. If you think RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is Western POV, instead of looking at his username, you should look into the type of articles he edits constantly. Does that look like a Western ed to you?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You have already been warned about making these kinds of comments at WP:ANI.[15] You have also seem to have misread what I wrote. I am not suggesting a fresh arbcom case to handle editing problems connected with WP:ARBIPA. That case has already happened. The problem is in enforcing the arbitration committee's decisions. Those problems are created not by administrators trying to do so but with editors pushing entrenched nationalistic POVs either in articles or in project space. There is no indication of any such problem with the edits of Sitush, Bwilkins, Maunus or RegentsPark. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just blocked OrangesRyellow for that obnoxious attack - I shall post a review request here at ANI in a moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) Madhu Kishwar an activist and scholar has referred to false propaganda that has been the feature of the coverage of the incidents in Gujarat in 2002.[16] (2) I draw attention to the report presented by The Council for International Affairs and Human Rights headed by D S Tewatia, a former chief justice of the Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana high courts" that Godhra was an "act of international terrorism planned and executed in connivance with jehadi forces based there",[17], Arvind Lavakare quotes an India Today report alleging that 157 riots were started in retaliation to the violence sparked in response to Godhra.[18] (3) How different are statements in (1) and (2) from what Mr. T has written, described by Future Perfect as the proverbial last straw[19] "After nearly 10 days of the train carnage, Pakistani flags were unfurled on top of a public tank in Ramol area and Muslims shouted slogans like 'Pakistan zindabad [Long live Pakistan]'... According to Mr. T's edit riots were sparked off by Muslims who instigated the Hindus "with an intention of spreading fear". Mr. T's edit is well sourced,[20] and is written in the manner Wikipedia wishes views to be reported. (4)The Tewatia report whose excerpts are available in this Arvind Lavakare post and which is available in its primary form here and here reports as mysterious incidents like: (a) Very high traffic of telephone calls from Godhra to Pakistan (mainly Karachi) before 27.02. 02. (b) Holding of istema - religious gatherings - at Godhra that were attended by foreigners in large numbers. (5) This looks like nothing but a content dispute and not a candidate for being described as "The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus."; Future Perfect's, argument regarding why he banned Mr. T isn't convincing. (6) https://toolserver.org isn't working for me at the moment, but as far as I remember I've had no major contribution to the page, so if I'm missing any fine points it is all my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, you are still topic-banned from all edits about Indian history. You shouldn't even be here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is 2002 Indian history? These are contemporary events. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I had once asked YK to get the terms of his topic ban clarified and an editor had told him that he can safely edit articles about the stuff that happened less than 25 years ago, I do not think that he has breached anything.So Future Perfect at Sunrise, stop bullying every editor here. -sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You edit-warred with Mr. T over the Minorities in Pakistan article. Saying it was "obvious tendentious editing" doesn't change the fact that you blanked a huge amount of sourced content, removed many constructive edits, and emptied four different sections all while threatening to block anyone who reverted your action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend asking arbcom to put FPaS and regentspark under administrative supervision. Under this scheme, their admin actions in the area would need to be approved by another ArbCom-approved admin. While this area is undoubtedly dogged by editors who engage in non-neutral editing and who either lack WP:COMPETENCE to take feedback on board or persist by sheer WP:IDHT, the problem is compounded by admins taking action while clearly WP:INVOLVED and then denying it with a straight face. I guess all regulars editing this area, admins and plebeians, fall in MastCell's 85% by now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Going to ArbCom is always an option, but it's very doubtful you will get the result you are looking for. FPaS is one of the few administrators willing to be involved in these cultural disputes, and they're not going to do anything to stop him from helping out when no one else is willing to do so. AniMate 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What you're basically saying is that no uninvolved admin, i.e. who isn't also editing in the area, is willing to reign in the POV warriors, but (according to Boing! below) the uninvolved admins are willing to give barnstars to the involved admins who do the policing. That doesn't bode well; in the long run it will promote admin fiefdoms (over content) and increasingly biased, arbitrary or self-serving enforcement actions. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement misconstrues AniMate's use of the word "involved." When he writes "willing to be involved" that means (to me) "willing to take administrative action" not WP:INVOLVED. Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you consider FPaS not WP:INVOLVED in this area (as an editor besides admin), but let's agree to disagree on that. Unlike most others who edit in this "WP:ARBIPA" area, FPaS has shown little bias per [21] [22], but that's not the same as being completely unWP:INVOLVED in content editing, in my opinion, of course. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs both unbiased (as humanly possible) editors and unWP:INVOLVED admins in difficult/controversial content areas. However, the two classes of Wikipedians are not equivalent. The latter class is much more easy to determine, and rightfully so, because of the need to avoid even giving the appearance of impropriety; this was emphasized in some ArbCom case, but I won't bother hunting down the WP-namespace link given the generally accepted notion in ethics. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt's editing did not leave the article Minorities in Pakistan in a neutrally written state. In nationalistic disputes—Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, India-Pakistan, etc—many administrators at WP:AE look into the basis of disputes, take into account content added, and make some kind of evaluation. It is not an easy matter, but often that seems to be the only way to resolve matters. Future Perfect at Sunrise is not a regular editor of the article Minorities in Pakistan (he is more probably more interested in plainchant), but could nevertheless identify a previous stable version of the article based on its editing history. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is a very difficult area to work in. As others have noted, many of the editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers, on both sides - many resort to personal attack at the drop of a hat, and some will even sink as low as making racism accusations against those who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and sourcing. In this current dispute, both sides have acted very badly, and some continue to do so in this very discussion. That FPaS is willing to try to administer this poisonous topic area is cause for recognition, gratitude, and praise - not censure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

By blocking out only one side of these so-called "entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers" you're encouraging the other side and that I think is a bias. Okay I won't mind it even a bit, if you protect the page and force people to list arguments on the talk before one uninvolved admin and let the best suited assertions in the article. I would also not mind it if you banned everyone from both the "sides" as you see it. Nope. Yogesh Khandke, a good editor, is already banned, you blocked OrangesRyellow, I am banned by Fut.perf. It seems there is only one side who is actually getting the hit for the accusations which are applicable to both the sides. With all due respect, THAT is bias. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of sanctions have been handed out to *both* sides in this long-simmering war. The *only* long-term solution is for both sides to step away from the brink - and if that does not happen, sanctions will become more frequent and more severe, against *both* sides. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Future Perfect has consistently been abrasive and domineering in many of these topic areas. He has made several supervotes on content issues, which he casually admits in his own defensive way, and seeks to enforce them with threats of admin action against any who reverse him. In essence your argument is like saying we need corrupt, abusive cops to handle all those horrible gangsters. Except, you generally don't get rid of the gangsters, but just end up with a group of cops little different from the gangsters who then become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. No admin should get a pass for persistently bad behavior on the basis that a certain topic area is "toxic" as most topic areas where admins are needed get pretty toxic. Having admins who are excessive or vindictive makes those areas more toxic, not less, increasing the battleground mentality and compromising the integrity of the content.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please could this section be archived? So far one editor has broken a topic ban and another has been blocked. It has become a free-for-all either to complain about "us and them" in WP:ARBIPA or to cast aspersions on administrators volunteering at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not everyone agrees that two wrongs make a right, but since we're WP:IARing left and right, let me say that this thread was good WP:BAIT. Since admins generally can't or won't do much about actual content problems (see Bishonen's sub-thread here), at least we got some of the usual suspects into getting blocked for incivility. For great justice. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • ...even though the block was already lifted, per promises to behave. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • But 3 lefts make a right. (sorry - couldn't resist that one.) — Ched :  ?  21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Number 57

Yawn... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Keep an eye on User:Number 57, this user is not confirming his edits, and may be disruptive in the future. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC) ??? Number 57 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)You warned a Wikipedia Administrator at 15:54 that his edits arn't "confirmed" (who the hell knows what that even means, please explain) and came here 10 minutes later? You might want to retract this and spend some time figuring out where you went wrong.--v/r - TP 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, My mistake, I thought all Wikipedia admins had to confirm the edits they make. Confirming edits ensures the edits are not made in vain, in violation of WP:AP and other articles relating to the organization. Please messege me to discuss further. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Um, what do you mean? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC) What are you talking about? WP:AP has nothing to do with confirming anything. Made in vain? Not trying to be rude, but is there a language barrier here by chance?--v/r - TP 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) He's an "American writer" according to his user page, so unlikely. Has the account been compromised? GiantSnowman 16:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC) He just created the account so I can't see how it'd be compromised. I saw you blocked it, did someone find a sock?--v/r - TP 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC) C L O S I N G. O F. T H E. D I S C U S S I O N. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC) @Toothache from Asidiciale:, you really need to clarify what you are trying to say here, and you really need to do it ASAP. GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I thought he was saying people had to get consensus before editing, but now I have no ideas. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Guys, I've just clicked when I saw the account's first edit was a lengthy bio to their user page, combined with the trolling of Admins/noticeboards - it's almost definitely a sock of Technoquat (talk · contribs), CU will confirm. Blocked. GiantSnowman 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

194.89.228.106

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

194.89.228.106 (talk · contribs)

This IP address is constantly writing in languages other than English on talk pages. I believe that a 24 hour block should be in place, and if that doesn't work, then a permanent block. buffbills7701

Blocked for 48 hours. I think the language is Finnish, and that in itself wouldn't be a real problem if they were asking for help, but the posts appear to be disruptive so I have blocked for that primarily. GiantSnowman 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The posts are signed "Risto Pöllänen Koneteknikko-ohjelmoija Lappeenranta"[23] (Risto Pöllänen Machine Technician Programmer Lappeenranta) or "Risto Pöllänen koneteknikko - ohjelmoija"[24] (Risto Pöllänen a mechanical engineer - programmer). Some sort of ranting.--Auric talk 12:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is either a professional spammer or someone obsessed with Risto Pöllänen. I have revdel'ed most of this IP's contributions as far back 2012 as purely disruptive material and copyvios of previously published text by Pöllänen: [25], [26]. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another IP or named account recently with a similar obsession with the same name, fyi. — The Potato Hose 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried a search for the name but didn't find it. Do you have any diffs? De728631 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Matheson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Needs to be semiprotected two hours ago. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you post a request at WP:RFP? Dusti^*poke* 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. My experience is that any admins online pay more attention to this page, though. Reports at multiple noticeboards never hurt anybody. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's sourced now; never mind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempted outing of Edward Snowden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite warnings that the discussion may be problematic wrt WP:OUTING, a high profile admin is trying to find which Wikipedia users may have been accounts of Edward Snowden here. Connecting the real life identity of a person to account names used on Wikipedia is not allowed (unless the person has made the connection on Wikipedia): "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name,[...]" is the start of WP:OUTING. The editor started with " It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?" and continued with posting usernames used by Snowden on other, unrelated forums. The information is not needed for any admin- or office-reasons, the attempted outing is done because "I'm just curious".

Any action I would take against this section on his user talk page would be instantly reverted as trolling anyway, so perhaps someone else can take a look and remove the offending section? Speculation on which accounts may be used by named (notable) persons, for the sake of curiosity, have no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm criticising you, but I'm wondering why you neglected to mention that the "high profile admin" was in fact Jimbo? — Richard BB 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An open discussion of matters widely discussed in reliable sources with respect to how it may impact Wikipedia is in no way shape or form "outing". It should be emphasized that Fram has been asked to stay off my user talk page in the past, and that I consider his repeated appearances there with manufactured and implausible complaints like this to be harassment. I am not currently seeking that any sanctions be applied to him for this behavior. The reason that I'm curious is precisely because there is intense press interest in his online activities, and we may rest assured that reporters are already looking for any connections. It would be wise for us to understand the facts completely before hyped up news stories begin to circulate.

There is little doubt that Fram is more interested in causing trouble for me, than in Mr. Snowden's privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on her behavior now and in the past, I'm surprised no one has blocked her yet, or at least taken away her powers as an administrator. Dream Focus 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea nor interest in what's going between Jimbo and Fram, but the complaint has some merit. In the case Snowden is an editor, and could continue to edit, outing him seems a bad thing to do, just like for any other editor. --Cyclopia^talk 10:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Fram's concern has foundation, and I am concerned with Jimbo's removal of her talk page posts, as well as his dismissal of them as "trolling." GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there's a lack of good faith going around here. I can fully understand why Fram was concerned about outing issues, especially there were no initial mentions about how the editor could affect Wikipedia (especially given the "I'm just curious" remark), and so I cannot say that Fram is doing this just to harass or troll. Although I disagree with Jimbo when he says that this isn't a case of "outing", I do have to agree with him about concern regarding how the media might connect him to us. Perhaps if there is going to be a search for any accounts that Snowden might maintain on Wikipedia, it should not take place in a public forum such as Jimbo's talk page. — Richard BB 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the usernames are openly discussed in the mass media, there can be no concerns about 'outing'. This is all in the public in a very major way already.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the concern lies in attempting to connect the username to a real person's real life identity. Unless Mr. Snowden has made the connection himself, it seems as though administrative efforts to publicly connect the real person and his Wikipedia username would constitute outing. I'd support a high-level behind-the-scenes examination of these edits as a form of preemptive damage control, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Fram's concern here. Journalists are entititled to investigate whether Snowden had an account on Wikipedia (and if so; which account/s; Wikipedians are not entitled to speculate on Wikipedia about real-life identities. If journalists are able to reveal Snowden's account on Wikipedia and make a notable point of it in their writings; that may be notable in Snowden's article, but we are not there yet, as I understand. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Giant Snowman. I've no interest/knowledge in Fram v. Jimbo, and fully agree that Jimbo's posts are very concerning. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to relay your concerns to me directly at my talk page. All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further. I am not asking anyone to reveal or hunt for private information - I was just asking a very simple question: has there been discussion already in Wikipedia of various accounts that might be identified as his in the press. This is not about outing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As an aside Jimbo, I find your comment that "All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further" concerning and at odds with Wikipedia's slogan of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." GiantSnowman 11:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone has a long history of arguing with you on your talk page, you have the right to ask them not to post there. I remember seeing the Will.i.am arguments there, so I can understand not wanting her on his talk page. Dream Focus 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as long as you're asking purely about stuff in prominent reliable sources, that's one thing, but it sounded like you were asking for gossip and speculation ("original research" in WP parlance), which is inappropriate on BLP grounds (I'm sure you can imagine the type of impact it could have on the subject) besides being outing. I'd say the privacy issues are amplified considerably because if Snowden is identified with an editor here, then if the PRISM stories are true, the folks looking for him will know not only what he's been writing, but what he's been reading. I can't post on your talk page because it's protected. GiantSnowman: re Fram, I think Jimbo just meant that due to past conflict, Fram is not welcome on Jimbo's talk page. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, I don't think you were trying to out him directly, but your comments are what some might call a "red flag" comment, an indication that a user is trying to connect dots. If you weren't "Jimbo" and were instead a <5k editor, I would have given a polite notification and a pointer to WP:OUTTING. The comments as they are might be seen as you encouraging or condoning others outting him, even if that isn't your intention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I, too, am curious why the OP neglected to mention the name of the "high profile admin" but choose to name the supposed victim's name (in the title of this thread, no less) whose identity they're supposed to be protecting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw "high profile admin" as an attempt to depersonalize the incident and keep it about protecting Snowden's privacy, rather than drama it up with the ongoing conflict between Fram and Jimbo (I don't know or care what that conflict is about). I think it sort of worked, though obviously not perfectly. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't find Jimbo's comments about Fram concerning at all. Fram has time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talkpage. Fram has been aggresive, domineering, and flat out rude. Jimbo more than once has instructed that Fram may not post on their talkpage - something every editor is permitted to request. Posting on Jimbo's page (or any other editor's talkpage) is not a right. Yes, we all know that Jimbo's talkpage is ANIv3 ... but we also know that Jimbo is typically pretty patient about what goes on there (he even allows Forum Shopping!). If you've pissed off Jimbo so much that he doesn't want you posting on his talkpage, that shows just how far past a line you went - not once, but multiple times. The only reason Jimbo hasn't blocked Fram for posting there is probably some warped version of WP:INVOLVED, but seriously - Fram SHOULD BE BLOCKED if they ever post on Jimbo's page - period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history between the two, thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Please provide evidence for "time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talk page". Fram (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the history between Jimbo and Fram but editors are allowed a great deal of latitude in controlling their own talk page. If Jimbo has indeed banned Fram from his talk page, then Fram has violated this at least 4 times in the last 24 hours.[27][28][29][30] This is harassment and possibly a 3RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy has already said he isn't seeking sanctions. We don't need to beat the drama drums here. If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked, Fram would be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)A quest for Knowledge, since none of these was a reversion, it can hardly be a 3RR violation. The first three were normal replies to remarks, the fourth was a NPA warning. This has absolutely nothing to do with 3RR... 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

If any other editor was speculating about someone's real life ID on Wiki, they'd be told it constitutes outing. How about any discussion about Snowden's ID (if it exists at all ) on Wikipedia cease on Wikipedia. Off the 'pedia, we can speculate all we'd lik, just keep it off Wikipedia, otherwise , it's outing.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(ec)I am uncertain as to what is, and is not, "outing" in this specific case. Clearly Wikipedia has rules against connecting a Wikiname to an outside name - the basic premise is that such would be done to discredit the person with the Wikiname. The problem here is quite the reverse - that an outside person (Snowden) has been suggested by reliable sources to have had multiple online accounts, and thus it is highly likely to be a case of "In-ing" rather than "Out-ing" and it is likely to be something pursued by parties outside Wikipedia. F'rinstance - suppose a US Attorney seeks this information - should Wikipedia co-operate or not? I suggest Wikipedia would, in fact, have no choice at all, and it would not surprise me if Jimbo were not cognizant of this (IMO - I think if I were investigating Snowden it is a query I would pose)) likelihood, and desirous of getting the information out before the legal process makes a hash of it. All of the rest of the above discussion is mot if this is the case. Cheers. (I am leaving this after an ec because I am far from sure the close is "correct" here, and quite certain that Jimbo did not violate Wikipolicy here). Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: Just because Jimbo isn't seeking sanctions doesn't mean that we tolerate ban violations, harassment or 4RR violations. AQFK (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to keep the "Fram" issue and the "Snowden" issue separate please.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the best thing that an admin can do is stay out of a dispute between two established editors, such is the case with Fram and Jimmy. Just because we can "justify" a block or sanction doesn't mean that it is the best course of action. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, could you stop with the 4RR accusations? To have 4RR, you need to have at least 1 revert. I made none, nothing that comes even close. Fram (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, the outing and BLP issues were because it sounded like Jimbo was asking people to air their private theories about WP accounts Snowden might have used. Jimbo later clarified that he was only asking about stuff in published sources, which is ok. I thought Nick's closure was correct and well stated. Obviously if the WMF got some kind of official disclosure demand, it would consult its lawyers and figure out what to do. I think Fram's concern was about preserving the privacy of info that's not in the WMF's hands. And yes it's outing even if it's not to discredit. For example, if a show biz celebrity were editing incognito as a way to have a hobby outside of the public eye, we should not out them. Snowden is a celebrity of a different sort. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a trouting all round and then we re-close this debate, as it seems to be overflowing with drama-fuelled debates about 4RR and interpretations of Jimbo's statements. — Richard BB 12:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

112.213.197.18 Keeps Removing CSD Tag

112.213.197.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP keeps removing CSD tag on Hey Presto Magic Studio without providing any reason.(Diff1;Diff2;Diff3)I have left a message on thier talk page,but it doesn't work.I can't undo again because of 3RR.So,besides dealing with the IP,please also consider deleting the article in question if you think it meets any CSD criteria.Lsmll 12:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The likelihood of that being the same editor that created the article but logged out is very high. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, reverting his edits and warned User:Pidzz, as the timing of the edits makes it brutally clear they are the same person or acting as meatpuppets. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I've deleted that page. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

50.98.36.108 evading block

I saw a non-suer undo a edit I made to his talk page because he was replacing all the content all that page with "blackhawks suck". I know he had been blocked for 23 hours and I went to his talk page and it still said he was blocked. I think he is avoiding blocking somehow. ~yougo1000

• Taken care of. Please see my note on your talk page regarding signatures. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New IP editor 74.65.170.32 unconstructive deletionist?

Since becoming active on 2013-06-07T23:25:32, 74.65.170.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has performed over 70 edits; every single one has been a deletion. Some have been summary removal of valid WP:REDLINKs, without apparent regard to policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beinecke_Rare_Book_and_Manuscript_Library&diff=prev&oldid=561476077). Other deletions have been of likely valid and relevant assertions, including an associated WP:Citation needed already calling for a reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radium_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=561303599). Although some of the edits are probably useful, it does not appear to me that the majority of them have improved the quality of Wikipedia; instead, the IP editor seems to be removing already flagged visible deficiencies, rather than correcting or flagging any of them.

I will place an ANI-notice on the IP editor's talkpage, but really don't know what else to say, or even if any action is warranted. I prefer to get back to editing, but felt that I shouldn't just ignore this IP editor's behavior, so I am calling attention to it here.

Apologies if my report here is not formally correct, or if this is not the correct forum to bring this up. This is my first encounter with this type of situation, in which I feel a need for the participation of more-experienced editors. I do not have extensive experience in analyzing an IP user's edits, and don't know what (if anything) should be done about them. I defer to the judgement of more-seasoned editors and admins. Reify-tech (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP address is pretty stable. It averages about 5 edits per day—50 in the last 10 days, so I don't see a big reason to panic. Have you even tried to talk to them before rushing to ANI? (Apparently not.) I have seen rapidly changing dynamic IPs engaging in much more problematic editing, e.g. mass controversial MOS changes. Most editors probably don't know how to check for IP range contributions, or else we'd see a lot more panicky reports.... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him/her deleting statements which have been WP:CHALLENGEd for more than a year. I don't have a strong opinion about those red links either way. Sunken courtyard? Some architecture expert better chime in. Anyway, this is something that should go through the normal WP:DR process. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also [31] is from the same ISP, so this is probably someone on a dynamic IP on an ISP with several huge IP blocks. You're just unlucky to see only deletions from that IP, but the same editor likely made additions too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warrior

User:Darkness Shines is starting edit-war on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I did a few constructive edits to that article by restructuring, correcting links, removing/replacing images with relevant ones, and removed some off topic content, and then she comes and began reverting my edits completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rethink this report. By the technical definition of WP:3RR, you're the only one who has reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hours period.--v/r - TP 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has over a dozen blocks for similar behaviour [32]. I'll try not to do this again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a dozen blocks gives you more leeway to edit war with him. Curious, do you have a previous account? In 88 edits, you've managed to jump into a contentious topic, target a user, and bait him into an edit war, then rush here to get him blocked despite your own behavior. Is this a throwaway account that you intended to use to get DS blocked?--v/r - TP 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What's even more interesting is you have exactly 11 edits before you went directly to the page in question. Almost like you intentionally were trying to get to that very important confirmed status so you could edit the semi-protected page. User:Mujhideen101 perhaps?--v/r - TP 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not going to bother with this but I only have 2 reverts on the article. And I am pretty sure this is another account for Pestcamel I am looking into it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, DS, you need to learn to stop warring and discuss/report stuff sooner.--v/r - TP 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What, you mean like starting a section on the talk page immediately following the second revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean like realizing that you can let a bad edit sit while an administrator sorts out behavioral issues instead of reverting. Discussing while reverting isnt the idea behind WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the B part of BRD was when someone removed a shedload of content from an article? My bad. Have filed an SPI BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You assume, incorrectly, that the cycle is BRD-BR-BR-BR and that's why you keep getting blocked. The cycle is BRD. If the other party reverts again, it's not another "bold" edit of theirs. It's a revert. The only bold edit was the first edit. Everything after that is a revert and reverting reverts is edit warring. Stop at the "D" and you won't get blocked in the future.--v/r - TP 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not overly fond of essays being used as a reason to block people to be honest tom. I will apologize for my snark, had a crappy day. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for administrator at WP:COIN

This isn't a new dispute but instead a request for administrator assistance in an existing dispute at WP:COIN#Fairleigh Dickinson University. I began the discussion on June 13 concerning the behavior of Mfuzia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since then there's been little movement. In particular one editor (not me) has called for administrator intervention.

(Although this isn't a new dispute I'll still send Mfuzia an ANI notice just to be on the safe side.) --Nstrauss (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a detailed analysis of the material there; it is indeed inappropriate, regardless of whether the ed. is an employee or a student Mfuszio's editing is essentially identical to that of another editor, Crcorrea, who has made similarly promotional edits over many articles ; I assume they are sockpuppets, for I think it unlikely that even two separate employees would use the same exact format. I have proposed blocking both of them for an extended period. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed enough of the material to trust your judgement on this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible 3RR vio by Djapa84

User:Djapa84 seems to have violated WP:3RR at [33]. Could an admin please either admonish Djapa84 and/or issue a block if required? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe my reinsertion of a POV tag was reasonable as three other editors had joined me in questioning the bias of the file in question and a discussion of the issue was developing. The two editors arguing against the four of us kept removing the tag which I think is in itself disruptive editing. If in this argument about whether open discussion of the issue is acceptable I have inadvertently violated WP:3RR then I apologise for that and will avoid doing so in the future. As a result of the disruptive editing I have called for an RFC on the issue and in future I will do that earlier rather than falling for the trap of revert warring against a tag team. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK - Removing a POV tag shouldn't be done by anyone involved with the article. It seems you've both got a COI on the issue and need to take it to 3rd Opinion. Surturz - you do realize that you also engaged in the edit war taking it as far as you have. You're both guilty here. I'm not so sure a block would be any more helpful than full protecting the article at the last stable version and forcing a discussion on the talk page would be more beneficial. Dusti^*poke* 00:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I note the reinsertion of the tag by an account with only three previous edits. In as many minutes. How odd! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mind the Boomerang Pete. Hard Men are Good to Find (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of sock puppetry then do it directly Pete. Don't make snide allegations without justification - that is defamation. Launch an investigation. It will not bring anything up. You are the first to complain when someone else does not follow policy and there is a policy on sock puppet investigations. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it directly. You've got form in this area and there's a whole bunch of similar accounts that all talk like you do and share your political views. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this may have been solved pretty quickly... o_O Dusti^*poke* 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point Dusti. I do not deny that the edits of "Hard Men" are dubious, that is as given. However there are procedures and IP checks which can be done to investigate such things and it is not acceptable to ignore those procedures and throw wild accusations around, especialy making things up like "you have got form". That is nonsense and while investigating the issue is warranted, defamation is not. I have invited Pete to do things properly because I have nothing to fear ducks or no ducks. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've filed a second sockpuppet investigation, in line with procedures, as per your request. IPs are easy enough to get around, but behaviour stands out. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for all errors on my part, I shall re-educate myself on POV-tagging policy. I think the file page now needs to be briefly locked as the edit war is continuing. --Surturz (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pete I have asked you to put up or shut up. Do not make baseless allegations like "You've got form in this area". That is a lie. My editing history is not perfect, but I have never been accused of sock puppetry. Any more defamation from you without showing evidence and I will lodge a complaint. Enough now. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous sockpuppet report here. The WP:OUTING behaviour is also repeated. Quit it, please. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that unless the editor says it's okay - you just outed an editor - and personal attacks will not be tolerated Djapa - regardless of accusations. And creating new accounts to continue an edit war is sock puppetry and I'm pretty sure you'll be blocked soon enough. Dusti^*poke* 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not follow. Who am I supposed to have outed and how? Djapa Owen (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had forgotten that you had accused me before. I was not guilty then and I am not guilty now. I have had one account since I first joined in early 2011 and have never created another. Not everyone who disagrees with conservative rhetoric is a sock-puppet. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Djapa, I'm going to assume you forgot about this policy, so I'm not even going to mention your above comment. I'm going to walk you through how experienced editors and even Checkusrs spot a sockpuppet. First, we notice a new editor who makes a Bee line towards a page (where an obvious newbie wouldn't). We then watch and wait for the account to do the usual sockpuppet stuff. Familiarize yourself with this page, and if you have questions about how to be civil and not edit war, come back to us.

OK Dusti, first I am aware of the policy WP:ATTACK but fail to see how I can be accused of maintaining an attack page? I have asked Pete to justify his accusation by going through the proper procedures with checkuser etc. as I have done nothing wrong, but he continues to accuse me of having 'form'. I was accused back in November 2011 and was not found guilty then. This means I do not have 'form' as that would require guilt last time. Anyone can accuse anyone they want, but that does not imply guilt without conviction. Secondly you have accused me of outing someone. I have said nothing about any editor's private life because I know nothing about any other editor's private life so how can I be guilty of outing anyone? If you are talking about using Pete's name instead of his username, it is in his tagline so he has outed himself. You still have not pointed out how you consider me to have outed anyone, and since I have stated twice now that I do not understand your accusation it would be civil to explain. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It actually looks like I may have made a mistake. In looking at your edit, I saw that you used his (what I'm presuming to be) real name - which would have been an "outing" - however, he's done so himself. I'll strike that bit. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "attack page" - however, I do know that using terms such as "put up or shut up", "conservative rhetoric", etc etc etc. is attacking someone and being childish. Both of you go your separate ways and stop looking for a babysitter. Dusti^*poke* 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's all it was - using my name "Pete", that's fine. However this user has previously - and no, I'm not going to provide links here - made carefully-worded allegations linking me to all sorts of identifiable personal details. The intent to go against the spirit if not the letter of the wikilaw was obvious, and I'm seeing the same behaviour here with a request for IP checks. Anyone can find a proxy service. --Pete (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Pete for going through the proper process with your allegation so that I could clear it from my name. I would really like to know what details you feel I have alleged you of before as I do not actually know who you are outside of Wikipedia, but I understand you would not want to re-post things you are not comfortable here as that would only make the situation worse. If you would like to email me directly that would be really good because I would honestly like to know what I have done which makes you feel this way. I assure you I will not share anything you tell me.

I know you are right about proxies and IP masking, but I have never felt the need to look into such things. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Death Threat Made By 202.20.5.122

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User 202.20.5.122 just made a threat on Talk:Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand after a previous edit was reverted by a bot. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad - the bot was simply signing an unsigned comment. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit is here Dusti^*poke* 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds beat me to the block button by mere milliseconds...again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of... I don't know - but shouldn't that be RevDel'd? Dusti^*poke* 00:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done :). Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

173.219.160.230 - nonconstructive edits to Wendy Davis (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Multiple problematic edits posted from this IP address in the last 15-20 minutes. The subject of the article has met with controversy today, reflected in some contentious editing, but this IP address has been the most problematic. Diffs. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To quote the notices placed on this page regarding ANI discussions that you ignored, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". Please do so. ★★RetroLord★★ 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Dusti^*poke* 04:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Retrolord! When I left this page and refreshed the IP's talk page, I could have sworn that I saw a block notice and I thought the ANI notice was superfluous at that point. I must not have scrolled all the way down and must have been looking at the old block notice. I know that I wouldn't like to be reported anywhere without notice and I can't believe I messed that up. Thank you again for letting me know. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

84.193.228.7 (quite likely some sock) running rampant

I stumbled upon this sock only today (it has only edited back in April), but I have a feeling that this merits an investigation. If you check out some random diffs of his edits, you can see that the only intention of this user was trolling. GeoIP lookup traces this IP to "Hasselt, Flanders, Belgium, Europe" so I believe we have another open proxy (or a toll from Belgium, but given the fact that only Hungarian articles were affected it's quite unlikely). Although the IP account hasn't been used since, if it's a(n open) proxy, it might get "reactivated" at any time. -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Damn, this crappy CMS has logged me out despite the fact that I logged in just ~30 minutes ago. Nevermind, I'll log in later on..... -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the edits looks like sneaky vandalism or in the AGF case like he pasted completely irrelevant text by accident. The IP has only edited on April 21, so this is not administratively actionable because it's far too stale. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More eyes, perhaps, on Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013

Hi all. Apologies for using WP:AN/I as a centralized "Wikipedia Noticeboard for Teh Dramahz", but there are any number of cans of worms being opened up, even as I write. I'm online, please feel free to message me if there is anything particularly egregious that needs admin intervention. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, false alarm. I'm happy to deal with any content disputes about Australian constitutional and parliamentary procedure about this or any other matters, starting with a discussion on the talk pages. In the interim, there is a very important match contested by eighteen men in maroon I'm now at liberty to follow.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:LordZebedee ignoring consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:LordZebedee has been repeatedly adding trivial/pop culture mentions at Welrod despite consensus that they should be removed and refuses to discuss the issue. He has, in one form or another, added this material 1234567 times over the past 2 weeks. The section is discouraged by WikiProject Firearms pop culture guidelines as well as WP:POPCULTURE as the source is an open wiki, not anything we would consider reliable. I have explained why he's being reverted, invited him to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture section at Welrod (where further consensus is to remove the material), and issued a warning, none of which have helped. An IP editor created a section at Talk:Welrod#Layer Cake Reference explaining why the mention isn't appropriate and User:Trekphiler has assisted with reverts as well, so it's not simply me vs. him. I'm wondering what more can be done. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• One more time and it's a block for edit warring/disruptive editing (editing against consensus): the next admin can take their pick. I've issued them a templated edit warring message for good measure, and will leave a note as well. Thanks, and keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Woodroar on this one 100%. This is so trivial an add, it beggars belief, & the refusal is so pointedly willful, I'd have smacked him before now.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And he's done it again... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've undone his fifth revert in as many days. Although I admittedly am unfamiliar with the subject of the article, it does strike me as trivial information he's attempting to add and the source appears to be unreliable. user:j (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours - maybe that will get some attention -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (no relation)

Ironic. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nope; did not get attention! They are still edit warring! PantherLeapord (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours by Edgar181, and a clear warning about an indef to follow has been issued by BWilkins. De728631 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Scottie Pippen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can I please get some assistance at the Scottie Pippen article? A user insists on restoring a poorly sourced section on a reported assault incident. One of the claims, that Pippen was being questioned for use of a weapon, is simply not mentioned in the article used as a reference: [34]. Also, several sentences in that section are copied verbatim from TMZ, so it's mostly a copyright infringement, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? If you'd like, you can go to 3rd Opinion to get some help. Dusti^*poke* 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are BLP issues and copyright issues here. I need more help to prevent those things from coming back into the article. It may be possible to discuss the alleged assault in a policy-compliant manner, but the material being added is far from appropriate. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has been warned not to reinsert gossip from TMZ. I think that's all that is necessary.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP reinserted the material. Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bmotbmot

Bmotbmot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding making a lot of inappropriate edits (some in Chinese) and is creating new non-notable articles, some of which are complete gibberish (see Feng (family name)). User is refusing to open dialogue with anyone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits appear to be intended to be helpful; but the issue is a clear lack of English understanding and I doubt the editor is aware of anything. It looks like this has been run through a translator... the intention may be good, but the result is bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support block until uses Talk page to communicate - it's unfortunate, but he's been left repeated messages in English and Chinese and must be aware of the orange bar appearing each time. The disruption to existing articles generates significant hassle in fixing, and addition of non-notable surname stubs (no Baidu article, let alone zh.wp article, not even in the appendices to the 504-name list of "Hundred Names") are just heading to AfD anyway. If he/she would communicate, in any language, then unblock. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per @In ictu oculi: He ought to have gotten at least 15 notifications, and refuses to even acknowledge other editors' existence.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually they did contact other editors [35], but the communication problem remains in form of very poor or virtually non-existent skills in the English language. WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@De728631: Actually, they hadn't as of when I wrote that. Still, yes; WP:COMPETENCE. "your new page is nothing, just blank if your merge page and other page, must creative story in page, [...] i can see a sub page in page" isn't helping anything.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be lack of English, agree with WP:COMPETENCE, surprised this disruptive editing has not been blocked yet. Widefox; talk 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the above reasoning. The block should stop the disruption (hence preventative) and force discussion. Dusti^*poke* 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TParis questioning WP:Goodfaith and possible bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am posting this mainly because the user is the administrator and should be held to a higher level of conduct. However, I am troubled by several of the edits by User:TParis both here and here. In edits such as: 1 2

That caused me to post this. These question my WP:goodfaith ,without any demonstration of evidence. I think it is warrant to ask for further examination of his actions, given that he is an administrator. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem with his edits. He is an admin but that doesn't take away his right to opine. I don't see anything that is a personal attack, or even ad hominem here. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not his conclusions are accurate, but he wasn't disruptive in how we outlined his conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Than perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of attack. I thought calling another editor dishonest would be considered an attack. I also thought stating that "You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview" would be questioning another editors motivation behind their posts. Thus questioning WP:goodfaith. If I am mistaken, so be it. The thread can be closed. Casprings (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  How many ANI threads do you intend to open in 1 day? As many as people who don't agree with you?--v/r - TP 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Why not address what I said, instead of making non-relevant statements on the number of threads.Casprings (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis has already said enough. You have a problem with folks disagreeing with you. You see them as opponents. That's demonstrated by the three threads you've opened today. Nothing I've said to you has been a personal attack. I've pointed out where you've contradicted yourself and said it's evidence of dishonesty. Besides, you're required to discuss this with me on my talk page before opening a thread. Moreover, I've addressed exactly what you've said. That's my entire point, you're talking out both sides of your mouth to try and cover for previous misstatements you've made that you now know were in error. All in all, I don't think you're wrong. As the patrolling admin in the 2012 elections, I saw first hand Arzel's POV pushing. I'm saying you're no better than he as far as edit warring goes. I'm also saying that you, as well as everyone living and breathing, hold a point of view and yours is different than Arzel's. You two should work together. As far as "number of threads," quit opening a number of threads and I wouldnt have to opine as the only uninvolved administrator in those threads. Anything else?--v/r - TP 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • If someone thinks you are misleading them, they can say so. There is a large difference is saying "I won't discuss this with you if you intend to be dishonest." and "You are a fucking liar". WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and if someone genuinely thinks you are being dishonest, I'm not likely to sanction them for simply thinking so. Those were heated words, but not a personal attack. Sometimes things get heated, and I loathe when any admin gets involved where he isn't needed, particularly since this is a content dispute, thus he is acting as an editor. We hold him to a high standard of conduct because he has the admin bit, but that doesn't breach it by any means. Admins are human, too, we are allowed to disagree with you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

    It's not only a content dispute. There is edit warring going on and I've suggested that Casprings acknowledge his own warring before it boomerangs and that he go back to the article and try and behave so next time Arzel edit wars, he has a leg to stand on. It was pretty good advice, I thought, instead of blocking both of them.--v/r - TP 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• The two of you are having a disagreement; harsh words will sometimes be exchanged, I'm afraid. There's nothing actionable here and TParis doesn't have to adopt some bland inoffensive tone because of being an admin. There's nothing here any other editor would be sanctioned for and nor should TP. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've followed the above thread and participated to a limited degree, and while I can see the concerns TP has, I can also see the concerns Casprings has.

TP would appear to be correct in emphasizing that Casprings is engaging in the same type of behavior he is bringing the complaint about, but does that in turn justify suspending an investigation into the substance of the claimed (and counterclaimed) violations? That would seem to invite a repeat performance.

There would seem to be a number of issues that require attention. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree it doesn't justify suspending anything. However, I don't think Casprings wants to face a block as well as Arzel and so I suggested an alternative that he has failed to realize.--v/r - TP 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't you provide some sort of evidence that a block is justified, before continuing to threaten one. There are these things called diffs. One could use them to point out edits I have made to push a POV, for example.Casprings (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Go to all of your diffs and hit the "previous version" and "newer version" buttons.--v/r - TP 18:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So you think reverts should be seen as the same, regardless of context. Going back to the discussion above we were having, when user:arzel removed a move for discussion template, 1 of an active discussion, this equates to me putting it back 2. If you want to say I reverted, I did. However, look at the talk page and look at the reverts.Casprings (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, policy says so. There is no contextual exemption to WP:EW. In fact, I'm surprised that Arzel hasn't come in here and claimed the WP:BLP exemption yet, which would put him on a better footing than you. Good thing he hasn't though, I'm not sure such an argument would stand.--v/r - TP 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If there's motivation, let 'em play it out and see what happens. Remember that there is little point in perpetuating an editing environment in which this type of scenario has already recurred, and frustration continues unabated. It might be a good exercise--though likely tedious for the administrators--and if they are both wrong, then a mutual short vacation (not punitive) should give them time to reflect on the fact that such one-on-one disruptive adversarialism is not productive.

If Casprings charges are more valid, then other factors should be taken into consideration, and visaversa, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd make a good admin someday, stick around.--v/r - TP 19:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: have a cup of tea and stay clear of the drama boards for a while. Starting multiple AN/I threads at the same time etc. is unwise in the best of times. Collect (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note I'm off to the gym, it's that time of day. I'll be back to answer further inquiries in about three hours (gym, drive, shower).--v/r - TP 20:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion at Talk:Deadmaus regarding a move has reached a consensus and has been going for longer than seven days. Is it possible for someone to come in and close up as well as taking any appropriate action. Thanks! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. I just made a post regarding that backlog here about 15 minutes before you posted this. :) Hopefully it'll get some attention soon. -Thibbs (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow... that's one heck of a backlog! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed - but, obviously, the issue is not settled, as I have pointed out. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style edit war

Theres an edit war over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style over the addition/removal of a single word, that needs some eyes. I am not personally involved -- Nbound (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The whtie space IP has reverted twice and has been warned. They are kind of all over the place.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected. They need to use the talkpage for this. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem if the word is there or not - does not change the meaning on the text - odd edit war.Moxy (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's more than odd. It's lame. 90.199.212.180 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding and Repeated Harrassment by User:AmericanDad86

I'm sorry this is coming up again.

Quite recently I opened an ANI case regarding User:AmericanDad86's conduct towards me.[36] AD86 was blocked in late March for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Despite this, User:Blackmane closed my ANI filing claiming that it stemmed from a content rather than conduct dispute. That said, when I asked Blackmane for clarification, they cited a lack of admin involvement and acknowledged that there had been incivility (User Talk:Blackmane#Cofused), though they also recommended that I pursue this as a content dispute and go to DRN. I did so, and the finding there was in my favor regarding the content matter, though AD86 neglected to participate and little was said regarding their conduct, which admittedly would have been off-topic.

Both before and after the DRN filing AD86 continued to make, IMO, incivil and inappropriate comments regarding their views of my conduct: [37], [38], [39], [40]. This despite being encouraged to desist by other editors: [41], [42].

I had nevertheless hoped that AD86 might move on once that dispute tapered off, but they have once again begun participating in a Talk page discussion and are showing an inability or unwillingness to focus on content rather than contributor.[43] Given the fact that they have never contributed to the underlying article, it is very difficult for me to believe that this is anything other than wikihounding by AD86.

It seems clear to me that despite AD86's claim of wanting nothing to do with me[44], they in fact are interested in actively harassing me. Please review this and take whatever actions you deem necessary to get this disruptive behavior to stop. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I only went through some of the diffs and saw nothing particularly shocking. What I DID see though was accusations of you forum and admin shopping. What say you? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was really hoping that I would not be pulled into this madness and that this had been concluded, so I'm still perplexed to have received an invitation to this incident. After all, I only provided my input on the American Dad! talk page once.

Anyways, on the subject matter, I would like to give my input. I would argue that Doniago may have reacted explosively to this dispute in the first place in a conflict that could have been avoided in a much less convoluted manner. However, I did look at AmericanDad86's latest contributions, which includes visits to Doniago's frequent collaborations and was shocked to see that AmericanDad86 has indeed been looking to discredit and salt Doniago's credibility, based solely on their past dispute. I will continue to be scarcely involved with this ongoing dispute, but I find this conduct unacceptable. DarthBotto _talk•cont 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem both parties are at fault then. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to acknowledge that I may have overreacted to the initial dispute, but I certainly have not made any effort to follow AD86's contribution history beyond the scope of their disagreements with me, nor have I ever accused them of "whining" or otherwise made any conscious attempt to miscast their editing patterns. DonIago (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a DRN volunteer which helped with this when it was lodged as a DRN case, I would largely agree with DarthBotto's summary, the content matter is over and done with, AD86 should now WP:DROPTHESTICK / WP:LETGO and get back to editing. -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached? AD86 drops the stick and we all forget about it? Time to close this? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all I'm looking for, but thus far, as I noted in my initial post, they've seemed unwilling or unable to change their behavior even when asked by other editors to chill out. But again, as long as they stop targeting me (and ideally don't treat other editors in the same manner) I'm content. DonIago (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Close on the basis that this is a warning to ALL involved parties that this behaviour MUST stop or there WILL be sanctions. Can we agree on that? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, probably best with the addition of user warning templates (eg. Template:Uw-npa3 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, or as otherwise appropriate) -- Nbound (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Errrrr...we're closing a complaint as having consensus, even though one of the parties has not even participated? How exactly does that happen? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The dispute seems fairly minor, but your right it was an oversight on my part. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. RetroLord, I would suggest that you not declare threads closed on the basis that "if people don't stop, there will be sanctions" - you're not an administrator. While this does not reduce the value put behind your opinion, it does mean that you would have literally no way of enforcing that threat, or of guaranteeing that your statement is true. Please try to limit consensus decisions you reach to things you can enforce. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would be interested in hearing AmericanDad's reason for intervening here. The stats at the Sherlock Holmes article show that AmericanDad has never edited the article. If he's tracking Doniago through his contribution history then Doniago has a legitimate harrassment concern, and that needs to stop. I encounter Doniago quite often and his edits have always appeared sound to me, and since I have never encountered AmericanDad before it would be unfair of me to judge him either way; but if he has genuine concerns about Doniago's editing patterns—in fact any editor's editing behavior—then he should raise them at RfC/U rather than engaging them on articles that don't come under his editing concern. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Betty. I'm not going to claim that everything I've done in the course of this apparent dispute has been beyond reproach, but if in the end the consensus is that I'm to be Warned (or worse) for my own conduct, then I would ask for a clear explanation as to what I've done wrong and what I could have done better. My perspective as it stands right now is that I may have overreacted initially, but when things went to ANI the first time around I was directed to DRN, AD86 continued with their behavior after things at DRN had resolved, and I waited until they engaged me on a different matter before coming here again. If I was at fault in some manner, then by all means take whatever actions you feel my conduct merits, but please give me some guidance so that I can ensure this does not recur and take more productive actions in the future. Thus far the only editor who seems to have anything strongly negative to say about my conduct in this matter is the same editor who I felt obligated to report and can't consider credible with regards to this. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As said on WP:DRN, I am not going to take sides on this matter but I will say that this conflict is intense and extensive as all get out. It appears to be causing Doniago a lot of frustration, and AmericanDad86 does seem to be somewhat opinionated concerning his perceived accuracy of his editing style. I don't know whose more to blame, but I have offered my own perspective on this dispute.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I followed this back from Doniago's AN3 filing, having read it quite by chance. After doing a bit of homework, it's clear to me that Doniago has a legitimate complaint regarding AD68's actions; one needs only read AD68's comments on the 3RR filing by Doniago, which attempt to make the issue all about Doniago, to see there is some effort to act on what appears to be a grudge to my outsider's eyes. To write this off as a content dispute would do Doniago a great disservice, and will only give AD68 license to escalate his harassment. I might also add I'm a bit uncomfortable with Retrolord's efforts to interpret events for everyone, then rush this to closure, particularly given he is not an admin, and seems to have some recent issues of his own. It's not helping the situation, and I appreciate DWatkins' reminder that there are procedures we adhere to. --Drmargi (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me say right up front that I have been contacted by DonIago about this. To this point I have chosen not to comment but the wall of text below more or less proves DonIago's point. When an editor is being attacked the way DonIago has been I can well understand the need to ask for input from others that know how they have edited in the past. While there is clear evidence of stalking there are only two items germane to this page. First, the constant violations of "Comment on content and not the contributor" need to stop. Second, if AD86 thinks they have a legitimate concern they need to open a RCF/U. To this point I can't see blocks being handed out as they are "preventative not punitive." I would suggest an interaction ban between these two editors may be needed. Also I would also ask that some admins add there input so that this thread does not continue to spin on and on. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising Doniago contacted you to defend him before you said that. As I have evidenced in detail down below, the user's tactic is going from editor to editor and admin to admin INCESSANTLY to get them to defend them and if they don't he bickers with them, which I have presented down below. Marnette, you are not the first user I have had to contend with because Doniago has sent them after me and you likely won't be the last. As stated down below, he's bounces around Wikipedia trying to get numerous users to defend him and if they don't, he bickers with them until they do or leaves in a huff. A quintessential example is when he told user:Blackmane to explain what happened on an Administrative Noticeboard dispute to me on an article's talk page of all places so that he wouldn't look as bad, as shown here [45] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." This was following a long debate Doniago had with this editor to get him to defend him. It results in Blackmane coming to the article's talkpage stating "Doniago sent him" with this: [46]. If users refuse to come and defend him, it turns into a bickering argument also as evidenced down below. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My piece

Quite frankly, I'm thoroughly ticked off that user:Doniago hasn't been blocked for what he pulled in our recent content dispute that he even finally admits he overreacted to in this very discussion as shown here [47]. Every few months, Doniago instigates trivial edit wars with me. It started with a heated verbal war he started over the placing of a period, as shown here [48], here [49]; after I dropped the heated matter over the placing of a period and let the edit go his way despite other editors encouraging me to fight it out and not let it go (as shown here [50]), the user persisted in trying to start petty edit wars with me which I had been brushing off for several months, as shown here [51] and here [52]; here where he tries to initiate another verbal war with me over petty grammar concerns before realizing his antics resulted in an unconstructive revert, as shown here [53] and here [54]; and most recently here where he starts yet another trivial edit war with me on stable edit that had existed for over a year on the article in question of which I didn't even incorporate, as shown here where user:TBrandley makes an edit that the show always starts with parental rating in early 2012 [55], Indiasummer removes that edit a couple weeks ago here [56], I restore it here with a source and Doniago immediately removes it with the edit summary to me of "WP:Trivia! Don't include ratings unless they're significant." [57], and an admin comes and restores it here [58] and also informs Doniago that he is wrong for trying to remove a stable edit that I never made in the first place [59].

I'm the one to follow policy and initiate a debate on the matter on the article's talk page rather than engaging in a revert war with the user, as shown here [60] but user:Doniago doesn't even debate the matter, but makes repeated threats that he's going to report me on the Administrative Noticeboards, as shown here [61] and here [62].

With that, he proceeded onto the Administrative Noticeboards where he was bickering with the administrators, criticizing them, and expressing impatience with them that they "take too long" to make decisions. His case was closed and he was told to treat the matter as a content dispute: [63], [64], here [65] and here [66].

When that didn't work, Doniago began going to the talk pages of numerous editors to try to assist him in his aims to get me blocked, as shown here [67], here [68], here [69], here [70], etc., etc., etc.

He was repeatedly told to treat the matter as a content dispute. When that didn't work, he started complaining on help pages. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Wikipedia administrators and the way they do business and the system of Wikipedia altogether, as shown here [71], here [72], here [73], etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: [74] and here [75],[76], here [77], etc., etc., etc. etc. Several times, Doniago is told to treat the matter as an content dispute and stop making attempts to get me blocked, as shown such as here [78], here [79], etc., and when he isn't told things such as this or anything that isn't scolding remarks to yours truly, he bickers with the person, as shown here [80].

And Doniago didn't just admit to "overreacting" above in this very discussion. In his attempts to get me blocked, Doniago admitted on Blackmane's talkpage (of whom he was criticizing for telling him to treat our matter as a content dispute) that he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at the user's talkpage: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here [81]).

Meanwhile, I was busy ignoring these shenanigans and debating out the dispute in the multiple forums Doniago had opened up (such as shown here [82] and here in a debate Doniago opens up but is not involved with because he's too busy bouncing around from editor to editor and admin to admin trying to get me blocked: here). Finally, the user obeys the commands of other editors and opens the matter up in the dispute resolution process noticeboard, which really isn't needed because he had already opened up the debate in multiple other forums. Honestly, I didn't even know where to debate out the matter with this user as he had opened the matter up in several forums I'd been debating in by the time he had opened it up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

At the dispute resolution noticeboard, the rules of discussion were not to bring in any other matters outside of the content dispute but to focus centrally on the content dispute, as shown here [83]. But Doniago blatantly disobeys these orders and yet again with no provocations began complaining about his failure to get me blocked on the Administrative Noticeboards and everyone's failure to see things his way (as shown here [84] and here [85]).

As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit. To do this, I finally refrained from getting involved in his dispute resolution process (the umpteenth place he opened up the matter) and let him have his way on the edit in question, as shown here [86] and here [87]). Again, that matter involving his outrageous behavior was resolved because I had to be the bigger man again and let this user have his way on the edit. The edit was rather trivial one that I didn't originally incorporate at that and I had tired of user:Doniago's bouncing around from editor to editor, admin to admin, venue to venue, telling them to assist him in getting me blocked without him being blocked for violating numerous policies, from clear violations of WP:FORUMSHOP and telling other editors to use article talk pages as a venue to essentially make him look good and scold me, as shown here [88] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that."

Moreover, Doniago was also subtly antagonizing me at my talk page during all this harassment. Following compliments I had received from User:Willondon (as shown here [89]), Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here [90] where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"

Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others, I become concerned that he's doing it to other editors when I see this [91], this [92], this [93] following what appears to be edit warring behavior, as shown here [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], etc.

Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere. Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him, he seems to have gone to her talk page to ask her defend him [99]. As said before, Doniago instigates trivial editing disputes every few months in which he tries to get me blocked but ends up bickering and whining to admins because he is unsuccessful. As always, the matter ends up with me having to swallow my pride and let him have his little way with the edit as I know he could care less about the edit in question and is simply intending to get me blocked. I move forward, he leaves in a tizzy because he was unable to get me blocked and then it starts all over again in a month or so unless of course I brush it off. This is all detailed above. Because he clearly gets a kick out of this, I became very suspicious that he was doing it with other editors when I saw him engaged in an edit war literally 2 days later. I have every right to express my concerns when he goes to the edit war noticeboard, as shown here [100] and tries to get other editors blocked despite the fact that he too is engaged in edit warring with them within the same dispute as I document here [101]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - You need to trim that down to 500 words at the most if you expect anyone to actually read it.--v/r - TP 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Doniago's misconduct is a long story and to correctly understand why user:Doniago is out of line, the issue needs to be presented from start to finish. I've provided all the diffs right in front of your faces as evidence. I can't do much more beyond providing the full story combined with all the evidence. How this user has managed to stay active despite the behavior which is detailed in full above is beyond me. My stepping in another matter in which I thought he was engaging in his same behaviors he did with me doesn't qualify him to scurry on to the Administrative Noticeboards again. Basically, he was engaging in edit warring with another editor as shown by a slew of reversions yet reports the other editor for edit warring and I present the diffs that revealed his edit warring in the matter he reported his antagonist over. Again, here are his examples of edit warring and I have every right to report it: [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. He proceeded to report me for reporting his edit warring behavior of which he left out when reporting his antagonist at the Sherlock Holmes article. He seems to use this venue as a means to try to get his way which needs to be nipped in the bud. When he's unsuccessful, he harasses everyone to get involved and get me blocked to no end. He has now admitted to his behavior being an overreaction. Is his own admission not enough? He states to being critical of Wikipedia's administrators and administrative noticeboards because he had other issues with users outside of myself here at the ANI noticeboards also as documented above (again, as shown here [107]). Is that admission too not enough that there's a problem with this editor? AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't just explain the story. You inserted a bunch of fluff that isn't necessary. Examples are:

• "Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere."
• "Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him"
• "Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others"
• "As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit."

It adds nothing of context to the narrative. Cut the fluff and present strictly the facts. What happened? "This happened [1], then this [2], then that [3] which violated WP:THISPOLICY". If you don't, no one is going to pay attention to you. Your first paragraph does this well, and then you lose it.--v/r - TP 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I've taken the time out of my busy schedule to present Doniago's misconduct in full. If you want only half the story and are too lazy to investigate the matter in its entirety, dismiss yourself from the discussion, and stop being a nuisance. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Im going to agree with v/r here, on any forum on WP, if you want action. You need to explain just the facts, adding your take on the situation rarely helps, leave that up to a fresh set of eyes. Failing to do so will either; not get your point across, or backfire. -- Nbound (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

v/r is shorthand for "very respectfully." @AmericanDad86: We all have busy schedules and no one is going to take time out of theirs to read your novel. I, for instance, just spent 8 hours building houses for Habitat for Humanity. So reading ten paragraphs is bottom on my list of things to do tonight. And folks like me are what you're going to get. It's about etiquette. If you're too lazy to revise your statement to conform to internet etiquette, then good luck to you. Don't be surprised if things don't go your way.--v/r - TP 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TP, I don't think you're going to get anything respectful out of AD86. I never have. I blocked him back in March of this year for edit warring. I warned him in April based on a report at ANEW. Then, I made a mistake and in late May forgot about the previous history and engaged in a content dispute with him on Judge Judy, an article he edits a lot (and badly). He reverted me, highlighting some apparent typos (I assume I made them but I'd have to research it more deeply to be sure) with this charming edit summary. Just to make sure I got his point, he left this message on my talk page. Because of the content dispute, I am, of course, involved and can no longer take any administrative action against him, much as he might deserve it. As for this particular dispute between him and Doniago, I have not evaluated the merits of it, so I can offer no assistance there. But if you're looking for a civil, collaborative editor, AD86 wouldn't be my first choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb, that edit summary is one of the dumbest I've seen. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ars longa, vita brevis. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Too long, didn't read it" is respectful?! Anyways, guys I don't have the time to get in different debates as a result of Doniago. I have a job to get to. I also don't have the time to figure out how to distort these long-drawn out matters in which Doniago has embarked on a long course of harassment against my self into a few paragraphs. If you rather focus on the diffs as opposed to anything else, simply focus on the diffs and ignore everything else. Administrative Noticeboard policies don't say anything about solely presenting diffs. I explained my side of the dispute just as Doniago explained his side of the dispute while admitting to his overreactions in this very discussion. Anyways, I've put the user's misconduct out there for everyone to see from A to Z. I encourage admins who want the full story to review it and no one else. This will be my last comment here. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remedy

I've now looked at a lot of the complaints by Doniago (his diffs) and a lot of the complaints by AD86 (which are subsumed in Doniago's diffs and also a few of the beginning diffs by AD86 here). I'll jump to my conclusion and then try to explain it. Doniago is sincerely trying to work out content disputes. AD86 is uninterested and manipulative. Doniago's biggest "fault" is he's not as adroit at presentation as he could be, which is why his original ANI complaint didn't go very far (even I reluctantly criticized Doniago for not presenting sufficient evidence). In addition, through sheer frustration, Donaiago does indeed try to get other editors to help him, although AD86's implicit accusation of canvassing is a bit much as sometimes Doniago is just trying to understand what other editors mean.

AD86 has an unconstructive approach to content dispute resolution. He freely admits that he tries to ignore Doniago, hoping I suppose that Doniago will just go away if he has no one to argue with. That may be acceptable in some circumstances where an editor is being belligerent or circular, but I don't think Doniago is being either. AD86's alternative approach is to bombard the discussion with complaints about Doniago (as he's done here). It's a scattershot approach where some of the complaints may be valid, some may be partly valid, and many are simply wrong. However, given the avalanche, much of it is likely to stick.

What troubles me the most is the avoidance of real content resolution and resorting to defeating Doniago's arguments by character assassination. For example, AD86 simply didn't participate in the discussion at WP:DRN. Another example is highlighted here by AD86 itself and has to do with WP:LQ. As any of us who have been at Wikipedia for any length of time knows, Wikipedia uses what it calls logical punctuation, so if we refer to an television episode, we say "TV Episode". We don't say "TV Episode." Even though at least in most American English the latter is more common. Doniago rightly changed a few instances of that to put the period outside the punctuation. He met with resistance from AD86, and AD86 decided to let it go (big of him) but at the same time said other editors felt he should fight it, and the diff he uses to support that is this one by an editor who essentially argues that WP:LQ should be eliminated because the editor is a "trained writer" and he knows better. That kind of garbage at Wikipedia goes nowhere. If someone wants to challenge a policy or guideline, they should do so in the appropriate venue; otherwise, they're pretty much stuck with it.

Now comes the hard part. What's the appropriate remedy for AD86's behavior? My sense, given my past interaction with AD86, is that this goes beyond AD86's interaction with Doniago and involves an aggressive, non-collaborative style (unless, of course, you agree with him). He called me a vandal. He called TP a "nuisance". Even when he doesn't call another editor an asshole expressly, he's clearly doing so by his rhetoric. He's dismissive. One of his favorite ploys, as seen here, is something like "I've done my part and have nothing more to say." This followed by "Goodbye!" It's an arrogant, I-know-best tactic and is not conducive to editing here. I don't see a topic ban being effective here as I don't know what it would cover. An interaction ban would not be particularly useful as it's not just a problem with Doniago. Civility bans are very difficult to implement and enforce, but of all the bans would probably be the most applicable. That leaves us with blocks for personal attacks and failure to collaborate. Unless, of course, we can get an acknowledgment from AD86 that his behavior is unconstructive and that he will improve. This is all assuming that AD86's conduct is sanctionable at this juncture. I think it is, but as I said earlier, I'm can't be the admin who blocks, and, of course, a ban would require community consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize it's not applicable to this forum, but I endorse your comment and thank you very much for the time and effort it must have taken for you to put it together Bbb. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, my stating goodbye because I've presented the entirety of my case on the matter and am leaving it up to administrators to make a determination is an "arrogant I-know best tactic" to you?!!!! You also flat out label a user's comments that supported me as "garbage" and I'm somehow the aggressive editor. All righty then! By the way everybody, administrator bb23 was among one of the admins who harshly criticized Doniago for coming to the admin noticeboards the last time over Doniago claiming he was personally attacked on basis of my complaining about his removal of stable edits without first discussing and other baseless, petty reverts of my material over the past several months, one edit in which he had to make a self revert on. He claimed my reference to him as "belligerent" for this repeated behavior was a personal attack and came running here whining about it. All the admins and Bb23 included found his case had no merit. Suspiciously, when admin bb23 saw I was involved, he just so happened to change his entire position on the matter. This administrator has just admitted to a previous editing dispute he and I had in which he repeatedly inserted typos and other misinformation so his actions and commentary in this matter are nothing more than vindictive. On his own, he has admitted to the typos in question but conveniently didn't do much to point them out. Included with the typos, Bb23 made a drastic revert without discussing anything on the articles talk page. The fact that he is commenting so heavily on this issue and has changed his position so drastically is nothing more than vindictive.

Also, how exactly am I the manipulative one when Doniago is going around making deals and bargains with other editors to defend him, such as shown on Marnette's user talk page here [108], this leading to her subsequent comments in this very discussion. Doniago has been incessantly using these tactics of bargaining, begging, and/or harassing editor after editor to come and defend him and make him look good and make me look bad in all of our dealings with each other. He did this with a whole host of editors after his failure here at the admin noticeboards and then by the way criticized everyone here at the admin noticeboards and the entire system. Meanwhile I complain about all these underhanded ploys and focus on content disputes and bb23 labels me as the manipulative one. For the most part, this matter has been commented on by users Doniago has begged, bargained with, or whined incessantly to and a two vindictive admins. This is exactly why a lot of people complain about the site and stop using it. People badmouthed it all over the Web for exactly this reason. Seems Doniago's ploys and politicking around from editor to editor has worked. I'm really not in the business of politicking around from editor to editor begging and making bargains with other editors to make me look good and make other editors look bad. I simply call it as I see it. Perhaps I'm using the wrong web site if success here requires Doniago's ploys and politics. AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AD86, your distortions of everything only make your defense of yourself and your accusations against Doniago (and others) that much weaker.

• I didn't "harshly" criticize Doniago in the last ANI report. I criticized him and said so in my post here. Nor did I criticize him in the rather inflamed way you described. I just said he hadn't presented sufficient evidence to support his complaint.
• No one found the previous report to be without merit. We never got to the merits.
• I was well aware of who you were when I posted at the last ANI report. I think my comments there show fairness, hardly vindictiveness.
• I haven't changed my position on anything. I thought your editing at Judge Judy was awful, which is in part why I reverted. However, I didn't continue to revert because I felt that to do so I would have to engage in a protracted content dispute with you, and I don't do that as much as I used to since I've become an admin. At the same time, if I wasn't willing to do so, I couldn't insist on removing your edits, so I stopped editing the article.
• The rest of your comments are just a continuing, repetitive rant of what you've already said in so many places. It doesn't warrant any further response.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, you have just called another editor's comments outside of my own as "garbage" because they agreed with me; you call me every name in the book from "arrogant" and "manipulative" to "i think I'm better than everyone" on basis of saying "goodbye" because i completed my say on my side of the dispute. You've also said things like all my edits are horrible. In the same breath, this admin has said im incivil. Bb23 you are a nothing more than a vindictive hypocrite engaging in a behavior you're trying to make criticisms about. Bb23 needs to be stripped of his admin tools. He is a quintessential example of why people leave this web site, never come back, and complain about it all about the Internet. He is an incendiary user. Again, I had planned on having my say on the matter and being done with it but this admin blatantly taunts me for my desire to have my say on the matter and be done with it and lures me into an altercation by labeling me as arrogant and that I think I'm better than everyone for this reason. I have only been blocked once at Wikipedia and it was by this very admin. His behavior was why i was getting ready to retire from Wikipedia once before. His behaviors in this very discussion should example primely what I had to deal with the first time around. This admin is looking for petty revenge through an altercation so for now I'm not going to read any more of his commentary. Doniago has a habit of harassing and bargaining until he gets his way as evidenced above. The sore bb23 seems to be here to give him credibility because he feels a second opinion will strengthen doniagos. Anyways I'm not going to continue arguing back and forth nor read the antagonism from the biased and personally attacking admin. I will simply await the result. I've told it straight up, called it as I saw it, didn't politic or forum shop, so now what happens happens. If I haven't made clear the in appropriateness I've dealt with from the two individuals in question beyond verbal accounts and diffs, then there's nothing I can do. I was told by a random editor just last week how valuable my contributions are and how he hopes i dont retire after he viewed one of my edits. however, it is hard not to when dealing with editors like the two in question and they are not penalized or brought to order... Well, Doniago was but disobeyed and now seems to be getting his way because of it. But at this point with these two editors engaging in outrageous behavior and not yet receiving blocks makes me shocked. Again, numerous people do not return to this site and make complaints about it because of behaviors like the ones of bb23 and Doniago. If these two users are to get their way in despite all their behavior, very well. Ill simply vouch for all the complaints made against the web site for the very behaviors they engage in and add my own. No arguing, altercations about it. Simple as that. Bb23 further comments by you won't be read because of your crudeness and vindictiveness over me reverting your typos. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have just warned AD86 for the personal attacks in the diatribe above. One more such outburst, one more time such unacceptable accusations, and it's a block. Bbb, have you, in the meantime, come up with a solution of sorts? The only thing I foresee is escalating blocks. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, would this by any chance have to do with my concerns of anti-black racism made against you just early last month?! Just curious! After I presented to the noticeboards an example of where another editor crudely used the term "nigger," you almost immediately closed the Administrative Noticeboard discussion on me. Directly after you did that, I sternly questioned you on your user talk page here [109] as to why you seemingly condoned the crude use of the term "nigger" as exampled in your premature close of the discussion and with no consequences to the editor in question after my revealing this. Unsurprisingly, as shown in the following diff, another editor even came forward and flat-out accused you of racism and others expressed concerns with the crude use of "nigger", all as shown here in the discussion I opened up on your talk page where I questioned you on your concerning close [110] and here [111]. After several editors expressed their concerns and one of which accused this admin of racism, the admin was finally forced to admit such behavior was inappropriate as shown here [112], never fully apologizing for closing the board nor penalizing the editor in question.

Anyways, Wikipedia ought to instate a policy in which admins that editors have been heavily involved with with regards to past grievances cannot make efforts to play such integral roles in later disputes of those editors. It's a nasty abuse of the position of administrator. It's bad enough I'm dealing with different users Doniago cozied up to, bargained with, begged, and politicked to defend him and make me look bad, such as shown here [113], but I also have the two admins that I had grievances against for condoning "nigger" and continually reverting in a typo popping up out of nowhere. Isn't there a policy these two admins have to follow on not popping up out of the blue for petty revenge? Yea, believe it or not Drmies, I found it suspicious that you closed a Noticeboard discussion immediately after reading that the term "nigger" had been used and gave no consequences. So I sternly questioned you and had every right to. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else who wants to see the close by Drmies, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Abuse and disruption. It is no surprise to find that the closing statement was highly appropriate. The complaint regarding "anti-black racism" appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding cultural differences. I wouldn't use an edit summary like the one in question diff, but it did not express racism, and it certainly is not sanctionable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd been debating whether to make a comment seeing as I had previously engaged both Doniago and AD86 (if I may abbreviate it so) to sort out their content differences after boldly NAC'ing the last ANI. I've struggled through AD86's incredibly long posts and went through many of the diffs. On the whole, IMO, I find that AD86 has a habit of histrionically misrepresenting Doniago's statements. In good faith, I had previously presumed this to be a misunderstanding due to text based communication but have since taken the stance that AD86 is simply lacking in good faith with regards to Doniago's (and from what I see above anyone else who criticises him in any way) efforts to be collegial. I'm sure that AD86 will take this as a sign that I've been canvassed and that Doniago has begged/bargained/politicked me onto their side. My interaction with Doniago and AD86 has been limited to the brief discussion on my talk page, which has yet to be archived, and a brief comment on the article talk page where their dispute occured. I've found Doniago to be receptive to other opinions, for instance they agreed to my suggestion to take the content issue to DRN despite their misgivings and accepted the opinions of the volunteers there. They even had the good grace to invite me to the DRN despite my lack of contribution to the article. In direct contrast, AD86 instantly goes for the bad faith assumption and everything goes downhill from there.

@AD86, I suggest you read WP:INVOLVED, which is what you are getting at. However, the salient point will be that admins who have previously had admin related dealings with an editor are not required to recuse themselves from dealing with the same editor in the future as long as previous interactions are solely limited to their administrative function. You will note that Bbb23 stated this very clearly above where he has refrained from using any of his admin privileges. Drmies, OTOH, has only ever dealt with you in their admin capacity, as such they're not constrained by WP:INVOLVED. Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TY Blackmane and Johnuniq. I have a vague recollection of AmericanDad's "stern" words, and I certainly won't block them for continuing the bad faith and poor assumptions they display towards me (so their attitude is more general, not just reserved for Bbb23--"petty revenge"? pfff, so much hot air). I'll leave this matter for the next admin, and/or for the next time they prove themselves unable to work collaboratively. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a followup, my talk page archived and there's somem wacky behaviour in my archive listing so here is a link to the discussion that may be relevant here. Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

My gosh, the things that happen when you're not on-wiki. Late last night I read Drmies's question to me above about a solution. I didn't respond because I wasn't logged in and I don't edit unless I am. Now that I have slept and returned from my work day, I see that AD86 has given folk even more ammunition to sanction him. The comments about Drmies are even more over the top than AD86's comments about others. I disagree with Drmies that he's involved, but that, of course, is his decision to make, although he's free to reconsider. I'm of the firm opinion that an admin is not involved just because an editor says nasty things about them, unless the admin is blocking only for those nasty things. Otherwise, any editor who doesn't want to be sanctioned by an admin could game the system simply by saying nasty things about an admin to avoid sanctions. My involvement is traditional as I've had content disputes with AD86. Drmies is simply not involved.

All that said, I'd like to respond to Drmies's original question, both for his benefit and for any other admin who is evaluating this topic. One solution, as Drmies noted, is escalating blocks. For AD86's previous behavior and for his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, a preventive block of some duration is warranted. The precise duration would be up to the blocking admin. As I stated earlier, I see no obvious content topic ban because AD86's edits and refusal to collaborate cross topic boundaries. Civility restrictions are probably the best option, but I don't know how difficult it would be to gain a consensus for it. However, this ban might be a good model for it. Another possibility, although I don't think it goes to the heart of the problem, would be a variant on an arbitration sanction, but imposed by the community, obviously. That is, AD86 would be prohibited from reverting on any article without first going to the talk page, explaining why he wants to revert, and obtaining a consensus for the reversion. The reversion would still have to be implemented by another editor, not by AD86. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not going to formally propose anything right now to permit the alternatives to be discussed generally first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, of course, but I have to confess that after somewhere close to 24 hours, I still find myself deeply disturbed by AD86's final post, in particular, the inflammatory use of the so-called "n-word" and similar language throughout his post. Used once, gets the point across, used five times with links to several more uses is excessive, designed to insight and potentially hate-speech. African-American or no, this is a disturbing display of inflammatory language, and should elicit ome response from an admin. I find myself very troubled that it has merited no reaction from the community. --Drmargi (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Back when I opened my original ANI case I remember believing, or maybe just hoping, that if someone, not even necessarily an admin, would just talk to AD86 about why their behavior was non-productive that they might reconsider how they were approaching disputes here. Then they began speaking here and, I have to admit, I started to feel like I really didn't need to say anything more with regards to their conduct because, based on the comments I was seeing from other editors, the problems had become self-evident. I'd still like to think that they'll acknowledge some degree of culpability or change their behavior voluntarily, but as I feared at the time, to date it seems that they've taken a lack of repercussions for their behavior as carte blanche to persist in it. Given that they've done it before, I'm forced to believe that if this ANI case doesn't result in some degree of sanction that they'll simply end up pointing to it later claiming that their behavior was faultless as evidenced by the lack of consequences. DonIago (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope this doesn't sound like I'm badgering, but should I take the silence as an implicit consensus that nothing is to be done at this time? As long as there's no further disruption I don't necessarily mind that per se, but I am mildly concerned given that the last time nothing was done I ended up back here less than a week later. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are designed to PREVENT future disruption to the encyclopedia; not to PUNISH disruption that has already happened. If they continue with the incivility then it will be easy to justify that the block is PREVENTING future disruption however at the moment they seem to have stopped. PantherLeapord (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That may sound right on its face, but it misses the point. If a user personally attacks another editor, they may be blocked. More likely if they persistently attack other editors, they will be blocked. Just because they haven't done it in the last 5 minutes, or whatever time period you choose, doesn't mean the block isn't warranted. Now, if the user acknowledges their policy violation and promises to behave and if that is believed, they may avoid a block. Or if they are already blocked and request an unblock with a credible explanation and promise, they may be unblocked. None of those things is true here. Indeed, quite the opposite, as AD86 has continued his misbehavior here on this board. To the extent that this topic doesn't appear to be attracting the attention of another admin who is willing to block AD86, it's generally useless to speculate as to why that might be. Thus far, this topic has been commented on by three admins. I have clearly stated I am involved. Drmies apparently now feels he is involved. TP is the only other admin who's commented, but for reasons best known to him, he has not rejoined the topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've never dealt with a situation like this before, would it be appropriate to ask for additional admin feedback at WP:AN, or would that be considered a no-no at this juncture? DonIago (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to go to WP:AN while this topic is still alive. Even if it's archived without any administrative action, you'd have to have a good reason to start it all over again, here or at AN. At the moment, absent some new development, I can't think of any.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. DonIago (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware; but I'm also aware that everything I've seen to this point has shown no indication that they have any intention of discontinuing their disruptive behavior, or even acknowledging that their behavior to this point might have been in any way disruptive. I'd prefer that no other editor go through anything like what I did, but if the prevailing feeling is that a "wait and see" attitude is best at this point, then I'll defer to that. DonIago (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem. Civility, or lack there of, based sanctions are notoriously difficult to agree upon. At this point, this is following the usual pattern of dispute -> DRN/3O/Mediation -> dispute some more -> ANI (with resultant action or inaction) -> RFC/U -> ANI/AN (with resultant sanctions or not). There's probably enough material that an RFC/U could be considered if a second editor would be willing to certify it, bearing in mind that an RFC/U cannot bring sanctions against an editor but does allow for wider comment possibly leading to sanctions that would be discussed back here. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine this has been commented on before, but that process seems rather redundant to me, especially in cases where very few, if any, editors contributing to the discussion believe that the subject's conduct has been appropriate and the subject doesn't present any indication that they intend to change their conduct... Just saying. I'm really not looking to get into a debate about that, especially not here and now. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably, unfortunately. But that's what happens on ANI. Apart from that, the only other option would be for another admin to step in and drop the heavy end of the hammer Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can hope we won't have any reason in the future to wish an admin had dropped the hammer. DonIago (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive CSD nominations

Today an anonymous editor has been rapid-fire nominating TV personalities for speedy deletion. Most of them do not meet criteria for speedy deletion and the rate of nominations makes it clear that they are not being well considered. I have blocked four related IPs so far for the disruptive behavior. The behavior suggests that this disruption will continue with new IPs, so please keep an eye out and pay closer than normal attention to {{db-a7}} nominations for the near future. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• 75.15.215.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.217.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Add 75.15.218.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) to that list. Range is entirely too large to block (75.0.0.0/10), over 4 million addresses. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Where the heck did you get that number? Using the IPs listed above, rangeblock calculator says it should be 75.15.208.0/20 (4096 addresses).—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well how about 75.15.218.00 to 75.15.218.999 for example - is it technically possible? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, IPv4 addresses are 8 bit so it would be 75.15.218.0 to 75.15.218.255 (75.15.218.0/24).—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I got those numbers from doing a WHOIS on 75.15.218.248.

NetRange: 75.0.0.0 - 75.63.255.255

CIDR: 75.0.0.0/10

A smaller range could be blocked, but we are guessing how they rotate their IPs.

Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He probably is a mobile user (using either a netcard or mobile phone/tablet).  A m i t  ❤  16:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be a very logical conclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you used the toolserver WHOIS which doesn't tell much. The rangeblock calculator is the best bet in locking down the range. Even from looking at it, and The Anome's comment below, your estimate was way too large.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's clear they're all limited to the /16 75.15.x.x, and probably just to 75.15.192.0 - 75.15.223.255, which is an even smaller /19 block of 8192 addresses. Any more problems, and I suggest we should do a short rangeblock on 75.15.192.0/19, to see if we can get their attention. Ortherwise, they have a distinct editing style, and we can catch that with the Edit Filter. -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already given guidance as to blocking 75.15.216.0/21 (4k) on my talk page, but for a few hours. As to how clear it is, I'm not as sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's split the difference and go with Ryulong's 75.15.208.0/20, see above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the /21 doesn't cover that first IP reported.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced this is the best range, reaching back, but I will defer as to the range. I've blocked 75.15.208.0/20 for 12 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please see: Special:AbuseFilter/567. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith

User:Arzel continues to be very hostile in his editing and interactions with me. Some examples are:

1 2 3 4

I have asked him to not make these attacks.

5 6

In my opinion, this is a continuation of disruptive editing by him . I would ask for some resolution to this. Thank you.Casprings (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

These two have been going at it for sometime, including frequent edit-warring over the article content.[114] Full disclosure: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I have commented several times on the article talk page and have Wiki-gnomed the article itself. I don't see how this dispute can be fairly resolved by admin action. Perhaps WP:DRN might be a better place to resolve these disputes or both of you can simply conside in the fact that this is a controversial article that Wikipedia is simply not able to adequately resolve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Casprings is not the only editor having problems with Azrel's behavior. He's just been reported for edit-warring: [[115]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to be angry in general. Maybe a topic ban would quiet things down a bit. Dusti^*poke* 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly community support for that.Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here. Apteva (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a new discussion is warranted then, and that information should be considered along with what we've got here. I'd support a topic ban in this case. Dusti^*poke* 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The AN re-posting of Caspring's complaint by Cartoon Diabolo is NOT a different complaint, just a re-posting. Constitutes piling on to a paper-thin ANI by double-listing. If Cartoon thought Casprings mis-listed this complaint, this section should have been moved, not duplicated. If Cartoon thought Casprings' ANI to be of merit, they should have supported and added to it, instead of duplicating. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is some other information on the subject than

• Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles
• Questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as hereand here.
• WP:BATTLE in several cases. Some examples include here, here and here.
• Arzel is a single purpose account as with a political view to promote.
• misrepresentation, NPA; POV pushing - [116] [117] which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article[118] stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010[119] who said "Agree with Azrel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant." and that's from the last few days; also see here on this page, [120] BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context.

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse: [121][122][123][124][125][126]

• pettifog retribution: [127][128]

• clear political agenda: [129][130][131][132][133]

• *Noticeboard discussion detailing disruptive editing and tendentious editing

• Edit Waring thread Final statement on thread was: "Stale - if I had reviewed this when it was live, I would have blocked; BLP is not an excuse to edit war over anything just because it's a biographical article."

• Noticeboard thread that found "I don't think Arzel should have removed that comment. The editor appears to have been asking about whether or not particular information should be included in the article. This to my mind seems an appropriate use of an article talkpage. Arzel's characterisation of the edit as WP:FORUM is therefore erroneous in this case and the comment should be restored. As for what should be done with Arzel, I'll defer to the wisdom of others."

• Noticeboard thread on edit warring on several articles

• Questioning the good faith of editors

• Attacking an editor

• Thread detailing behavior on administrator notice board.

Casprings (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He also caused problems in the Thomas Sowell article and subsequent DRNs of it. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that User:Anonymous209.6 is also problematic on the article. He has a history of disruptive edits. For example, he continues to edit out content on Rep. Smith, even with discussions on the talk page. He has many examples of POV pushing:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Smith Comment again 8 - Smith Comment again

I am simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing.Casprings (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move all of that to WP:3RR please. :) Dusti^*poke* 23:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

But I don't think the problem is over four reverts in 24 hours. It is just constant POV pushing and edit warring.Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

|}

(edit conflict) Note: there is a separate report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo As I said there, I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should have done a discussion in the WoW article earlier but there is clearly a pattern of disruptive edits (even with discussion) in the other article. If no one else is willing I could move the Anon edits to 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the above as it's about an entirely different user and situation and asked the editor to take that issue to 3RR Dusti^*poke* 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding a possible topic ban for Arzel

I think it's appropriate for a topic ban to be imposed here. He's obviously got some issues with WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, and WP:3RR when it comes to controversial topics like women's rights and rape. I believe a topic ban is a good route for this until he's able to control himself.

• Support Casprings (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No case for such a draconian solution has been presented. Using topic bans to purge a playing field of people who are not an exceedingly major problem is ill-advised, and is likely to result in gaming the system to remove "opponents". The above discussion seems far from being something for which topic bans would ordinarily be considered in any case. Collect (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions surrounding this user are astronomical, and it's a wonder he's not currently blocked. I think that both are appropriate in this situation, however, a topic ban is more favorable in my view as there's a potential for him to be a good editor. Dusti^*poke* 00:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean like the one where an editor proposed that I be topic banned from all political articles, broadly construed? Give me a break! The amount of gaming going on at the drama boards at times is astounding - and again my position holds that the solution proposed is far worse than the ailment. Cheers - you will find a bunch of the same people repeatedly urging the banning of Arzel at an "astronomical number of discussions". By your system of "astronomical number of discussions" sooner or later everyone who is "discussed" should be banned. I do not "count discussions" I only consider "content of discussions." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While your "political article" ban being broadly construed may have been a bad choice of topic ban, it's obvious this editor cannot collaborate with others in these specific topics. Take a look at his contributions and tell me he's collaborative. Dusti^*poke* 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The argument for a topic ban on Arzel was lost when Casprings had to cite 3 and 5 years old blocks to support his rationale.--v/r - TP 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While I would have agreed with you, the fact that a recent topic ban was just discussed about this same editor a few weeks back pointed me in this direction. Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your wikilink does not seem to work. I believe what you are referring to is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arzel, which is related to this discussion, but not in the way you mean. It is yet another clear indication of behavioral problems with Casprings, a consistent abuse of process, and refusal to address issues brought up by other editors. Casprings was not a major contributor, nor did they have complaints to add to the Tea Party rumble. The Tea Party issues involve multiple editors, and are being handled globally, in a productive manner. Casprings proposed making a terrible article a FA, and Arzel objected, with grounds. INSTEAD of addressing the points made, Casprings dredged Arzel's edit history, pulled up an old, unrelated conflict, and basically re-posted it, WP:CANVASSING editors from that previous dispute to join in what was basically a "do over" of a previous fight. This was properly dealt with with regards to Arzel, namely, no action. Unfortunately, Casprings was not blocked for their actions, but several of the WP:CANVASsed editors are here now. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per TParis' reasoning, not to mention the absurdity of Casprings accusing others of POV pushing. This ploy is nothing more than a WP:BATTLEGROUND maneuver. Federales (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got to stop you there. I'm not involved in this situation, and I'm the one who brought up the topic ban. I've brought it up because A) the recent discussion concerning the same user and B) This editor has proven time and time again he can't collaborate with others on these select controversial issues. Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If someone else has a better suggestion on how to get this editor to collaborate in a constructive manner, please bring it up. Otherwise, the only options seem to be to block the editor or ... I don't know? Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I only meant to offer what I thought was relevant information. In all honestly, I only want to get to consensus on the page. I would like to get it to WP:FA and have spent alot of efforts to get it there. As such, I have struck the information because it is problematic. . Casprings (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose These "attacks" from Arzel cited above are basically just saying what would be obvious to anyone who looks at the editing history of Casprings and the article in question. It is plainly designed as a BLP coatrack to go after Republicans by someone who is of a different political persuasion. Shoehorning in negative discussion of as many possible Republicans as he can based off a tangential or trivial connection in a source is not a desirable means for creating a neutral article and is very much suggestive of an agenda on the part of Casprings. Articles constructed in this manner, such as "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories", amount to little more than propaganda.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Concur Federales (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a content dispute. And really, a topic ban? We can't be topic banning editors because they don't agree with something. There has to be point-counter-point or the article will read like an attack page. This is a contentious article. I applaud Casprings for creating it. I'm sure countless women in America feel the same way. I believe him when he says he wants to get consensus and he said he struck the problematic material. That will probably solve a lot of this. I've seen Casprings back off when the community has pointed out to him that he's made an error. I admire him for that. Not everybody can do that well. Casprings, I didn't see any personal attacks from Arzel. The diffs I read seem like the usual snarky stuff on a contentious article. Suggest you both agree to be more considerate and give some ground on those edits. Don't throw in all those bits from 1995 I noticed a while back. The article is about the 2012 election cycle, afterall. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per Dusti. I see that several editors that have not edited one or more of the pages in question have weighed in here opposing a topic ban, which I find curious. I have encountered Arzel's irrational behavior in a revert-war and refusal to discuss the topic on the article Talk page, so I am convinced that there is doubt as to the editor's ability to engage in rationale discussions facilitating collegial editing here in relation to controversial political topics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support article ban. I have the article in question in my watchlist (probably the only politics-related article on my WL), and, apart from the current disputes, this editor is used to raise any sort of issue with the article, usually on the basis that the whole article is a coatrack against Republicans. He is also used to raise the same problem again and again and again when his view cannot find consensus (eg, he raised the question about 2008 exit polls at least a dozen of times, and on different boards). I specifically consider his battleground behavior and his assumptions of bad faith the main problems here. On the contrary, he said several times that the article should be deleted and should not exist at all, and at this point frankly I have no faith that this editor's tags, reverts, bold removals of sections, accusations to other users have the main goal of improving the page. Recently, I was impressed by his pointy attempts to have "Legitimate rape" redirecting to Rape (that does not even mention the term) and not to the said article. Cavarrone 06:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you fail to acknowledge that I reverted myself on that and redirected to the appropriate place. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: User has a long history of POV-pushing and aggresive battleground behavior that needs to be addressed, as the recent topic ban discussion from March indicates. My own encounters with him, though thankfully few, have been extremely unpleasant. Would support a wider topic ban on all political issues, as was proposed in the previous topic ban discussion. I find TParis's reasoning odd, because he fails to notice this is a long standing problem that has not been adequately resolved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then you'd have failed to notice I was the patrolling admin on the 2012 US election topics and I am fully aware of who Arzel is. This is a case of one POV upset that another POV could possible in a million years disagree with their righteous cause. It happens all the time and we don't topic ban for it.--v/r - TP

It's obvious there isn't a consensus about a topic ban, which was my suggestion. I've collapsed that to ease reading (since it's no longer relevant). Dusti^*poke* 05:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't hat. It's all relevant. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: User also removes large amounts of content without talk page consensus, purportedly due to unreliable sources.[134] Given that the content is sourced by Slate, I fail to see how this isn't editing with a purpose of pushing an agenda. Problematic to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongepotchket (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That information from Slate is duplicate information that is already in the article. Did you actually examine the diffs? Arzel (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose In the scale of things Arzel is on the lower key end of the spectrum of people working on political articles. I see some people here who don't have that quality who would probably just like to get rid of Arzel. Further, I have no faith in ANI's on general (alleged) behavioral topics. They are usually dominated by people with grudges or who view them as an opponent to their POV efforts. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This user has a long history of belligerent behavior. It's high time that Wikipedia takes more seriously the policy on civility; this type of rude aggressive behavior should not be allowed to slide on by. FurrySings (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my comment here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The user is apparently on Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing a political agenda, and his edit-warring, personal attacks, and total disregard for WP:RS - most recently at "rape and pregnancy" where he is edit-warring to present well-sourced scientific consensus as subjective opinion, but going back at least to the 2012 election leadup when he didn't care how balanced and well-sourced material was if it made his candidate look bad in the slightest - detract from the productive editing of articles. Contrary to TParis's reasoning, the old diffs indicate that the problem has been going on for some time, and that warnings have failed to get Arzel to change his behavior. The best outcome here would be for a broad topic ban both to teach him that Wikipedia policy matters and to allow him to apply his zeal to other subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to note that Casprings' block log is much more recent and contains the same amount of blocks for the same behavior.--v/r - TP 22:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • So if there is a poll of the community over Casprings's behavior, I'll look at it then. Bad behavior by Casprings doesn't excuse bad behavior by Arzel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • We absolutely agree then. Our only point of contention is whether we feel we can impose a topic ban on one and not the other. If a proposal came down for both, I might be more supportive.--v/r - TP 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The rude behavior of editors like Casprings and Roscolese in those links is at least as bad as anything Arzel wrote. It's especially galling to hear them talk about him "pushing a political agenda", when that's EXACTLY what they're trying to do themselves. (Projecting much?) If Arzel deserves a topic ban, so do Casprings and Roscolese. They have been uncivil and edit-warring just as much as he has. The only difference is that Casprings and Roscolese decided to silence Arzel with this ANI complaint, and then got a bunch of similar-thinking buddies to jump on board the bandwagon. Wiki-lawyering at its finest! ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that much of the decent into incivility relates to invalid questioning of sourcing. It sure would be beneficial if someone could work on a fix for that, as a preventative measure. In this case, since the article created by Caspring has been deemed notable, attempts to have it deleted, labeling it a "BLP coatrack", etc. would seem to reflect editing behavior that is counterproductive, generating a frustrating need to repeatedly address such apparently unwarranted claims.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, possible boomerang, Casprings has been as rude. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, let's look at one of the diffs cited by Casprings. Arzel wrote the following:

  It is pretty clear from this article that is really just a place to attack the comments of Republicans.

  Admittedly, this was differing directly with what Casprings had written above. But it's difficult to see how it constitutes a personal attack on Casprings. And it's hardly outlandish to assert the whole Todd Akin controversy was used as an attack on Republicans generally. That said, I believe that Casprings' complaint, while wrong, was made in good faith. It can be difficult to understand the difference between a content dispute and a personal attack. I'm sure Casprings simply failed to make the distinction. I am equally certain that Casprings believes in good faith that Arzel is "pushing a political agenda", while Casprings is not.William Jockusch (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Collect, TParis, Federales, Malke 2010, TDA, North8000 and others. Let's not start lynching our political opponents. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - long overdue sanctions for this POV pushing editor who represents an element of Wikipedia that we can do without. How long does this have to go on? Enough is enough. Jusdafax 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you talking about Casprings, Arzel, or possibly even Roscolese? Your short statement can be validly, fairly applied to all three. And if it's just Arzel, is he "an element of Wikipedia that we can do without" merely because he is a "POV pushing editor" (I would argue every editor, especially on politics, is guilty of this to some extent, but I digress), or because he just happens to be pushing a POV that you personally disagree with? More specifically, the opposite POV of the one you are pushing? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is more of a personality clash than anythign else and the proposal is overly broad. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• oppose per TP, Malke 2010, TDA, North8000. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued effort to edit war on redirects to the article by user:Arzel

Another issue that continues is an effort to edit war the tragets of redirects to the page. There have been serveral moves of redirects away from Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 by both user:arzel and User:Anonymous209.6. Some examples include

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy 1 2 3

The same sort of redirect war occurred on Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy, Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy, and Legitimate rape. As such, I set up a conversation on the targets of these redirects at Redirects for discussion. That discussion can be found here.

However, user:arzel has again decided to edit war those redirects. 4.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Do you want to receive the same block that Arzel does? Since you pointed out that Arzel's last blocks were in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring, you've had 2 edit warring blocks in 2012.--v/r - TP 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aside edit wars, moving the target articles of these redirects to Todd Akin or to rape lack any sense. This is the main problem, in my view. Also, here Arzel removed the template for Rfd, a bad action especially as in the relevant discussion there is a strong consensus against this move. Cavarrone 14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I missed that exemption in WP:EW and WP:3RR. Can you point out which one exempts folks to edit war to enforce consensus?--v/r - TP 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What?! Are you saying that actually users are allowed to remove Rfd templates (or AfD templates) during an ongoing discussion and to change target articles against the consensus in the Rfd? During the Rfd process noone is allowed to remove Rfd tag or boldly change targets before the discussion is closed. This clearly has nothing to do with WP:EW. Cavarrone 14:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate the WP:3RR and I also tried to discuss this on the talk page. When no one was willing to discuss the issue, I took it to discussions on redirects. That said, rather I deserve a block or not is a matter of evidence presented and the communities opinion of that evidence.Casprings (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed the sentence at WP:3RR that says, " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring..." The community is not required, only an uninvolved administrator. And as I have never interacted with either of you in any capacity, other than as an administrator with respect to my interactions with Arzel, I see no reason why both of you shouldn't face a block here. Discussion has never been an excuse to continue an edit war. You're supposed to stop reverting and discuss.--v/r - TP 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what edit warring is. I also don't think what I did was "edit warring". I have sought dialogue both at the talk page and on discussions on moves. The consensus is clearly that the target should be the current page. Yes, I did revert. However, there is a revert button on here for some reason. A revert, especially when the user is seeking consensus and does not violate WP:3rr, does not constitute an edit war. That said, it is up to the community to judge my actions, based on evidence.Casprings (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand there that an administrator can block someone. I also understand that you, as an administrator, are simply an editor with a few more privileges. This is an active discussion in the community. I would hope you wouldn't take it upon yourself to block either one of us, without a fuller discussion. If you did, it is certainly something I would take up on appeal of that block.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that, but I'm not going to block. I'm pointing out that you're not the innocent victim here. This is my suggestion to you, next time Arzel appears to be edit warring, stay out of it. Put yourself on a 1RR and report him next time before you war yourself. You'll find more support from me when your not guilty of the same behavior you want him topic banned for.--v/r - TP 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One, I did not propose a topic block of any sort. Another editor did that. Two, my great "crime", was bring up his previous blocks, along with other information. This was a cut and paste from a previous conversation concerning the user. I did this only to provide relevant information for another editor.Casprings (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you really want to derail this topic into who said what? Because if we do, I never said you proposed it, I said you wanted it. If that's no longer what you want, undo this edit then.--v/r - TP 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The mistake you're making is in thinking I have any attachment to Arzel and am biased in this favor. Clearly, I am not.--v/r - TP 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that would be helpful to the article. You are right, I did support a topic ban and you did not say I proposed it. However, I do find it rather interesting to say that "The argument for a topic ban on Arzel was lost when Casprings had to cite 3 and 5 years old blocks to support his rationale." Again, I was simply providing something for the editor who proposed the topic ban, as I said when I stated "Here is some other information on the subject than" I think you have neglated to consider the evidence on your quick oppose based on a posting of some information.Casprings (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're still diving into irrelevant semantics. But since you insist, you copied and pasted information that another editors posted, yes. Each of us is responsible for the things we post. If you did not contextualize the information in the form of "Someone else said..." then it implies your belief and support for what you've posted. So again, you used 3 and 5 year old blocks to support your rationale for another edit warring block on Arzel despite you having two most recent blocks than his last block.--v/r - TP 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't irrelevant. Words have meaning. No, I did not contextualize the comment as, "Someone else said" "However, where did I say, "He had 3 and 5 year old blocks. He therefore needs a ban." I posted information that was relevant to the conversation and did so without adding any commentary to the information. Please do not put words in my mouth. As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior. By blocks were deserved, but helped me read the policies of Wikipedia and try to modify my behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

It's implied when you do not contextualize someone else's words that you are speaking them as your own. That's why we invented the quote. "As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior." Again, if you felt this way, then why did you (re)post information about Arzel's 3 and 5 year old blocks? They arn't relevant. You've backed yourself into a corner where your actions do not reflect your words. You took the action to post information from your account, from your keyboard, you hit the submit button with information about Arzel's 3 and 5 year old blocks, but your subsequent words are saying they don't matter? It's a good thing you struck the entire paragraph earlier because you'd be looking pretty foolish right now otherwise.--v/r - TP 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it is information that is relevant to the conversation. Providing information isn't a good or bad thing. I don't know how someone will judge his blocks. I agree with the argument that we should focus on current behavior. Another editor might think that one should look at the totality of the information. I don't know. I was just providing something for the reader. As far as striking the paragraph, I did it out of respect for community opinion, when readers (such as yourself) had a problem with it. However, I still see nothing wrong with providing the reader with information.Casprings (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I don't know how someone will judge his blocks." I won't discuss this with you if you intend to be dishonest. You know exactly how you hoped those blocks would be seen. And since I cannot prove your hopes, only your honesty will suffice in this discussion. We can discuss this all day long and you can oppose my point of view on the subject of your dispute with Arzel, but if you cannot remain open and honest then there is no point in even trying to rationalize with you.--v/r - TP 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? I posted information about an editor that was relevant to the discussion. I did not say, "look at this, he therefore should be blocked" I said, you might be interested in this. You are assuming a level of dishonesty that is not there nor do you have the evidence to support. I question your judgement on this and would direct you to WP:goodfaith. An administrator making such wild leaps on the motivations others is troubling to say the least.17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I posted information about an editor that was relevant to the discussion" contradicts "As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior." Good faith only goes so far as someone sticks to one story. So which is it, are 3 and 5 year blocks relevant or should an editor be blocked or banned based on current behavior? Is it "you might be interested in this" or is it "I don't know how someone will judge his blocks." Which is it, Casprings, because you are contradicting yourself.

Let's try this one, do you want to reset, go back, and try again with Arzel and set this topic aside until a later date when your own behavior does not sink to the same levels as Arzel's?--v/r - TP 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No it actually doesn't. Information can be relevant and also not used in a one person's decision making. A cat could be black. That information is relevant to the cat. How a person uses that information in a decision to adopt or not adopt a cat an individual decision. Some may consider it important. While others may not. While I view a piece of information one way, that does not preclude me from providing that information to someone else.Casprings (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What I want is a path towards creating a WP:FA quality article. I do not care how that path happens. I care about content and creating a good article.Casprings (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I do not care how that path happens." The ends justify the means? If someone challenges your article, get them topic banned. It's okay as long as you get an FA out of it. "A cat could be black." No one offered physical characteristic of Azrel. You offered previous admonishment in a discussion about admonishment. If I want to know if Arzel has kids and you tell me he's married, then that's like telling me the cat is black. Not what happened here. The equivalent is me asking if the cat should be shot for attacking my prize chickens and someone comments that the cat has previously attacked animals. Do not downplay the significance of your comment because if it was so insignificant as you are now saying, you'd have never posted it earlier.--v/r - TP 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I say that the ends justify the means. I said what my driving force here is, and that is the article. I will work with anyone that is truly interested in improving content, as I have shown in my notifications in the article (will provide diffs, if you want them). As far as your analogy, fine, use that. I would want that information. I am not telling the reader what their course of action should be with the information. But to somehow question my motivation for providing it is troubling. Information is a good thing and if I know of or can provide relevant information to an editor, I will continue to do so.Casprings (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Different words, same meaning. "I will work with anyone that is truly interested in improving content" Of course you will. The problem is that you have appointed yourself judge and jury about whom is "truly interested" and you've decided Arzel clearly is not. Who is to say that Arzel's actions are not improvement? You speak of WP:AGF, live it then. Engage with Arzel with a collegial attitude and see where that gets you.--v/r - TP 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You make claims without evidence. Please show where I have not been willing to discuss something on a talk page. Please show where I have not be willing to accept modifications in the article. I have shown a willingness to comprise over and over. Saying, "well its all the same", isn't looking at the context of the article. Since there has been no hairline hit(ie 3rr), context does matter. An edit war is a matter if judgement, so therefore one has to look at the context of the reverts.Casprings (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you under some assumption that your words, and not your actions, are evidence? I have only to look at this thread and your revert wars with Arzel to know you, like him, do not recognize the value of the other. The only difference between you and him is that he's smart enough not to argue with me about it.--v/r - TP 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I am under the assumption that one can still revert and it not be an edit warring. I am under some assumption, that the hardline for edit warring is WP:3rr and you need to either show that or actual diffs that demonstrate a problem (and explain why that is a problem) I am under some assumption that administrators should not change or modify decisions because users are not "smart enough not to argue with" them. I am sorry, your majesty. However, this is still a community and you don't rule here.Casprings (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad we've clarified all of those assumptions were wrong. Now you know there are exactly 7 exemptions to edit warring and being right is not one of them. And you also now know that WP:3RR is a brightline and not a right. You're going to have to clarify your last point, I haven't changed anything. If you mean that I changed the course of this discussion from where you would've liked it to be to where you wish it hadn't gone, I'm sorry if my point of view has persuaded anyone (not really). Smart ass remarks aside, if you would like help in the topic area I am available to assist, I hold nothing against you. This has been a learning opportunity for you.--v/r - TP 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting to "enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", per WP:EW. The seven exceptions to WP:3rr, are for that: WP:3rr. Given that I did not violate WP:3rr and my edits are for WP:NPOV or WP:consensus rational, how is this edit warring? For example, here when I reverted to remove "Democrats’ relentless “war on women”. It seems rather hard to argue edit warring, when my reverts are all removing statements like,Feminist blogger Irin Carmon claimed. My reverts were to return what had been discussed to death on the talk page and was at WP:consensus or were clearly WP:NPOV,. Moreover, I did not violate WP:3rr. Yet this is the same as user:arzel. As with what this started with, is reverting to remove a WP:Afd template the same as reverting to put it back? Casprings (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that line does say there are certain overriding policies and it explains which certain ones they are at WP:3RRNO. The certain policies that have exemptions are: WP:VAND, WP:BLP, WP:Copyright_violations, and Wikipedia:Child_protection. Do you claim any one of those four polices? I dare you to ask any administrator of your choice whether WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus are exemptions to WP:EW. Any administrator you wish.--v/r - TP 00:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And I violated WP:3rr? And I am asking you, is reverting to remove a WP:Afd template the same as reverting to put it back?Casprings (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just lapsing into WP:IDHT. WP:3RR is only one aspect of WP:EW. You can be edit warring after a single revert, you can be edit warring over the course of months. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what you're doing. If it's not covered as an exemption under WP:EW, then it's a revert that counts. If you have a problem with a user removing an AfD template, you've reverted, and they've reverted it back in, you need to bring it to the attention of an administrator and do not continue to revert. Can I make it any clearer?--v/r - TP 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I have the point. I was trying to flush it out and get you to say it. You are basically saying, in cases of revert that are not 3rr, content of reverts does not matter, beyond the 7 exception in WP:3rr. The only thing that matters is the pattern of reverts. Is that your point?Casprings (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you've trapped me? I'm not just thinking it, I'm outright saying that unless you qualify under one of the exemptions here, you are edit warring despite the content of the reverts. I'm saying it doesn't matter in the slightest and you can ask any administrator, any of your choosing, if they agree. I'm trying to get you to understand a community standard. You're misapplying your real-world expectation of "fairness." It doesn't exist here. What matters is the stability of an article and with the exception of the few legal reasons that exist, of which consensus and NPOV are not, there is no excuse for edit warring. Modify your understanding to that fact.--v/r - TP 01:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is the policy, than that is the policy. However, I have started an RFC to verify that point. It is a community and you alone do not determine policy or policy interpretation. The community does. If the community agrees with that interpretation, I will work on changing the language of WP:EW to make that crystal clear. If that is not the community consensus, I will also make it clear that it isn't. In either case, I was not trying "trap you". I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Casprings (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That RFC is going nowhere. It's an established community fact and we don't have an RFC every time an editor doesn't understand that. What you don't understand is that the stability of an article is paramount first. All of our pillars have to do with the stability of an article. Consensus, NPOV, EW, BLP, MOS, ect...all of them revolve around the idea of article stability. It doesn't do our readers any good when an article completely changes every 30 seconds. Our strict rules on edit warring serve a purpose to get folks away from the idea of reverting until the other person tires out. They are intended to force folks to discuss. You can hold an RFC all you want, but you're going to get some weird looks. The policy, once you finally realize I have told you true, does not need to be updated. The rest of us understand it clear as day, and it's only you who is having trouble grasping the very clear concepts. So kindly leave it alone. I'm not "alone" telling you anything. I already know the consensus on the subject because I had to go through such questions challenging my knowledge at an RFA. Have you? I'm telling you what the community consensus on WP:EW is and you're severely mistaken if you think I'm dictating here.--v/r - TP 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to work on policy and improve it. Are you denying that policy is not community based and up for community input. Is it also not against community policy to distort what others said in an RFC, as you did with User:Federales, here. He clearly stated that content should matter in cases of non-3rr edit wars. In any case, I think this conversation has come to its natural conclusion. Have a good night.Casprings (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What I said is that "it is necessary to consider all relevant factors", and that includes content. TP didn't distort what I said; he expanded on it. I concur with his post. Federales (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Layman's parsing: The goal of editing is not "winning" or "losing" - it is the process by which WP:CONSENSUS is arrived. Edits made which advance the likelihood of a true consensus (generally indicated by compromise changes to meet the objections of those demurring otherwise) are generally not "edit war." Blanket reverts which are repeated, on the other hand, are almost invariably considered "edit war." Thus the "BRD" precept which is that we ought to discuss substantial changes before reinserting them out of hand. There are exceptions - specifically edits which may reasonably be seen as violative of WP:BLP may be reverted as a matter of policy without being called an "edit war." Therefore, best practice is to obtain a consensus on the talk page, or, as a minimum, change the edit so that it appears to an outside observer to be an attempt to reach a WP:CONSENSUS through compromise, which is what we are all supposed to be doing. Wikipedia does not expect every decision to be perfect, or result in the ultimate correct wording, just that we can agree that the wording is reasonable enough to present to the readers of the encyclopedia. The concept of "let's count my edits, and you had one more than I so we should punish you" (the common misuse of WP:3RR) is sometimes found, but, IMO, is pernicious. Collect (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Casprings:Anyone who has Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 on their watchlist can tell you that there are multiple edit-warriors on this article. If you want to propose a topic-ban for all these editors, I'd be willing to entertain that, but unfortunately, that list would include you. I suggest that you guys figure out a way to get along. To be perfectly frank, it's in your own best interest that you do so. Alternatively, you can file an ArbCom case, but ArbCom will look at everyone's conduct, not just a single editor. I guess a third opition would be to lock the page so nobody can edit it similar to Mass killings under Communist regimes where only admins can edit it under certain conditions.[135] I'd be willing to support such a proposal on a trial basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a Moderated Discussion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I proposed this on the talk page, and I think it is still a good idea. I propose that we created a moderated discussion for the remaining disputes on this page. It doesn't seem like these disputes will be resolved, if it is only done through dialogue. I would suggest an uninvolved and experienced editor would be of assistance in finding consensus here and resolving any remaining disputes. This might help in framing the discussion and getting resolution.

Look, I could care less about the editing drama here. This is a hobby in which I have set a goal of getting this article to WP:FA something that this drama has derailed again and again. I would like to get a well written article that is neutral and well written. A moderated discussion may be a means to do that.Casprings (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wanted a well written NPOV article, you'd embrace those with a differing POV. That's not what you want. You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview. The drama is generated when you see these one-sided efforts as two-sided because you lack the capability to see your own shortcomings. If you want a good article, you'd be better off reaching out to Arzel and getting him on-board to write the article together.--v/r - TP 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For someone not biased and acting in the role of an administrator, why the need to state, "You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview." Why the need to question my WP:Goodfaith? Isn't WP:FA a means to ensure that articles reach the highest level of standards for Wikipedia, thus are in fact WP:NPOV? If I had such bad faith motives as you give me, why push for that? If you read the WP:FA reviews from uninvolved editors, there is general agreement that the article is WP:NPOV. I invite you to read those reviews, here and here.Casprings (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A POV is not the same as bad faith. I'm telling you flat out that everyone has a POV and that well includes you. If you want an article that is WP:NPOV, other than Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, you have an opponent right here who can write for himself if you'd take the opportunity to reach out to him and capitalize on it.--v/r - TP 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt. I would have assumed uninvolved reviews at WP:FA are a good means to judge how well one has lived up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. I am disappointed that you would assume my motivation for taking the article there is to push a worldview. I would have thought all editors should want editors to reach for that standard in all articles. That said, I have no problem with working with user:Arzel in improving the article. However, at this point, the only means for that to happen is in a structured moderated discussion. Or at least that is the only way I see.Casprings (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think that will solve it, then you need to get support. I would support that, I'm sure others would. But then you need to have someone agree to moderate like an admin and everybody has to agree to be topic banned if they fall short. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The first step would be to get people to agree. Than we can find an uninvolved admin.Casprings (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on film infoboxes by 37.117.127.158

This guy is a disruptive editor on film infoboxes, as seen on of the diffs here on Olympus Has Fallen, [right here] in The Equalizer (film), there on Interstellar (film), on there in A Good Day to Die Hard and here in Transcendence (2014 film). There are also other films involves, which includes The Green Mile (film), Man of Steel (film) and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

This user with this IP address has been removing line breaks on the film infoboxes, replacing them with commas and removed links on Box Office Mojo on the infoboxes. His disruptive editing on film infoboxes on various films has been reverted and he won't stop his disruptive editing. It has to ben solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor seems to be trying to add wiki links to the names and messing up doing so. Probably he is not even reading his talk page. A m i t  ❤  16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've used the SSOD on his talk page. If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oof. That is one big red sign. Considering where the IP geolocates to shouldn't it say "arresto" :-) Thanks for taking the time make that post. It is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the biggest stop sign that i have seen in a long time on a website. if the user doesn't understand "stop" then probably he needs to take his activities out of the "english" wiki to elsewhere ;-).  A m i t  ❤  16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I noted this user's vandalism earlier today, came here, and found he is still continuing to modify film infoboxes even after the talk page messages were posted. This vandalism at House at the End of the Street here and at The Hunger Games: Catching Fire here are both recorded as being saved almost nine hours after Dennis Brown posted the message. Beerest355 Talk 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a timezone confusion - see the timing of the diff for Message from Dennis Brown. it is after the edit you are mentioning and since then there has been no edits from this IP.  A m i t  ❤  20:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for a two more days to find out if he had listened to the warning before assuming that he did. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't Log In Permanently

I couldn't Log In to my account permanently. After I Log In to my account, when I start to navigate into Pages, the account becomes Log Out automatically. I am using Google Chrome and delete the Chrome Cookies; still the problem exists. Can someone advise me? 61.245.168.23 (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you delete the cookies, you delete your login, you need to accept cookies (or at least the WP ones) to stay logged in :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have come out of the problem. When I navigate into Pages approximately after One Minute of Logging In, the account is not logging out.61.245.168.48 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

Hi everyone. I want to report User:AfricaTanz because his behavior seems very problematic to me. Beside telling other users they are "not welcome" to post on his talk page and accusing them of "long-term harassment", he unilaterally move pages about Tanzania (contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and especially to the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles of people), and now it seems he plan to start an edit war on List of Prime Ministers of Tanzania and President of Zanzibar. I have no desire to get blocked in some stupid edit war with him (especially when I saw that he was blocked for 48h only 15 days ago because of edit-warring), so I decided to report behavior of AfricaTanz here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified AfricaTanz. I have to agree with Sundostund's assessment: AfricaTanz has strong opinions on article names (that's not a crime, of course), and he pushes them even when the community has overwhelmingly disagreed with him before. See for example WT:WikiProject Tanzania#District and ward moves, Talk:Rombo (move discussion launched within minutes of Prodego's and Mareklug's comments at the WikiProject talk page) and Talk:Rau ward, Tanzania (the page was moved to its current title hours after the Rombo move request had failed to find any support). With the lone exception of the Rombo, AfricaTanz seems to avoid discussion at article talk pages, and he explicitly disagreed with my suggestion to use WP:RM to establish consensus before moving pages. Instead he prefers to tell others to stay off his talk page [136][137] or to tell them to stop their edits on the relevant articles: [138][139][140] Others' un-discussed edits get labeled as disruptive, he himself edits largely without attempting discussion (I should point out this positive example, though the article talk page would probably have been a better place).

Even when I agree with his points I find AfricaTanz' lack of communication irritating, and his attempts to enforce his personal opinions on page titles against community consensus will not end well. Huon (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My experience is he doesnt like talk pages, posted a discussion on my page that should have gone on a talk page and then chose not to engage in another discussion I opened on the talk page concerning his editing. Having said the which if directly challenged he hasnt, in my experience on LGBT in Jamaica, engaged in edit warring but instead has taken my comments to heart. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that other users noted AfricaTanz' problematic behavior as well. --Sundostund (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be a good thing to quote what a user said about the behavior of AfricaTanz in another ANI thread, 10 days ago. Here it comes:

AfricaTanz seems to be unable to engage in any constructive and respectful way with other users. I've been the subject of one of his frivolous 'edit warring' reports, along with another user on the same day, as he creates edit warring reports very liberally (diff, diff). In neither case were provisions taken against the users he reported, and in one case he ended up being himself warned. He later described the result as "a useful exercise", which seems to suggest that ending the imaginary edit war was not the objective for him.

Other users were treated in a similar manner: he refuses to engage in (seemingly benign) discussions, threatens with ANI reports (which adds to the impression that he uses it as a weapon, rather than to solve disputes), alters messages on other people's talk pages, and makes accusations of uncivil behaviour as well as unsubstantiated accusations of edit warring.

A dispute resolution has been opened on the matter that lead to his original accusations of edit warring towards me, but I feel that his conduct is by far the bigger issue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't come across AfricaTanz after that dispute, but I heard about another user (other than Sundostund) who had problems with him due to his lack of communication and poor manners. I think it's time to let him know that he needs to change his behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted what happened at the previous ANI report quoted above: nothing [141], because the individual in question chose not to respond and the report got archived without any action. Taroaldo ✉ 02:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are definitely right, Underlying lk. Taroaldo, that's exactly what should be avoided here - doing nothing because the individual in question chose not to respond. --Sundostund (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can endorse (and if necessary, considerably elaborate on) the evidence presented by other users above, but can I ask what specific administrator action they expect to be taken over it? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, some kind of block should be considered. AfricaTanz was blocked for 48h, only 15 days ago, for edit-warring and it didn't changed his behavior at all. I think some block longer than 48h is a right thing to do in this case. --Sundostund (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Sundostund; I'd say AfricaTanz' behaviour has changed significantly for the better over the past few days, with him joining a discussion at Template talk:Tanzanian ministries‎ and launching one at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Tanzania). Blocking him now would serve no purpose. Huon (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the same time period, however, he has publically "banned" a number of users from his talk page, accusing them of harassment, dishonesty, incivility, etc., when all they had done was to inform him about apparent violations of policy or to open discussion on disputed matters of content [142] [143] [144]; there are more examples if you go further back. (It's rather onerous to provide a complete list as he tends to remove from his talk page all criticism and warnings, no matter how friendly and constructively worded.) In the past few days he's also thrice characterized others' edits as "hysteria" [145] [146] [147]. So yes, I agree that much of his recent behaviour has been good, but he's still engaging in the sort of disruptive behaviour which others have complained about upthread. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz fails to understand some of the guidlines e.g. WP:Article titles and MOS:CAPS; whereby he insists on the use of small letters despite it being a formal title on the Salmin Amour, Joseph Warioba and Idris Abdul Wakil articles. I took the liberty in informing him/her about the guideline but the user wasn't interested and erased it. Since he/she was blocked some weeks ago due to edit warring on the Michael Omolewa article; he has found the warning template as a useful weapon and has since used it in threatening other users including myself for the Idris Abdul Wakil article. You may also find the discussion on the article's talkpage helpful. I do find his constant failure in engaging with other users on his/her talkpage appalling and some of his/her edits/page moves increases unnecessary work load on other editors. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• de-archived upon request of Ali__ on IRC in -en-help. I'm remaining neutral and not commenting. I am however slightly curious as to why this was already archived... It shows as less than three days stale on my screen. Anyways. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued stalking, harrassment, and policing of my contribs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Guy Macon is continuing to stalk my contribs, acting as a self-appointed policeman to revert my legitimate edits. I have pleaded in vain for him to be reminded that WP:STALK applies to him as much as anyone else here, and for him to stop ruining my experience as a wikipedia editor.

Please watch what is going on at May 1971. This article was on my watchlist because I first edited it on Jan 1, 2013. 1) Today, an anonymous account made the sort of edit that typically gets reverted - adding a non-notable birthday. It was properly reverted by User:Gobonobo. 2) Anon reverts and adds the non-notable birthday a second time. 3) User:Gobonobo reverts the anon a second time. 4) Anon reverts and adds the non-notable birthday a third time, a few hours later. 5) This time I catch it, and revert to the previous consensus version (without the non-notable birthday). 6) At this point Guy Macon, who has been following my contrbs like a hawk, gets in on the act, restoring the non-notable birthday because I "have no right to revert people". From there it just gets predictably ugly, so I'm bringing it here. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC):As has been explained to you multiple times, "I am right" does not justify edit warring. It would have taken a lot less effort for you to simply have gone to the article talk page and made your case for your preferred version like I asked you to do rather than opening yet another frivolous ANI complaint. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The irony of seeing Guy revert twice while chiding others for reverting is an interesting approach at dispute resolution. 129.9.104.9 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why an experienced user like Guy is restoring such unsourced rubbish as I have not been following this issue, but I have removed it again, along with the rest of the non-notable stuff in the article. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And of course you went to the article talk page and made your case for is being unsourced rubbish, like it says to do at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You should ask the anonymous user who made the initial edit why they didn't go to the talk page, not the registered editors who reverted to the status quo. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently Guy Macon never edited this article until today.[148] I do love the irony of complaining about edit-warring while simultaneously engaging in the edit-war themselves.[149][150] Collectively (4 editors), they're at 10RR if I counted correctly.[151] No talk page discussion that I can see. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we have to leave an anon's non-notable birthdate in a Month article until it can be discussed? But more importantly, why is he following my contribs? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And if we're going to rules-nitpick, the presumption is that the person having the birthday is alive. That means it's a WP:BLP situation, where the normal behaviour is to remove unsourced material. The burden of proof, or of starting discussion, is thus on user(s) trying to add the material.

That said, the only other thing that should have been done, is a message should have been left for the IP explaining that unsourced material will be removed—and that only notable people should be listed in the article. {{anonwelcome}} and {{uw-unsor1}} would've been useful here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most others here that Guy Macon's behaviour in this is affair is unacceptable. Even if he wanted to make the point that T.E. and other ought not to be reverting without discussing, that in no way justifies his own reverting back in of what any serious and experienced editor must have recognized was an obvious piece of crap. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how this behaviour could be motivated by anything other than an agenda of hounding T.E. This is troublesome, and deserves a serious warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reverting a clearly non-notable birthdate just to make a point [152] is not the way to go. Whether or not Til was over the 3RR or not, restoring it wasn't an improvement, it was WP:POINTy. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Point well taken. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Has the clue ball finally been picked up here, then? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am dropping the WP:STICK, unsubscribing from all pages that got on my watch list because of a certain individual's behavior and I am putting my trust in the community to deal with certain behavioural issues without my "help." Also, by way of explanation and not excuse, I think that recent real-world events of a medical nature may have inadvertantly affected my judgement, so I am going to take a wikibreak. Try not to burn the encyclopedia to the ground while I am gone. OK? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible WP:POINT violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears that Kauffner (talk · contribs) may have made a page move request for Fucking, Austria to make a point. The request itself is positioned as "There is nothing 'funny' about it", but from this comment, it appears that he's taking the mickey, or that he may be doing it with a battleground mentality. The views expressed there so far appear to see it as frivolous, and I suggest that it be WP:SNOW closed as soon as possible. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

offtopic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh gosh, someone is violating a policy! Call the police. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Better yet report this to the United Nations Security Council. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Retrolord, your comments are entirely unhelpful. While constructive comments from non-admins are always welcome, posts such as yours above do nothing to help administrators review the concerns raised.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Merely a sarcastic commentary on the sad state of Wikipedia, and how editors feel the need to report other users to the heavens for even the slightest deviation from the golden policy laws laid down by our king, lord and dear leader Jimothy Whales. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC) ANI isn't the place to opine about the sad state of Wikipedia. Other websites exist for that purpose. Your edits here are bordering on being pointy and disruptive. Stop or I will block you myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Well let me rephrase then DENNIS. This is the most ridiculous, non-issue EVER to reach ANI. ★★RetroLord★★ 20:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that city changed its name late last year to Fuggins, Austria. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Actually not  A m i t  ❤  20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't require an admin to close that discussion. Perhaps an experienced, calm, rationale individual can do that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  I was already working on the RM backlog, so I've gone ahead and closed it. Legoktm (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I fear rather that Kauffner may have been serious with this RM. I think he has generally sided with User:Born2cycle and others who take the ridiculously narrow interpretation of the precision criterion at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I think it's pretty obvious that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Fucking is the topic covered by the article at Fuck, not an obscure village in Austria, and so Fucking should remain the redirect that it is. The is exactly in compliance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, contrary to Mr. Lyon's [mis]understanding, apparently.

I disagree with the WP:SNOW closing of that discussion because it would be helpful to have these arguments on the record on that talk page. --B2C 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that it was a snow close means that there is a clear and obvious consensus to not make the move. There really isn't an advantage to "prove" a consensus on something that virtually everyone agrees on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bobiuioi (user page vandalism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At [153] User:Bobiuioi has vandalized an user page after being warned not to vandalize that user page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandals can be handled through AIAV  A m i t  ❤  20:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will file my request there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unification Church Edit War, despite topic ban of Borovv

re: User:Borovv and Unification Church

Borovv is on a topic ban of the Unification Church (and related) but is currently in an edit war on the Unification Church, and has been for a while. This is the second reported ban disregard I can see. Diffs: [154], [155], [156]. EBY (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, and left a note on his talk page explaining why he was blocked in terms of violating his topic ban. As this was the first block for a violation, it is short, but I have also told him that if he continues to violate his ban, the blocks would be getting longer. --Jayron32 05:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How best to add this story to avoid blanking/DE?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm seeking some advise on how to add this news report by Longdon Telegraph to "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" wiki:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

I feel this recent development is important, relvant to the topic, and Longdon Telegraph is a reliable, notable source. I have discussed addition of it on the talk page, even recused myself from editing and letting another editor take over. However this fact is still been, well, I would call it, blanked/DE'd.

What should I do? Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Try opening a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not having a dispute with anyone. If anything I'm willing to conceed I'm probably doing something wrong, and am seeking advice on how to best edit. I mean is this news article notable enough to be included in WP?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the idea - you believe (and I'm inclined to agree) that the source is worth inclusion in some form, and others disagree. That's the dispute. It doesn't have to include accusations or shenanigans to be a dispute that can benefit from some form of dispute resulution. On that point, the reliable sources noticeboard might be worth a look, if only to discuss (or confirm) that the source itself is valid. Once that's settled, you might have a better argument about inclusion. There are other paths, of course - and ANI is not among them. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darkness Shines is back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Darkness Shines is back with his POV pushing and selling half-baked stuff. He very enthusiastically is writing half stories in lead. Please note that he is keenly writing this all only in the lead even if it is not mentioned in the article below. At times he is writing only half-stuff in lead. Examples below:

• On the article Shiv Sena, he writes the first line of the lead as "Shiv Sena is a Hindu nationalist and fascist political organisation in India". Firstly, there are various sources which describe Shiv Sena as Hindu nationalist but very few have called them fascist. So that makes it borderline WP:OR and also WP:UNDUE. Also fascism is not at all mentioned in the whole article and then its also against WP:LEAD. But DS very keenly chooses only this word to describe Shiv Sena.
• On Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, he removes the sourced line "The RSS was founded in 1925 by K. B. Hedgewar, a revolutionary and doctor from Nagpur, as a socio-cultural group in British India" and instead writes "The RSS was founded in 1925 and were inspired by the Italian fascist party, during WWII RSS leaders openly admired Adolf Hitler." I removed what he wrote and wrote back "The RSS was founded in 1925 as a educational group to train Hindu men by character-building to unite the Hindu community", which is very similar to what was already present. I also used the same source which was already present. The source reads QUOTE: "The RSS was established in 1925 as a kind of educational body whose objective was to train a group of Hindu men who, on basis of their character-building experience in the RSS, would work to unite the Hindu community..." UNQUOTE. DS again reverts me calling it "gross source misrepresentation".
• At the Talk:Anti-Muslim violence in India he is ignoring a comment that any person/organisation (RSS here) cannot be described as "have carried out acts of violence" unless the acts have been proved by a court of law. He has been advised to rewrite as "have been claimed" or "According to blah blah". But he doesn't get it and has dragged it to RSN also.
  • Also he is arguing that RSS has been banned thrice, once for Mahatma Gandhi's assassination but he ignores the fact that those bans were removed after they were acquitted from these charges.
• At Nathuram Godse, he changes the lead from "Godse, a Hindu nationalist activist from Pune, Maharashtra" to "Godse, a Hindu nationalist and member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh‎ from Pune, Maharashtra". Here he again tries to push only half story. He conveniently missed out the part that Godse had left RSS in early-1940s.
• Seems that he has some agenda to push a point, which clearly is not neutral in any way. His DYK nomination for Anti-Muslim pogroms in India was passed in about 12 hours especially noting that it "has neutral point of view". Later it was removed from the queue, debated and deleted at AfD for various reasons one of which was non-neutrality and was also endorsed at DRV. But he still continues to edit in this manner, of stressing and misrepresenting information in key areas like lead section and DYKs which feature on main page.

I dont want to waste much time of mine and yours in submitting all previous similar stuff that DS has done and has been doing. Many editors and admins know that very well. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, you topic banned User:Mrt3366 for one "tendentious edit" when you had warned him before. At the same time you had also warned DS. I expect some similar action from you on DS also. Also, User:RegentsPark, you had unblocked DS prematurely. Whats your say now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're complaining that I brought a content dispute to the RSN board? You're complaining that I removed something from the article which was not in the source, as I explained on the talk page immediatly after removing it? You're complaining that I added academically sourced content to an article, and that I had not added enough? Just because I had not read far enough down the page in fact. Another content dispute dragged to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even a few days and we are here - AGAIN!!!! I couldn't resist getting involved especially when I trying to understand if a good publishing house makes the material academically sourced? Though i agree that DS has a habit of putting blunt words in his edits and many times controversial - seems like he is just hungry for visibility.  A m i t  ❤  14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Though I want to take ANI very seriously I couldn't resist one more thing - i.e. predicting this discussion - now there will be a bunch of editors and involved admins responding to this thread, it will become atleast 1000 lines long and then some admin would just close the thread with no action :-) - Would someone please save all the hassle?  A m i t  ❤  14:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Not even a few days and we are here - AGAIN!!!!" This kind of rhetoric always bugs me. The number of times someone is dragged to ANI doesn't matter. What matters is how many times an actionable issue has been brought up. I could bring you to ANI every day and say "A.Amitkumar used the heart character again which doesn't render right on my screen after I keep telling him to knock it off." Does it matter after the 10th day that your at ANI - AGAIN!!!!? We wouldn't be here "AGAIN!!!!" if ya'all would quit running to ANI when your patience runs out about something there is no rule against.--v/r - TP 17:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue which is being raised is about WP:NPOV for which there are rules, But irrespective of that - the gist of what I am trying to say above is that most of these ANI's end without any proper action, because the actual issue here is that people from both sides are trying to make pointy edits and then blaming each other trying to mention some WP rule or the other to bring it up to ANI. The AGAIN is for that. By the way don't you love my heart symbol? Linked it to WP:LOVE.  A m i t  ❤  18:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe if Dharmadyaksa and A.Amitkumar stopped their own POV-pushing they wouldn't be so bothered by that of Darkness shines? Pots and kettles and boomerangs all that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I am going to ask - which of my edits is POV pushing? Point to ONE. A m i t  ❤  17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• To clear up any confusion that Dharmadhyaksha or others may have, please be clear that there are rules against POV pushing if anything negative be written about Pakistan. But not otherwise.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• [157] One may like to see this, that's all. Mr T^(Talk?) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• What we have here, again as so often before in this set of disputes, is essentially the same kind of tendentious editing on both sides. In this instance DarknessShines' edit strikes me as marginally less bad than those by Dharmadhyaksha and Ratnakar.kulkarni, but all of them are tendentious and plain poor quality writing. We will need yet more topic bans in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would Vote Yes to that if that is proposed (for all involved editors to take a break from these topics using a topic ban)  A m i t  ❤  18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FPaS, you have been trying to get me topic banned for over a year after we clashed on the Massoud article, all this shows is you have a serious battlefield mentality. I would also recommend you look up the definition of "tendentious" as you accuse me of that on a regular basis. Let me do it for you marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view, now tell me, how is it a few months ago you were calling for my topic banning/indef block for pushing a pro Indian POV, yet here you are again calling for a topic ban becasue I am pushing an anti Indian POV? Which is it? As per the definition of "tendentious" I can only be one of these. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware your tendentiousness is not in consistently promoting viewpoints affiliated with any one nation, which marks your role as relatively unusual in this field. That doesn't change the fact that your edits tend to be of bad quality. Your "tendency" is to persistently over-dramatize and sensationalize negative-sounding material, at the expense of article quality and logical coherence. Just like here, when you stuck the "admired Hitler" bit in [158] with no regard to context and coherence, breaking both the syntax and the temporal and logical progression of the section, evidently with no other purpose but to get this negative-sounding snippet into the article in as conspicuous a position as possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

. I endorse this comment by Fut.perf.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish, removing content not in the source and adding content which is in the source is what we are meant to do. And I cannot hel but notice again your use of "tendentiousness" but now I am promoting negative content, like this you mean? Oops, no, look I am removing negative sensationalist content, sorry about that. How about this, crap sorry, adding content which is not sensationalist. Your right though, all my edits are crap, anyone can look at the newest article I created and see that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: - well said. Nailed it! Mr T^(Talk?) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Amit, I would Vote Yes also to such a proposal. Let us ban everyone from editing those India-Pak articles. DS is obviously a non-neutral editor. There should not be a doubt about that. It should have been pretty clear the minute he wanted to move 2002 Gujarat Violence, about a communal riot in India, to Anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, an article about a "pogrom" implying Government of Gujarat actually approved it and was complicit. He then went on to create Anti-Muslim pogroms in India and then he defended it in AFD and DRV. I was banned for what and compare what he is doing for a long, long time. He is the reason behind many disputes other active editors have had to bear. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I am so non neutral you asked me to go to those articles, in your own words I am banking on you. Thank you. What you do not like is that I saw how one sided those articles were and tried to fix them. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)God knows I rue that moment every time I look at your recent edits. I always manage to amaze myself with my gullibility. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am very short on time so would just give two examples this is one of those edit by DS where he tries to push his POV. While I have told him many times that this is a proven case of conspiracy and a discussion is still going on somewhere but he still continues to propagate his POV on various pages. Here on the talk page he says that he is opposed to adding any "See also" but here he has no problem in advertising his page.-sarvajna (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I wonder what made you say In this instance DarknessShines' edit strikes me as marginally less bad than those by Dharmadhyaksha and Ratnakar.kulkarni I do not think I have added anything much to the mainspace in the recent past, you did not even care to tell me when you saw that my editing was bad, I feel that your statement is just imaginary and was intended to defend DS. -sarvajna (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• And does he change even after this report? On Anti-Muslim violence in India, he writes "The starting point for the incident was the attack on a train which was blamed on Muslims." Here to chooses to write that the attack was on a metal box with wheels instead of people. He writes "was blamed on Muslims" but ignores the fact that 31 Muslims have already been convicted for this crime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• The article he recently created, Anti-Muslim violence in India is full of one-sided POV claims. The article harps the words "pogrom" and "genocide", even though these claims about the riots being "pogrom" or "officially sanctioned" are all unsubstantiated nowhere does it say that. It also makes it seem that the riots stemmed out of inherent immorality, pugnacity or intolerance of Hindus when the reality could not be further from this. Most of the riots listed there as "pogroms" are triggered by some other incident against Hindus. Mr T^(Talk?) 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that kind of comment is appropriate from someone "topic-banned from all edits relating to Indian and Pakistani politics". If the article is truly problematic (I really don't know), let someone else bring it up that isn't topic banned from the subject. - SudoGhost 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears to be a violation of the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what you get when you ban one side & let the other side edit it freely. 2002 Gujarat violence is a "pogrom". Nellie massacre is a "pogrom". Is there no tendentiousness in this behaviour? Time and again attempting to label communal riots as pogrom even when courts have passed a verdict explicitly refuting the claim. It is amazing. Mr T^(Talk?) 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And so does this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• @User:SudoGhost, MrT is right in pointing out DS's "pogrom" pushy point. DS has also tried to move the article 2002 Gujarat violence to include the word "pogrom" in it's title. There is no proof of government's involvement in all of these cases. In most, government is not also accused. Just because some people with facility to print books fancied the word, it has been used in some sources. Not to mention that majority of the reliable sources and books written on these events dont call them pogroms. (Side note: The word pogrom is fancied here also since DS started advertising it. Eg: User:Faizan/Anti-Bihari pogroms in Bangladesh and Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Riots_or_Pogroms.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually no, if someone is topic banned from a subject, they are not right in continuing to go out of their way to violate that topic ban. If there truly is an issue with someone's editing, another editor will notice it and mention it as appropriate. - SudoGhost 20:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well someone can let him know not to do it again and we can drop it, he probably thought the ban was for article space. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not editing the article nor the talk of that article. I am only bringing the article up to point to the tendentiousness of another editor. I am unilaterally banned from a topic and I cannot even say that the topic needs more bans? Mr T^(Talk?) 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've read OP's complaint multiple times and am unable to see a single behavioral issue here that needs to be addressed. DD, my suggestion is that if you believe that DS is a POV pushing account, you take this up in an RfC/U. If you believe DS consistently misrepresents sources, you take this up in an RfC/U. If you see evidence of edit warring to push a POV, take that to AN3. Bringing purely content issues to ANI, especially when you also include old content incidents, is not a good idea and repeatedly bringing these up here may point to a behavioral issue in the opposite direction. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: interaction ban between Dharmadhyaksha and Darkness Shines

I don't think anyone else needs a topic ban at this stage, but I do believe Dharmadhyaksha and Darkness Shines should have an interaction ban. The number of times each have fought with the other here at ANI is one example of this; another is an ANI thread at the bottom of this page, where Dharmadhyaksha has made an irrelevant remark about DS, despite that user not having been mentioned in the thread at all. It's becoming tiresome to see these two quarrel everywhere, and it's an enormous time sink. Mrt3366 and Darkness Shines should probably have an interaction ban as well, but I'm not going to propose it here (if consensus shifts that way, that'll be fine.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Action against Dharmadhyaksha, and we yet don't know what Dharna is saying yet, (regarding the thread luke mentions) let him explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: What does that even mean? Does it mean DS would stop editing all articles which i edit? I will be happy if he stops editing all articles under WikiProject India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"irrelevant remark about DS"... No! The IP 77.101.240.244 is complaining on User:Mrt3366's talk page that "someone has messed around and changed many things" on the article Shahid M. Malik. As the IP is new, he cannot find out what has exactly happened. But history shows how DS has blanked the page and AFDed it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do have POV-pushing problems in this topic area, from all sides (and I'm not picking out anyone specifically), but issuing interaction bans is not the way to solve it - the actual POV-pushing itself needs to be addressed, based on proper evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - not a sound proposal and it's based on an unwarranted presupposition "don't think anyone else needs a topic ban at this stage". DS needed to be banned even before me. With me banned there are only a handful of editors who can detect/refute/challenge Darkness Shines, Dharma is one of these editors. Banning him from interacting with DS will only add fuel to the fire.

Why are we again and again conniving at the patent contraventions of DS and letting him off? Mr T^(Talk?) 08:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Even with topic bans, it is clear that the users will still pick at each other. Mrt3366 needs to stop presenting themselves as a saint/defender of the Wiki against a vicious foe: it's precisely that sort of thing that got them topic banned in the first place. Also, I've reworded the proposal slightly as Darkness Shines pointed out to me that they haven't brought an ANI thread against either party.
• Oppose From what I've seen, interaction bans in article space rarely work well (they're better for wiki space). An easier solution would be to issue a ban on bringing things to ANI. --regentspark (comment) 12:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban Darkness Shines from all India-Pak articles

Based on a synopsis of all the arguments present above and in previous threads, I believe this is long overdue. I don't think I need to say anything more since every thing that could be said has already been said both in this thread and this one and some before it. Mr T^(Talk?) 08:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on various examples given above which show that DS is only pushing a specific non-neutral agenda on all pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mrt3366 is topic-banned from these articles; he should not be making these proposals. Regardless of this, all three editors here (Mrt3366, Darkness Shines and Dharmadhyaksha) are equally guilty of presenting various POVs in articles, from what I've seen. Either topic ban all three, or leave things as they stand now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I have made my opinion of Darkness Shines' POV editing on such topics clear in the past, and I see little evidence to indicate that I should change my mind. Having said that, I consider a proposal of a topic ban from a person who is currently topic-banned from the same subject matter not only inappropriate, but beyond any reasonable question a violation of said ban, and in consequence suggest that this proposal be rejected as null and void, and the ban violator be sanctioned accordingly - given Mrt3366's apparent failure to comprehend what a topic ban entails, I suggest that it be extended further, and that Mrt3366 should be blocked until he makes clear in his own words that he acknowledges that a topic ban includes any posting, anywhere on Wikipedia that in any way relates to the subject of the ban - and that there are no exceptions, regardless of what any other contributor does, or fails to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Boomerang Mrt666 is himself topic banned from this arena yet continues his battleground mentality. This should result in a hefty block - perhaps untill such a time that he shows he understand what a topic ban is and that he intends to abide by it. Also it should result in an extension of the original topic ban. As for Darkness shines' often problematic editing some of his articles such as Anti-Muslim violence in India and Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War give me hope that he can be an asset to the topic area - although it requires that he starts writing somewhat more carefully and less sensationalistically, and with more general balance of views. I would offer my self as a mentor, if it ever comes to that point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PantherLeapord

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PantherLeapord (talk · contribs) is making a continuous string of spiteful and rude comments. I've previously warned him about such comments, but the user continues to be rude and make inappropriate allegations. He has been warned number times.[159][160] While individually they are small, its the concerning that the user refuses to treat other editors with respect. Linking to offsite pages to insult.[161] Statements like "I apparently did something to piss off ChrisGualtieri and now them and this IP are going after me... " are inappropriate. [162] A bit of canvassing to user Moxy (singular) for support, but not to the opposition.[163] The user likes to create and stir up more drama.[164][165][166] Since the warnings have been reverted, once by another and once by me, I bring it to ANI because the combative and hostile tone of the editor is disruptive. Pantherleapord tries to make things "personal" and continues to comment on other editors instead of the content dispute or the arguments presented. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:ANI isn't a good venue for this. WP:WQA no longer exists, but would have been appropriate. I don't see any singular incident that requires admin intervention, so WP:RFCU might be the only other choice if you truly think there is a long term, ongoing issue. I've only looked at what you have linked, and while frustrating, I'm not sure of what else can be done. Unless there is a clear showing it enters the territory of WP:DE or WP:NPA, it is inappropriate for admin to get involved. If there are clearer diffs, please provide. And of course, I'm interested in hearing from others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• • This is a new editor, with little time here and very few edits as yet (months, hundreds). Their behaviour, and their obvious lack of appreciation for the behavioural standards that are a requirement here, are forgiveable, even if not excusable. No action is required (or credibly possible) as yet, but they need to learn that this behaviour (which I'd noticed too) isn't accepted and won't be accepted in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you are spot on here. Then what is needed is some mentorship, not administrative tools. Perhaps introduction into the adopted user program. Perhaps someone can help with that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Slap the two of them with a short-term interaction ban, perhaps of a week or two. Both of them keep sniping at each other, and aren't able to be constructive together. Some mentoring for PantherLeapord during that time definitely wouldn't go amiss. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You do realize that nothing presented here even approaches the threshold for an interaction ban, right? Slamming users isn't a solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've left a message on Panther's talk page, pointing towards our adopt-a-user page, giving a little advice. Before we get all excited and start recommending action, lets see if they are willing to get help and self-correct. How they react to my gentle suggestion and this ANI will tell us what we need to know. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Let's not forget that PL's topic ban from images was in part because of how he deals with people when challenged or in a difficult situation. The above shows a disturbing trend in behaviour - one that I fear will not bode well for our mis-spelled animal pairing in the longer run (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not want a block or anything of the sort; just acknowledgement that their is a civility problem. I do not know what you mean by "both of them keep sniping", because I for one agree with the user on the content issues and not their behavior or the actions. It was actually a 3O I got from another user on IRC that made me reconsider my side because of Yahoo! and the matter of leet of which the "deadmau5" aspect uses. If anything comes from this, it'd be that I'd like him to understand the issue for the warning instead of blowing it off rudely.[167] Dennis's actions are helpful and informed me of something I didn't even know about. Though to be clear; the user has even gone as far as refactoring another editor's comments as an insult. This is completely unacceptable. [168] Another user reverted the augmentation, Panthar deleted it.[169] Noticing the issue, the original editor ViperSnake warned.[170] And after another 3rd comment, removed them again and refused to get the point.[171] The user is not deserving of a block, yet, but this hostile attitude and refactoring of posts is not acceptable. Deleting the warnings given doesn't conceal them either; the user does not acknowledge even the underlying issue of why they were warned. That plus the bad-faith accusations are why I brought it here. Normally, I would do WQA; but the editor's behavior has allowed for a dialogue to address it on a RFC/U standard; if I made the wrong decision, trout me for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not up to trouting anyone. I've left a message, I think he understands that I don't know him from Adam and I see a problem, and he is going to look at the adopt program. I think we should give him the chance to learn from his mistakes. If he doesn't, then that forces our hand but at this stage, trying "education" is the preferred solution if he will comply. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bwilkins block of PumpkinSky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like for Bwilkins (talk · contribs) block of PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) to be reviewed. The rationale is "(Disruptive editing: edit-warring on WT:RFA, pointy edits across the project, failure to heed consensus in ArbCom ... the list goes on". I think this is a very weak, if not borderline abusive, block. I'd like input from the community about whether this block was merited or should be overturned. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not that I'm a fan of PumpkinSky, but I think that this block was highly unwarranted. It should be reversed, and other venues be pursued. The block button isn't the only way to solve disputes, and some sysops around here should already know that. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now, I am not going to comment on whether or not a block of PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) was warranted or not, but when the blocking admin is the one who is in the "edit-warring on WT:RFA" (a reason for the block), that creates a WP:COI and PumpkinSky should thus be unblocked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Some problems I see with this situation are that I only see one revert from PumpkinSky on WT:RFA. I don't think that merits an edit warring block. As best as I can tell, PumpkinSky's pointy edit was to template Bwilkins after Bwilkins templated a regular. This does not seem to be a blockworthy offense to me. I don't know what the "failure to heed consensus" was that Bwilkins is referring to, although PumpkinSky had left critical messages on some Arb's talk pages shortly before the block. Again, I don't see why that merited a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I thought it was an overstep by BWilkins and have asked him if he'd be willing to discuss or reconsider, with my reasoning for why I think it was an ill-advised admin action. Though I would have preferred to come to a reasonable conclusion without bringing it to the drama boards, more community oversight of admin actions is not a bad thing to have. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw that you contacted Bwilkins after he placed the block, but since he hasn't edited in a few hours I thought I'd come here instead of joining you on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• The last I checked, blocks are meant to be preventative, rather than punitive. He protected the page and then blocked PumpkinSky. Protecting the page negates the need to block, unless I'm missing something? Dusti^*poke* 03:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• My two cents: whether PS "deserved" a block or not, Bwilkins sure as hell shouldn't have been the one to pull the metaphorical trigger. You don't enter an edit war with someone (self-admitted by Bwilkins in this diff, and Bwilkins has been around enough to know that "you are edit-warring" is not one of the exceptions to edit warring), and then use the admin tools in the edit war. Not cool at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Writ Keeper already said it better than I would have. Whatever PS may have done, an involved block is not acceptable. Even though I think lots of people over-invoke the involvement policy, this one, blocking someone you were actively reverting in an edit war, seems pretty clear to me (unless Bwilkins wants to claim he was reverting vandalism, which I'm pretty sure would not fly). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• A block by an involved admin surely ends up getting doubts of having conflict of interest. Doesn't show the admin in good light, but at the same time some admins have to put their heads on the line to take some bold actions which this block did not seem to be.  A m i t  ❤  03:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  WP:COI has nothing to do with meta actions. It's in regards to editing articles in which the editor has a vested interest, so it's best to not accuse Bwilkins of violating that guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to edit war the original lightbulb back in (saying "please don't edit war")... I can't for the life of me figure out why closing that harmless discussion was so urgent that it required both a page protection and a block. It seemed like standard WT:RFA fare to me, why get out the admin tools to keep the discussion closed? 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Or, more ironically, why use the admin tools to edit war on a discussion about admin tools? Dusti^*poke* 04:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, in the spirit of reducing the number of Wikipedians it takes to screw in a lightbulb, I'm going to skip to the "this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen" bit and unblock PS, in accordance with the growing consensus here and on the assumption that Bwilkins is away from Wikipedia and so cannot respond to the concerns. (Hopefully, the last three steps on that page can be dispensed with, if only because WQA no longer exists.) I think that the case for this being an action while inappropriately involved is sufficiently clear and strong that it shouldn't take extended discussion to implement the obvious conclusion, and I've heard no dissenting voices. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I tend to err on the side of stricter sanctions, but this was a bad block. --Rschen7754 05:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

An indefinite edit-protection of a popular talk page is itself an abuse of privileges sufficient to question the competence of this sysop. A fact that Bwilkins lifted his page protection soon alleviates the situation, but anyway this person should now abstain from attempts to moderate discussions in English Wikipedia for a long time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm majorly concerned over BWilkins use of his admin bits to edit war, to benefit himself in the edit war, and to block a user in an attempt to win this edit war. I'm concerned over his competence and I think he, himself, needs to be blocked pending a community discussion about his action(s). Dusti^*poke* 05:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the circumstances in this particular matter, questioning his competence is a complete over-reaction. While there may (or may not) be an issue with this block, there's no need for a lynch mob to get riled up over the actions of an very capable and competent admin, apart from looking at this issue, not trying to completely blacken his name. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I respectfully have to disagree. I'm not calling for a lynch mob, but the fact that he indef protected a page, blocked an editor, and then hid is a reason to discuss his competency. He full well knew what he was doing, and if he thinks it's okay, there's some issues that need to be dealt with. Dusti^*poke* 06:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there. In quite some time of being an admin he over-reacts on one matter and you want to tar and feather him? BWilkins is a very competent and able administrator and to question his competence is way off the mark. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're not hearing what I'm saying (likely because you're reading it). I don't want to tar and feather him. That's not it at all. Hell, I don't even want him de-sysop'd. I want him to answer for what he's done, realize that he's misused the tools, and potentially have sanctions. It's like a police officer that arrests someone because they don't like what was just said. No law was broken, but to prove a point, they use their authority in an attempt to win the dispute. Dusti^*poke* 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED violations are intolerable. It invariably means the other side is going to be gagged and will not survive. It also shows that the admin does not respect sitepolicies and is unworthy of the community trust placed in them.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Where an admin may reasonably be seen by others to be involved, it is poor practice ro act as an admin, especially with a block of this nature, sure to arouse discussion. I suggest Bwilkins urgently rethink the wisdom of the block before the thinking is done for him. Collect (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Writ Keeper has already undone the block. Dusti^*poke* 06:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• So I noticed - I read the discussion and diffs given here before looking at Bwilkins' interesting posts on PS' talk page ... a splendid reason why blocking and leaving the scene within the hour is potentially a major problem for admins making blocks they should reasonably suspect will be questioned by others. IMO, this might haunt Bwilkins in the future, which he reasonably ought to have foreseen. Collect (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Huh! No wonder why Bwilkins closed the case when another fellow admin was being reported for being involved. Birds of same feather... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• ... Good faith is always a good thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC) <- just wanted to point out that quote. Dusti^*poke* 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could I suggest you show some to BWilkins then? At least until he comes back online to defend himself and provide a rationale for his actions? - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Involved admins who issue blocks against their ideological opponents should be desysoped immediately. I realize our awe inspiring system of governance (sarcasm in case you haven't met me) doesn't allow for this, but it's horribly overdue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• He should not have blocked Pumpkin sky. Mr T^(Talk?) 08:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. But...this is the second time in two weeks I'm had bad blocks unanimous overturned. What on earth is going on around here? Eventhough they were quickly overturned, the stigma of blocks cannot ever be erased. PumpkinSky talk 10:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well good morning everyone. As I very clearly explained last night before I headed off with some friends:

• I saw PS put a comment inside the closed WT:RFA thread
• I reverted - as is standard practice on closed threads - especially one that took someone some consternation to close
• PS re-added, which I therefore saw as an attempt to sneak the last word into that same thread
• I removed and protected it for 24 hours - this was to prevent PS from doing it again, so that PS was protected from getting themselves into 3RR trouble on a closed thread
• Yes, I templated them - I was in the middle of a few other things, but warning them that they were indeed edit-warring was a necessity
• I clearly suggested that they take a break
• I reviewed their last 25 or so edits, and found the Arb members pointiness going on
• IMHO, PS was pissed off at ArbCom, was being pointy everywhere from WT:RFA to Arbs talkpages, and then even on mine - I felt it was obviously necessary to protect a) the project from PS, but more importantly was to b) protect PS from themself - they were just escalating the trouble they were getting themself into
• Yes, I blocked them for 24 hours accordingly
• There were some mighty bizarre accusations made by PS (one being that the person in the ArbCom case was my "friend" and that I was "pissed at PS -- just waiting for a chance to block". All were addressed, and I believed when I left, this situation was over

As you can see, there's no "involved" in play here. I don't believe I have anything specific against PS, nor do I follow their edits at any time. I don't recall extensive interaction with them in the past. I most certainly did not expect this to escalate in any way, shape or form, so I went off for a few pints with a very clean conscience feeling that I was actually doing PS the favour by preventing them from shooting themself in the foot. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP claims he is the subject.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP claims that he is ithe subject.[172] If this isnt the right venue I'm sorry. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Subject = Shahid M. Malik

Geez!! Now non-Wikipedians are coming and complaining about Darkness Shines. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

On what do you base your conclusion? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dharmadhyaksha, will you stop with this constant hate campaign about Darkness Shines? It's really getting tiresome! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

When you say that would you check DS's trolling on the "Anti-Muslim violence in India" talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updating AFCH

Hello there. I'm one of the developers on WP:AFCH and I need to push a new version to the gadget on July 1st. I would usually make this request on IRC, but I will be away then, so I must get someone to do it on-wiki. What I need done is User:Nathan2055/afc.js pushed over User:mabdul/afc_beta.js and User:Nathan2055/afc stable.js pushed over MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js. I've already added the global gadget notice and all. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not allowed to do what I think would be the most appropriate thing, create an RFC/U, so I have to post here.

I'm witness and participant of repeated hassle over very little: White space in front of navboxes. The matter itself is of little importance, but it is trigger for some ugly behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken, again and again, most of all baseless accusations of socking every time an IP turns up. Named editors who oppose him are routinely included in the socking allegations.

That recently took a new development when BMK acknowledged that his way of doing things is not the preferred way to achieve these changes. I commented on this with a piece of criticism (because this very fact has been pointed out to him more than once and a long time ago) and a piece of what I think constructive advice (pointing out where he would get the changes he wants). He reacted, predictably, with socking accusations.

What I think is more important is that after he acknowledged the existence of CSS, he made (at least) two further additions of white space. He is well aware that these changes are divisive, and I can't see what good could come out of that, especially at this time.

This has been the topic of at least two bouts in AN:I, and other discussions in other places. Nothing good ever came out of it.

Please consider the matter, and please let BMK know what you think about it.

Note: During AN/Is, IPs are routinely accused of all kinds of evil deeds. Feel free to do that, but please don't forget to address the issue, ie. BMK's divisive behaviour.

Note: Please do not discuss the merits of the additional white space. This has been done more than once elsewhere, always with similar results. An ongoing thread about the merits can be found on WP:MOS/Talk. In particular, don't dismiss this issue on the importance of white space. This is not about white space, it's about BMK's conduct.

Thanks for your time. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look into the specifics of these allegations but having history with BMK myself I find it very likely and it fits BMK's editing paterns. He can be a very negative editor. Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dudes, hold off the attack for a sec. It seem to me that in the diff just provided by 91.10.2.76 [173], Beyond is saying that while he may have used some less orthodox spacing methods in the past, he is now happy to see the CSS changed. That reads like a compromise to me, not a reason to take his head off. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote from my initial complaint (links removed): "What I think is more important is that after he acknowledged the existence of CSS, he made (at least) two further additions of white space." --91.10.2.76 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bash IPs and I won't discuss the merits of a whitespace. What I will discuss is whether admin action is required over a white space. Really?--v/r - TP 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the complaint, paying particular attention to the IP's last line: " This is not about white space, it's about BMK's conduct." All the best. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That was added at 19:15 after TP replied at 19:12! Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that. As SchroCat says, this is not about the white space, but about user conduct. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat: I read the complaint. My question is if a whitespace justifies sanctions. Does the crime fit the bill? Are we going to sanction BMK over how much white space is at the bottom of an article? Really. We're wasting everyone's time. Excuse me if I chose not to be constrained into the IP's narrow focus. An argument about whitespace is pointless.--v/r - TP 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained in much detail that this is about BMK's conduct, not a white space. My focus is fine, I'm simply not asking for what you say I am. Now please comment on BMK's conduct.

Again, this is not about white space, it's about BMK's conduct. If you want to initiate any sanctions on white space, please open a new inquiry. This is not the place to do it. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added to the second note. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

91.10.2.76, please don't do stuff like that. It makes the conversation very difficult for others to follow. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but it was important. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Long-term IP campaign. I should note here that at least one person editing from two large /10 IP pools of the same (Deutstche Telecom) ISP has been on a long-term campaign of enforcing their interpretation of the MOS with regard to spacing and related matters, e.g. [174] [175] [176] [177]. More details can be found on User_talk:Bishonen. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for what?

Quote from my initial complaint: "I'm witness and participant of repeated hassle over very little" - I won't bother to check your links, more than likely at least one comes from me.

As per my notes above, I will not discuss the merits of the white space here, but feel free to join us at WP:MOS/Talk. I ask you in turn to now comment on BMK's conduct. Thanks! --91.10.2.76 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote just above? "campaign of enforcing their interpretation of the MOS with regard to spacing and related matters". This was not an uncontroversial matter. At least two of those IPs engaged in a fair bit of edit warring: Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237 and Special:Contributions/79.223.4.134, and the last one was also blocked because of it. And not all incidents involving those IPs involved Beyond, although probably a good deal of them did. So it's not unreasonable to assume the IPs are the same person. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the white spaces on their merits, please go to WP:MOS/Talk.

As for the rest, my behaviour or those of other IP editor do not matter. (To clarify: I or other editors might deserve a life-long ban or worse, but you should still consider BMK's behaviour.) Please comment on BMK's conduct. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dinner is served.

Well, here's my comment about the diffs you reported: (1) Beyond added double-blank wiki-code lines to a couple of articles. It's not clear to me that that is prohibited by MOS, although you insist it is. And (2) Beyond accused you of editing logged out for the purpose of evading scrutiny, which given the long-term issue with other edits from your IP range (on exactly the same MOS interpretation issue) does not look like an unreasonable argument to me. Besides, it doesn't look like any admin is going to block him for either of those "offenses" (adding spaces or saying you might be evading scrutiny), per comments already made by TP and Writ Keeper elsewhere in this thread. If anything, Beyond could get a WP:TROUT for implying that you also have a registered account. You might not have one. But you also did not disclose any prior incidents from your IP range, which some may find hard to believe did not involve you personally given that they involved exactly the same MOS issue. So WP:TROUT to you for that, 91. Now you guys can have a trout dinner together. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the white space, go to WP:MOS/Talk.

Quote from above: "I won't bother to check your links, more than likely at least one comes from me."

Now please comment on BMK conduct instead of mine. Thanks. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I did that (comment on BMK's conduct) just above, but you seem to be developing a bad case of WP:IDHT. Or maybe you're not reading before replying? Anyway, I'm off to bed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You commented on one small aspect of BMK's conduct, and not in an accurate way. (BMK was not "implying that [I] also have a registered account", he accused me of sockery, a blockable offense, repeatedly.) Please comment on the rest. Thank you. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, my comment on this, aside from my standing comment that every goddamn time this whitespace shit rolls back around to ANI it gives me a concussion from slamming my head into a brick wall to try to get the stupid out, is a distinct "meh". All I see in that MoS talk page is an IP editor (79.223.18.156, that is) trying to stir shit up and BMK falling for it and responding in kind. Neither exactly covered themselves with laurels, but it's not a big deal. And really, with an IP that changes as often as that one does, it's really not that unreasonable a conclusion, especially when it's that particular address's second and third edits ever. If it quacks like a duck, call a spade a spade, etc. etc. Other than that, there's been no edit-warring (thank merciful Christ) or other misbehavior according to the evidence given, so why should we care? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to actually file and RFC/U the proper spot for that is this way. This attempt to avoid the correct procedure is unseemly and should be shut down ASAP by having this thread closed. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

MarnetteD, please take a look at the very first sentence of this complaint. Thanks. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I did red the first sentence and unless you are willing to disclose what IPs and/or user names you have had past interactions with BMK with your actions are even more problematic. These character assassination threads at AN/I used to be shut down even quicker than ASAP. No admin action can come of this because blocks are "preventive and not punitive" and there is nothing to prevent at this tiem. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a ban.

In what way is my behaviour justification of BMK's conduct? More to the point, why are you avoiding to comment on this complaint's merits? --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Writ_Keeper, please be aware that this is only coming up again and again because BMK's divisive behaviour is unchanged. I am not the only one who suffered from it, as you should know since you apparently are aware of previous instances. So what exactly is your point?

Please be also aware that this is not about the white space, but about BMK's conduct. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is: if this one comment on this one MOS talk page is the extent of BMK's recent (so-called) disruption, then it is a) not overly problematic (though admittedly not perfect), b) vastly toned down from his (and your) previous behavior, and c) not worth opening an RFC/U over. If there's more, provide diffs and we'll see; otherwise, one comment does not justify sanctions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not, BMK hat a long history of this kind of behaviour. You should know, you have scar tissue on our forehead. ([178], [179], [180], [181], there is more, search for yourself)

In fact, he is doing it while we speak. You can find another instance higher up in Curb Chain's talk page. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to the Community: This thread is full of statements based on false premises. Please make sure to read and understand the complaint before you respond. Thank you. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Did this really get closed under the rationale that a) BMK's continually inserting annoying code into articles after years of being politely asked not to is a matter over which absolutely no action can be taken, and b) IPs aren't people, or if they are then they're socks with a grudge? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• ANI is not a substitute for RFC/U and this isn't an "incident", it is a pattern so ANI is really the wrong venue. An RFC/U is the logical next step, but it does require a logged in user to initiate. That the IP is a user logged out to avoid scrutiny is a plausible conclusion, although I haven't investigated deeply enough to draw a conclusion. It does stretch credulity to think the IP has never had a registered account. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Chris, since you seem to share the DT IPs' concern, why don't you start the RfC/U? I'm sure the 91 IP (and perhaps others) will then certify it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • RFC/U is one of our most pointless processes (in fact, since the closing of WQA, it's definitely our most pointless process). I have little desire to waste an afternoon of my life on such a thing, especially given that BMK is in pretty much every other aspect a competent, clueful and valuable contibutor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, then go ahead and block him. Or do you think that repeated ANI threads are going to change his mind? Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm curious if we could also hold a RFC/U on the IP(s), and if so what practical effect it would have. I think the answer to last question is: none because the person behind is unblockable. Their IP changes really fast and the ranges are huge /10s. Special:Random seems to be their favorite article on which they do nothing but MOS-related gnoming. So how do you [semi-]protect that in the case of a site-wide style dispute? The wording in the MOS lead says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." But the Deutsche Telecom IPs involved in this disputed don't appear to have written anything substantial in article space. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• It also looks like the DT IPs have edit-warred on the MOS soon after this thread was closed. See #Wikipedia:Manual of Style edit war below. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• And, lest we forget how frigging absurd this whole thing is, keep in mind that by "annoying code" you mean "a single whitespace". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wars have been fought and cities plundered over whitespace. The point is that no matter how trivial it is, it's obnoxious to still be at it after God-knows-how-many people have objected to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That goes both ways. Look who has been reverting Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237. None of those are Beyond. Should I notify all of them of this discussion or are just going to block them? Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually it's only two of them, so I'm going to notify them: User:BilCat and User:Arctic Kangaroo. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • BilCat has declined to participate, with an edit summary that is perhaps worth reading: [182]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Where are the wars here? Where are the plundered cities? What recent trouble has this caused? That's the point. In the past, yes. But what has happened recently all of a sudden to require fresh new action? If that one comment from BMK, which is not unreasonable nor overly problematic, is all there is, I don't see any need to do anything. The insertion of an extra line of whitespace is not itself problematic; it's only a problem when we make it one by edit-warring and doing other stupid shit about it. And BMK is guilty of more stupid shit in this regard than most, to be sure. But unless there's recent stupidity--and again, there has been no evidence presented here to support that--why does this thread need to be open? What new action needs to be taken? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The last edit war I could find between Beyond and the DT IP was in April [183] [184] [185]. In May, 91.10.19.237 edit-warred over the same style issue with the two editors mentioned above, but neither of whom was Beyond. Then 91.10.34.128 edit warred over the MOS page a couple of days ago. He was reverted by two other different editors [186] [187], again none of which was Beyond. The IP had some heated exchange with Beyond on WTMOS, but the IP has shown little interest [188] in discussing the topic and more interest in derailing the thread from a compromising, constructive solution; that diff was their last comment on WTMOS on the matter. On the balance of evidence, I think the DT IP has been slightly more disruptive in recent months. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • See here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert of disputed content while discussion/consensus sought

User:Spanglej has reverted disputed content currently in discussion at the article Dimensionaut (link to discussion here:[189] and relevant prior discussion here [190]). The disputed content reverted back into the article remains unverified and unreferenced. The original editor putting the content in the article used both original research and synthesis and admits there is nothing verifiable to support the content. After being advised to do so by an administrator, I started a discussion that would hopefully lead to consensus yesterday. Today, Spanglej reverted the disputed content back into the article and about an hour later put some comments into the discussion. There is a possibility she was unaware there was consensus-seeking discussion occurring when she made the reversion, however, there was no question she knew after she posted on the talk page because she commented in the section clearly labeled "Discussion and consensus building on disputed content". No consensus has been reached, no real discussion has taken place. This action of reverting disputed content in discussion by Spanglej has all the earmarks of blatantly tendentious editing, poking, and disruption to make a point. It's pretty disappointing that I did exactly what an administrator (User:EdJohnston) advised me to do (links here:[191] [192]) and then an experienced editor refuses to take part in true and fair consensus building by choosing instead to act in a hostile and non-productive manner. I would appreciate someone looking into this and helping us toward a resolution. I have notified Spanglej of this request for administrator assistance. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like the band is using the tour for promotion of its album but rather the album is being used for the tours promotion. But still my suggestion would be that the editors to sweat it out on the article talk page for a few more rounds (while stopping comments on the editors and concentrating on the content) and if still consensus is not reached then use the DRN.  A m i t  ❤  14:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes.. Perfect way to describe the promotion angle. Although one has to wonder how well that will work since the album hasn't charted which indicates album sales are poor so far. Regardless, I am still concerned about the editor's actions and blatant disregard of the discussion/consensus process already begun. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Hasteur is blatantly violating archive template rules to shut down discussion, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some details of the problem is already covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hasteur#Don.27t_abuse_wikipedia_templates, where Hasteur's poor tone can't be missed. I'm pretty sure he's not an admin despite the air of authority.

In short, Hasteur is trying to shut down discussion about fixing the godawful page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC, by using the archive template in direct violation of the basic rule at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Archive_top: When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

I've tried to reason with him on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#Straw_poll:_the_current_format_is_less_useful_as_an_encyclopedia_than_the_previous_individualized_format, but Hasteur continues to remove my comments while keeping his own.

Hasteur was also nice enough to point out that bad behavior leads to admin action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.172.12.104, which is why I'm making this case here. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

IP is Forum shopping looking for a forum to get a best reward for their tantrum. IP was reported at WP:ANEW prior to this filing. IP address is under WP:GS/MMA warning and refused to take the advice. IP address refused to consider WP:TPNO and WP:TPG and instead is depending on documentation of a template to enforce their viewpoint. IP has only recently started editing Wikipedia, yet has a strong familiarity with an oblique interpertation of Rules/Policy/Guidelines/MoS/etc. IP has created a section header pointing a specific user out in violation of our best practices. Reccomend that this reporting be closed per WP:BOOMERANG Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• This looks like a retaliation for filing this. Neither of you have been the pinnacle of civility, but the IP should be aware of the old adage "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness and not biting newbies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm reluctantly bringing this to ANI, as I can see no progress in further interaction with this user. I first noticed User:Surtsicna when he reverted an obviously good faith edit with the summary "reverting vandalism".[193] Looking at his history, I saw that he calls things vandalism when they are obviously good faith edits, e.g. [194], [195], [196]. I thought I should better speak with him about this, and decided to have a look through his history. I was a bit shocked to see that he routinely leaves insulting edit summaries. (e.g. [197], [198], [199], [200], [201],[202], all from the last week, and I'm sure I missed some.) I'm not objecting to his reverts, I'm objecting to the way he reverts, as it drives off editors and worsens the problem of our deteriorating editor base.

I dropped him a message to express my concerns.[203] His reply essentially denies anything wrong, and implies that I am being ridiculous and am insulting him.[204] I admonished him to take my concerns to heart, and he removed it with the edit summary "I am astonished by your impertinence. Who are you to admonish anyone? Quit this bizarre stalking immediately and go away from my talk page."[205]

I think it would be helpful if an admin explains to him that good faith edits shouldn't be called vandalism, that two neutrally worded messages on his talk page is not stalking, and that he shouldn't leave insulting edit summaries. FurrySings (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• While the user does have a somewhat overly-broad definition of vandalism, there really isn't anything actionable here and the so-called "insulting" edit summaries are incredibly weak: "nonsense" or "unhelpful" would be unkind if directed at a person, but directed at a sentence or template it's not an insult. On the other hand, FurrySings, your talk message with its child-scolding tone seemed to be intended to provoke a negative response (" If you care about the long term outcome of this project..."). Do you seriously think most editors would react well to that? If you agree with the reverts themselves and they weren't even your edits reverted, you come off here as unnecessarily picking a fight over nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say how bizarre all of this is - so bizarre that a completely uninvolved user (with whom I only had a short discussion last year) could not help caling FurrySings' message an "intrusive inanity dumped on your talk page". FurrySings and I had not interacted in any way whatsoever before he or she started scolding me for allegedly rude edit summaries (such as: "Unhelpful. The portrait does not depict her."). The same user, while lecturing me about such supposedly inappropriate edit summaries, described me as "abrupt, surly or even rude" the very first time he or she contacted me. Such impudence is nothing but bizarre. I explained that I comment on edits rather than on editors and suggested that he or she should do the same, but to no avail. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to begin my comments by referring any neutral editor here. I think FurrySings and I are looking for neutral comment here, not for more decimeters of ridicule and sarcasm from Surtsicna. Additionally, any reader of English is likely to be astounded, flabbergasted in fact, at the amount of sarcasm and ridicule hurled at someone who only wants h to stop calling good faith edits "vandalism". Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of good work done on WP (which Surtsicna certainly does, as I have recognized repeatedly) cannot entitle anyone to endulge in that kind of mud-slinging as a regular behaviorism. When Andrew Lenahan commented, he surely must have been unaware of the exceedingly belligerent tone coming, to an overwhelming degree, from one side of these arguments. Sorry, but this is par for the course for Surtsicna, who, when objected to or crossed or (particularly) reverted, is one of the least civil editors I know of on English WP. If falsely accusing others of "bizarre stalking" and "gross personal insults" (and much much more such stuff including always threats of a backlash) is getting to be OK, then all of us who need a somewhat acceptable working environment here need to quit this. There is no good reason ever to be sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some context: SergeWoodzing took the opportunity to attack because her or his another false report failed due to obvious reasons. She or he had been reinserting unsourced and extremely dubious info into a BLP-related article, claiming that his or her "common sense" trumped verifiability - something I strongly disagreed with. SergeWoodzing, who's monitoring my talk page, readily joined FurrySings' bizarre stalker attack. The fact that SergeWoodzing pretends that calling me "very unreasonable, and stubborn" is not a "grossly insulting personal attack" is very telling. The fact that FurrySings' out-of-the-blue message is "bizarre stalking" has been all but confirmed by Andrew Lenahan; Andrew's comment, however, is probably irrelevant because he has "rather loose standards about civility".

SergeWoodzing is perfectly aware that the edit summaries were evidently not directed at any user but instead at a sentence or a template (something also noted by Andrew), but ignoring that enables her or him to accuse me of being "sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work" (in bold letters, of course). More than half of his or her contributions since 12 June are attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing that her or his common sense trumps verifiability. Who is falsely accusing whom of what is obviously transparent to neutral and uninvolved users (as some have already commented), and there is no need for me to say so explicitly. FurrySings (who is not above lying transparently) has presented all her or his evidence, and that "evidence" has been reviewed. I beg an administrator to end this witchhunt and to prevent these users from harassing me in the future. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not contributing very much in other ways at this time, it may be because behavior such as that of Surtsicna makes me tire and lose interest, and also it may be that I am awaiting some neutral, reasonable outcome of this discussion, aimed at improving our working environment i general and the behavior of this particular editor (with whom I often must interact due to similar interests) in particular. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. Might it be because you are pressed for time with other matters? (That has not prevented you, however, from going after me whenever you do have time for Wikipedia - at help desk, at AN, at ANI, at administrator talk pages, etc, for over a week after our dispute ended.) Anyway, the edit summaries show just how "impolite" my behaviour has been. Once again I ask an administrator to end this already. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Oh, please" (and every such sarcastic comment) speaks for itself. Always does, always will. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look for sarcasm, you will find it even in the word "please". In this instance, it stood for: "Oh, please [quit the histrionics]." Your attempt to pass it off as something worthy of reprehension sums up this entire petty thread. In all of your comments so far, you've avoided responding to the core of my comment. The intent of such tactics is easy to perceive. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is a valid and important point here. Misuse of the word "vandalism", understandable though it may be if one spends a lot of time removing foolishness, is a damaging assumption of bad faith and easily puts off editors who would otherwise have improved into useful members of the community. The policy page on vandalism sets out in detail what not to call vandalism. Biting newbies is indeed a particular concern. Also, while people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sarcasm, it's important to note that tone is hard to read in online communications, and mockery and dismissal of others' concerns can have a chilling effect. Also, Surtsicna, when removing "nonsense", please be a little more careful to look at the result: checking the diffs provided by FurrySings, I saw that this edit left the princess married to another princess. Which I could I suppose have described in my correction edit summary as also nonsense, but ... that would be unnecessarily rude. If you will take that point on board, Surtsicna, and particularly avoid the "v" word, then I think we can be done here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally a fresh pair of eyes! Thank you very much for commenting. I do, however, feel that you are missing a big point here that Andrew Lenahan noted: my edit summaries were not directed at anyone in particular. I did not refer to anyone's edit as nonsense. I did not mock or dismiss a single user. Had you described my failed correction of nonsense as nonsense, that might have been rude, because it would have been directed at me. Also, which newbie did I bite? This is all thin air. A user I had no contact with appears on my talk page, straightforwardly insults me and demands that I quit describing various sorts of detrimental edits not only as vandalism, but also as unhelpful - because even the latter word is apparently impolite. SergeWoodzing readily joins in, after her or his several recent attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing with him all failed. Look at just how excited that user is because of your comment. Was I as excited as that when Andrew Lenahan "took my side" (so to speak)? Of course not - I never even expected otherwise, given how absurd this all is. In the course of this discussion, people accusing me of impoliteness have described me as a "very unreasonable and stubborn", "abrupt, surly or even rude" person with "a stick up his ass" - yet I am the one being reprehended here for describing article content as "ridiculous" or what not. That is astounding. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK Yngvadottir, thank you! But just above your helpful comments, you'll find Surtsicna's instruction to me to "quit the histrionics". I commented here at all because one of the two points, as per heading, that FurrySings specifically has asked be addressed is "Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness" - has that been accomplished when we ignore this type of repeated and habitual slurs, of which there are huge heaps of evidence? Surtsinca obviously feels h/s has unlimited license for such and is flawless, though nobody is flawless. Will somebody neutral please also address the issue of "politeness"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how much helpful can that be, but two of his edits presented in the first post as evidence were wrong and I reverted them.--The Theosophist (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One is debatable (whether a succession box is trivial or not, given that it's supported by no sources), while the other was certainly not wrong, as evidenced by sources (whether a portrait depicts the subject of the article). Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• What I see here is that FurrySings brought an issue of semi-legitimacy to Surtsicna's attention and was upset that Surtsicna didn't roll over but instead tried to engage in actual discussion. Such a crime. Surtsicna, aren't you aware that any random who haw who comes to your talk page and criticizes your work is automatically entirely in the right and above contradiction. Self-worth is a disgusting trait and standing up for yourself in your own defense is abhorrent. Next time, you need to bow down to your supreme random overlords. </sarcasm> Nothing remotely actionable, someone please close this.--v/r - TP 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarcastic people often have sarcastic friends. I don't know whom or what that will help in this case. Why comment at all? Sarcasm is always sad to see. It makes working with/for Wikipedia so very much less pleasant and inspiring. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia so much less pleasant and inspiring is seeing editors here whining ridicolously about some supposed "incivility" that simply does not exist. Yes, Surtsicna should definitely not label stuff as vandalism so easily -apart from that, his edit summaries, while brusque, are absolutely not "uncivil" or "insulting" - WP:CIVIL doesn't ask us to be polite to edits, only to people. What is really uncivil here is to see an editor dragged through AN/I for such nonsense. Furrysings, SergeWoodzings: grow up. --Cyclopia^talk 12:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your condescending comment, while playing that classic whining bit, is so extremely unpleasant to me that I sincerely wonder why I contribute here. What a turn-off! If edit summaries are OK to be used directly or indirectly to intentionally insult people, and if growing up (as per English Wikipedia) includes having to accept bullying, ridicule, sarcasm, accusations such as "bizarre stalking" and admonishments like "quit the histrionics" or, for that matter "grow up" (one of bullyings most famous exclamations), I don't know why anyone with the slightest bit of self respect would want to. I'd rather quit than grow up, in that case. Nobody (that I know of) needs to contribute text or images or corrections to Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been established several times already that tracking a random user's contributions four years back and picking holes in his edit summaries constitutes bizarre stalking. Or should we not call spade a spade? If you do not like being told to quit the histrionics, don't do them. For example, don't try to pass off an edit summary that describes an edit as unhelpful as directly, indirectly or in any way insulting. You've so far had a complaint about the civility of half the people involved in the discussion (excluding yourself), which is what Cyclopia referred to as ridiculous whining. Why? Because those users pointed out at the pettiness of this fingerpointing. Whoever dares disagree with you is either incivil or a bully (or both, as in my case). Anyway, this discussion has lost all purpose, assuming that it had any to begin with. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather quit than grow up - Feel free to go. And yes, growing up includes exactly to be able to accept frank dialogue between people. The only one who is throwing accusations is you, by the way. --Cyclopia^talk 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could someone please redact the serious (unsigned) personal attack at the top of this section added by 178.109.176.118 with this edit. - Voceditenore (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats made by 71.207.163.13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting an incident in which 71.207.163.13 made legal threats against Wikipedia, as advised by WP:LEGAL. The diff can be seen here.

The incident itself began when the IP in question removed referenced information, including the majority of the page, with this edit to Almeda University. The information which was removed was largely related to how Almeda University is not an accredited institution, which was supported by multiple references. I reverted this edit as vandalism using STiki with this edit. The IP then posts on my talk page here, asking me to restore his edit and threatening to file libel charges. The related thread can be seen at User talk:069952497a#Please roll back the corrections to Almeda University's page. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 16:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the material, I don't think this is a case of WP:DOLT, and I've blocked the account. However, there is some link rot and a few primary sources on that article and it needs to be given a bit of tender love and care.--v/r - TP 17:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent edit stalking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [206] (newly created by me)
• [207]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [208]
• [209]
• [210]
• [211]
• [212]
• [213]
• [214]
• [215]
• [216]
• [217]
• [218] (newly created by me)
• [219]
• [220]
• [221]
• [222] (newly created by another editor)
• [223]
• [224] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [225]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [226], [227], [228], [229], [230]], [231], [232]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], ... [241]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view of what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [242]; and another: [243] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [244].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.

Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.

Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst it may seem reasonable to insist that the case be narrowly focussed on the 'Wikihounding' issue, it's a ploy often used to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's be clear, though, that I'm not saying that its being so used here. The problem with this dance of tango is that one dancer seems to want the floor all to himself, so that he can do as he wants without interference, but the other dancer just wants to be consulted on the steps and is upset when no request is forthcoming from the party whose onus it's on to make it. In the absence of a demonstrable preparedness to pro-actively seek and then abide by consensus, blocking or granting unilateral restraining orders just won't solve the problem. Nobody owns any given WP article, and if the collective editors of a page (or a category in this case) wants no infoboxes, then the article creator must cede to consensus. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox templates as well as articles. The latter is an area where Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt have been extremely active— though not Nikkimaria. --Kleinzach 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the Mass in B minor), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, Template:Infobox musical composition which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you [245]. Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.Kleinzach 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They were added - as said above - to be compatible with Bach composition when Nikkimaria used this template instead of Bach. (I confess that I was a bit furious when that happened. If such things don't happen again, I will not do it again.) I suggest to continue talking about this very general template (how many fields does Infobox church have?) on the template talk. Back to here, back to my suggestion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we all appreciate that you don't edit war, and are willing to discuss infobox issues in a calm way. The problem is that you make changes that affect large numbers of articles, without consulting other editors. Moreover, instead of participating in centralized discussions and respecting their outcomes, you've initiated a whole series of distributed debates, that are repetitive and waste everybody's time. Instead of working on content, we've all been chasing around trying to locate and respond to your latest initiatives. Leaving aside the extensive template changes and just looking at articles, you've started at least five discussions since February: Robert Stoepel on 27 February 2013, Peter Planyavsky on 5 March 2013, Johann Sebastian Bach on 21 March 2013, George Frideric Handel on 25 March 2013, and Richard Wagner on 16 May 2013. Kleinzach 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look a little closer: 1) Stoepel was in response to a discussion on project:Opera (I DO try to work with projects.) The author installed an infobox. 2) I didn't start a discussion on Peter Planyavsky, I installed an infobox for an article that I had created. (It was promptly reverted.) 3) I started a discussion on Bach, agreed. Some editors said it was too long, and could only be accepted if it contained only a minimum. 4) Trying to learn, I suggested a minimum for Handel. 5) I did NOT start a discussion for Wagner, I followed advice for a solution, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity: In only one case did I insert an infobox in an article: my "own". Please have a look at the Stoepel discussion, that was efficient and encouraging, if you ask me. It was an article I knew well, I had nominated it for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, All you have to do is follow the links I have given above. In each case you started the discussion. I think it would help you if you can be frank about what happened. --Kleinzach 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was learning. From 1) and 2) I learned that an infobox was possible for a composer, from 3) that my suggestion was too long, from 4) that it was not wanted even short, therefore 5) only talk, no hope to have it in the article, no discussion. Why we still had a discussion, I don't know. - I will not even try Infobox on composer talk again - and said so several times in this thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: link to another Planyavsky discussion, in case of interest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.

For myself, reply to Slim Virgin: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is [246]. But whatever, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes as was done here at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know that was the last time (August 2012), so the ceasing you ask for seems to have happened already. - News from Andy is that surgery went well but he will not be able to edit for a week. Can this be closed, asking everybody to assume good faith and look forward? Nikkimaria and I had a nice conversation today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is alas not quite far enough if you want to stop storms of this sort. I evidence the state of affiars at Richard Wagner when Gerda 'playfully' inserted a infobox on the article talk page while the article was coming up for front page feature. When I archived the lengthy and futile discussion over this the day before the article was front-paged, (and incidentally was thus enabled to feature Gerda's very nice Wagner DYK box there), Mr.Mabbett stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving. This is presently the subject of a complaint elsewhere, as Mr. Mabbett is under a permanent ban from interfering with articles when they are coming up for front-page. So Gerda is perfectly aware that the 'ceasing' has not taken place (at the very least in spirit, although I note Mr. Mabbett quibbles about the details). Mr.Mabbett's surgery - and of course I wish the man good health - does not somehow restore the GF which many of us have alas found it impossible, from bitter experience, to assume in his case. It is because Mr. Mabbett and some of those in his train play these silly games that time which could be spent on editing is spent on mutual masturbation (oops - did I say that?) of this sort. I don't exempt myself totally for being such a prat as to rise to their provocations, but occasionally even an equable soul like myself feels the need to try to draw a line.--Smerus (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• September 2012, same thing here, and February 2013, another instance. I keep a very small watchlist and so am only showing the instances of which I'm aware. We lost a very good and productive editor because the September event. I have to ask, why? Victoria (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Same thing"? - The "Pilgrim"-Infobox was not added on TFA day but later, Little Moreton Hall HAD an infobox, only "invisible". It has a visible collapsed infobox now. Some editors learn, - I miss George, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gerda, just to clarify - I posted here in response to a very sensible suggestion SlimVirgin made and I added a concrete example using the words "the days before and the days after TFA" with the suggestion that perhaps that behavior should cease. As SV said "I'll stop doing X and you'll stop doing Y" - my example can be seen as X. This has now degenerated into a "that didn't happen", "that's ceased", "that doesn't happen anymore" when in fact three more examples have been presented. SV is quite right in saying that it's better to hash it out rather than having it go to Arbom, but we'll never get anywhere if it always degenerates in this fashion. I'll step out now; I was simply seconding SV's suggestion. Victoria (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Cease is not stop, right? - Putting something on a talk page a week or so before TFA, explicitly stating that it was not to be considered for the article but the talk, is not the same as on the article on TFA day, right. (And I will not do even do that again.) When the talk was archived Andy complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving, - was that "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving"? - That's what I am aware of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, do not misrepresent! - and do not imply that I interfered with an auto-archive. The page had always been manually archived, until Mr. Mabbett in his self-righteousness unilaterally (without any discussion) converted it to auto-archiving. This is all evident in the page history. I had no wish on the day of the article being front-paged to start another futile argument thread, so left it alone. When issues which I raise are turned into implicit accusations against myself, I detect that the spirit of the master temporarily in exile has found a worthy inheritor.--Smerus (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, so I don't know all the loopholes, but the best way forward is for everyone relying on a loophole to stop that way of thinking (e.g. I didn't add one, I just made an invisible one visible). The best situation would be if Gerda and Andy would agree not to add infoboxes to pages they didn't create or weren't in the process of significantly improving, and none to pages where they know editors will object (e.g. composers); and if Nikki would agree not to remove any, and not to look at Andy's contribs anymore. If someone does add an infobox and others disagree, open an RfC on the talk page, let it run for 30 days, have an uninvolved editor close it, and stick to the outcome.

Ask yourselves whether you want to go through an ArbCom case about this, and if not make every effort to avoid it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since February, we have had at least 16 classical music-related infobox debates/discussions, plus an unknown number relating to architecture, visual arts etc. Anything that can bring this to an end will be welcome, even an ArbCom case. --Kleinzach 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of time was wasted. Did you count Richard Wagner? No discussion was needed, the infobox could just have stayed on the talk as proposed by me, following advice by Newyorkbrad and Nikkimaria as a possible solution when an infobox is not wanted in the article. I thought that was a good solution, but if you are so strongly against it, I will not do that again. I don't have to stop adding one to a composer someone else created, because I never did that (as far as I remember). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: for those who don't look at that discussion (but it's enlightening, promised), here is the link to the advice mentioned (which was removed in the meantime): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: So are you willing to stop doing this? That would be positive. Kleinzach 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I stopped with Wagner, - that one experience of a "discussion" was enough for life, remember? See also Tristan, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bach cantatas are among my key areas of expertise, although I hardly ever visit the articles in that topic. I have to side with Slim et al. here: those articles are far better off without an infobox. I have a bunch of reasons. Let me know if you want me to list them. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to list the reasons, Tony, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; but I expressed these reasons—or something like them—at infobox discussions some time ago, so I'm not sure I'm adding anything new. I'm not per se against infoboxes in every situation, but for articles on complex-music composers and their works they add nothing and risk detracting from the articles. They present packaged and stripped-down information that is often not useful and is sometimes misleading outside a larger context ("Related" in the Mass in B minor box, for example). They can't help but repeat information that is or should be treated in proper context and detail in the main text. Why repeat it? Who is going to flip from one article to the next just to read the infobox info? We shouldn't encourage superficial reading, if the motivation exists for it (which I doubt for readers of these topics). They sacrifice what would often be an opportunity for an image right at the top, larger than can reasonably fit into an infobox. And I find the meta-data argument most uncompelling, I have to say. Infoboxes might be tolerable for pop-music articles and pop-bios, but not for complex-music topics, where greater reading motivation can be assumed. Tony (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you mind having this discussion at a more appropriate venue, for example project Classical music, where these infoboxes were discussed before introduction, or the template talk of {{infobox Bach composition}}. Please don't miss the Wikipedias de-fr-nn, where every Bach cantata has an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for explaining, Tony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's an unfortunate tendency to cram the infoboxes with unexplained stuff even in pop music articles. Look at Metallica (FA) for example. What is the giant list of "Associated acts" in the infobox telling you? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wagner for example

I am all interested in a good way forward. The past is shown here in a nutshell: "I am entirely against having a infobox for this article. Wagner's life and music is a very complex topic and I am certain that an infobox would damage the article by giving inappropriate or highly debatable prominence to some aspects, and/or by under-reporting other aspects. Moreover, Gerda, as you know, the whole issue of infoboxes is extremely ontroversial and the overwhelming opinion of editors on the Opera, Wagner, and Classical Music Projects is against having them.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" (quoted from the FAC in which I was involved)

When I read that I had an infobox ready in a sandbox. I put it on the talk (!) stating that it was not meant to be included in the article. There still was a discussion that would better be archived. I did not mind the manual archiving at all, please see.

I will have to understand how an infobox would damage the article but simply accept that view. I don't add infoboxes to articles (!) where I expect controversy, - as far as I remember I never did that, so I can easily agree to the request just above. - I just added one more item to the Wagner "DYK" collection, feel free to take it to the Wagner talk, Smerus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I wonder why, if an infobox is known to be controversial, it has to be placed on the talk page, rather than not introduced at all. Can you agree not to add infoboxes to articles (or talk pages) where you know it is going to cause a problem? If you would agree to that, that would be a start. If Andy will agree too, and if Nikki will agree not to remove them and not to follow Andy's or Gerda's contribs, the dispute will be over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the above modest proposal 100%.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's part:

• The infobox didn't "have to be placed". It WAS placed because I saw the recommendation, as part of a solution (!): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB)". This link preceded the infobox on the talk, - not everybody saw that, if you belong to those please take another look. I said above that I will not do that again even if I don't understand why an infobox sitting quietly on a talk page would cause ANY problem, or how any infobox would "damage" an article.
• Nikkimaria: I ask you formally to keep following my edits, - I need help with English and formalities. Just please don't revert a complete infobox with an edit summary I may not understand, and consider to have mercy when I ask for it (it wasn't often).
• Andy: he can't contribute at the moment nor for days to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, the possibility of placing infoboxes was not a 'recommendation', it was a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' suggestion for consideration by Nikkimaria, which indeed the latter subsequently withdrew. It had no endorsements or I think even comments by any other editors or Wikipedia fora. You were perfectly aware that the Wagner article was coming up for front-page featuring, and you were perfectly aware of the feelings of myself and other editors about info-boxes for the article; indeed as you mention you participated in the FA discussion, and you also participated in the TFA discussion. I am aware of the significant contributions you have made in many Wikipedia articles, which I unreservedly acknowledge, and thus I would never have credited that you had the naivety not to imagine or foresee that posting an infobox on the Wagner talk page, especially at this time, without prior discussion, would provoke animated debate; and moreover to realise that such discussion would inevitably bring in the causeurs who feed on such issues, whether or not they have any interst or contribution to make to the articles concerned. Clearly, I must accept your word that you had never anticipated this; but I am sure you have learnt from the experience. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, thanks for thoughts and feelings, - Fact: It was not Nikkimaria's thinking, she quoted Newyorkbrad, another respected user. - I will try to learn to anticipate feelings better, and there will be no next time, as said twice above. Thank you for a constructive GA review, I enjoy collaboration here, especially with you "after Wagner"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Redux

I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion here), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing WP:1RR), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).

If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. Kleinzach 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.

My statements are above, repeating:

I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)

I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)

To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)

I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)

I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.

From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested here. That should solve 1–4.

May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to write WP:STALEMATE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --Kleinzach 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Done Kleinzach 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think a statement from you would be positive, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --Kleinzach 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Too late. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should apply, but the self-fulfilling Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties already has lift off. Kleinzach 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties

As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page J.S. Bach talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.

I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, an admin is stalking an editor; this means User:Nikkimaria creates a deliberate chilling effect. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at Sparrow Mass. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.

I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.

I suggest a strong warning for Andy - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.

A Wikipedia-wide Rfc on infoboxes. This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Wikipedia community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the obvious social handicap as far as User:Jusdafax is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps User:Jusdafax can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as Richard Wagner advises, that I need to seek Untergang? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on User:Jusdafax's part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but User:Jusdafax's pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of WP:NPA in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, Le Pas d'acier. Notice there is no info box. I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? Jusdafax 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Wikipedia. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But User:Jusdafax says that the outcome must include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." User:Smerus wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. It's about power: the power to tell others what to do. Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Wikipedia that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, User:Nikkimaria who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes. Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. Jusdafax 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.

Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we have arguments: "has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. [emphasis added]" Toccata quarta (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example WP:CITEVAR or WP:SHE4SHIPS. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of WP:OWN, that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a topic ban last year.

This is not a new phenomenon. He was banned for a year by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.

Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. Choess (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice from my daughter

My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Wikipedia issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including BRD, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is more valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of WP:OWN who do not understand the policy that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

• Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes Report by Jusdafax, 2 April 2013
• Persistent edit stalking Report by Andy Mabbett, 5 June 2013 against Nikkimaria.

User pages

• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox and User talk:Ched/RfC - Infobox Rfc plan started by Ched, 5 April 2013

Classical Music Project

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Orchestra_infobox:_proposal new box proposed by Kleinzach, 16 March 2013 (see also Template talk:Infobox orchestra)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Abbreviations_in_infoboxes by Kleinzach, 23 April 2013

Composition articles

• Talk:Sparrow Mass Infobox discussion started by RexxS, 30 March 2013.
• Talk:The Rite of Spring Infobox discussion started by Andy Mabbett, 30 May 2013.
• Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 Infobox discussion started by Nikkimaria 27 May

Composer articles

• Talk:Robert_Stoepel#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 27 February 2013
• Talk:Enrique_Granados#Infobox_on_this_article: discussion started by Kleinzach, 4 March 2013
• Talk:Peter_Planyavsky#Infobox discussion started by Gerda Arendt, 5 March 2013
• Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 21 March 2013
• Talk:George_Frideric_Handel#Mini-infobox infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 25 March 2013
• Talk:Richard_Wagner#No_infobox ‘no infobox’ proposal by Gerda Arendt, 16 May 2013

MOS

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_7#Collapsed_or_hidden_infoboxes protest against collapsing infoboxes started by Andy Mabbett, 6 March 2013

Templates for deletion (TFD)

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15#Template:Collapsed_infobox_section_begin now closed as keep. nomination by Andy Mabbett 15 March 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_Bruckner_symphony proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_musical_work proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013

IMO a one revert rule-based approach would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. Kleinzach 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ Sphilbrick: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata BWV 103: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a cute example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel the strong need to emphasize again that, for an admin with a checkered past who is clearly subject to WP:INVOLVED, it is not ok to stalk Andy's edits, no matter how much he has blundered in the past. That's the immediate core problem here (aside from the overriding infobox stuff), and to do nothing just means more time wasted down the road. Fix this now, please. Jusdafax 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is not relevant in this situation because INVOLVED concerns an involved admin using, or proposing to use, administrative tools. The actual problem is that a small team of technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders—that is the problem which should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Day by day I hop this thread will archive. "The problem" in it is NOT the infobox, NOT "technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders", - the problem is that one editor feels stalked by another, and I of all people certainly know how that feels. With other problems, go to other threads. 18 discussions have been listed above as "drowning" content work, please look yourself if that is true, I don't see it. Show me one of those where an infobox was added to an article in a way that could be called "disruptive". Perhaps check your premises. Are you aware that Andy can't even edit, while Nikkimaria keeps reverting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Each of the two links at "keeps reverting" points to a discussion about an infobox. I have only dipped my toes into this dispute (and that was perhaps six months ago) and have no particular passion for either side, but the situation is clear: some editors LIKE infoboxes, and LIKE putting facts into them, while other editors DONTLIKE infoboxes and DONTLIKE what they regard as superfluous facts. This ANI report was started by an editor who regards someone checking his edits as stalking, but it's not possible for anything short of a three-month arbcom case to decide whether editor A (who is known to have been enthusiastically promoting infoboxes literally for years) is more or less at fault than editor B (who is known to have been enthusiastically resisting the promotion of infoboxes). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@SP, nice idea, but there's a simpler way...count the number of edits to this thread (main and subthreads) by Andy and Nikki. The numbers will tell you who's been trying to find a solution and who's been blowing this off. It continues to boggle my mind at how long and hard users will argue over the simplest of things here. If people would behave the way that had to at work to keep their job, we wouldn't have these problems. If wiki had a DR system that worked we wouldn't have these problems either. There are many reasons for this and I see no solution. The United Nations can solve things quicker and easier than wiki can, and that's scary. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no solution other than a central decision that infoboxes are or are not mandatory. The time an editor is prepared to spend arguing their case at ANI is not a reasonable way to measure whether one editor is stalking another. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close redux - with remedies

From what I can see, the basis of this case is a complex battle between teams of dedicated turf warriors. While I applaud Sphilbrick for making a real effort to look through the history of the battle in a short (couple-of-days-long) examination, I think there is general agreement that the two main root issues can only properly be addressed by the ArbCom. These two issues being (1) what is considered best practices regarding the placement of infoboxes in classical music articles, and (2) which if any of the main turf warriors have been acting in violation of Wikipedia's rules on collegiality and should therefore be sanctioned. In this AN/I, there has been a lot of sniping back and forth but very very little input from either of the figures in the central discussion (10 posts from Andy and 3 from Nikki). A casual reader would wrongly assume that Gerda (at 27 posts) is on trial here.

So If the central issues cannot be addressed by AN/I then it's time to close this discussion, however I do think that there are stop-gap measures that AN/I can introduce that would greatly improve the situation by defanging the central warriors in this turf battle. I strongly recommend imposing a 2-way interaction ban between Nikki and Andy for now (narrowly construed - only regarding the infobox issue - neither can revert the other, neither can participate in an infobox discussion that the other is engaged in). The benefit of this solution is that it will halt the most problematic aspects of the battle - the slow-paced reverting back and forth, the potential for edit stalking, and the further expression of their contrary and absolutist editorial POVs. And it will also provide a clear impetus for both editors to bring the underlying case to ArbCom as several reasonable editors at this AN/I have previously suggested. If Arbitration determines either Andy or Nikki to be entirely blameless then they can certainly lift the interaction ban, modify it, or take other action, but this issue needs to be addressed because this whole thing is giving Wikipedia a black eye. I'm sure it would make some anti-Wikipedia blogger's day to discover that this kind of thing is going on at WikiProject Classical Music of all places.

Let's force them to drop the stick for now by imposing this stop-gap interaction ban and then wash our hands of it to allow them to build their case for ArbCom. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe this summary (and many of those above as well) entirely misses the point and mischaracterizes the issues, which go beyond the infobox one-- having more to do with groups of technical editors who target in particular but not exclusively Featured articles to impose personal preferences against guidelines and consensus, in some past cases using socks to evade detection and scrutiny while moving from one suite of articles to another to install personal preferences, and doing this against the consensus of WikiProjects and established content contributors, who know the topics, edit the articles frequently, and can and do explain why these technically minded edit warriors are frequently negatively impacting content. Featured articles are targeted because by installing personal preferences there, editors can more easily force those preferences on other articles. This has been a problem for a long time, and the names that pop up in these discussions are often familiar.

Infoboxes are not the only area where this occurs, and we most certainly have lost valuable editors in the past when groups of technical editors have suddenly appeared on articles to impose their personal preferences, be it citation style, formatting, dates, infoboxes, lists, whatever. Anyone unaware of the number of valuable content editors we have lost to this very issue-- and the effect on Featured articles in particular-- likely isn't aware enough of the particulars here to be weighing in effectively. It is music and infoboxes today: it was something else six months ago, something else a year ago, it will be something else six months from now, but those who cannot or do not add content have long found ways to impose their personal preferences on the Project over the objections of those who actually build the content.

Because PotW wants to characterize this as a stalking issue doesn't make it so. ArbCom has weighed in recently on what constitutes stalking, and my read on that (which of course could be wrong FWIW) is that it is not stalking for admins to follow edits of known problematic editors who act against guideline, policy and consensus. An interaction ban will NOT stop the underlying issue here: what would be more helpful would be for more admins to follow the edits of the technical edit warriors who breach consensus and guideline to install their personal preferences so that the extent of this problem will be revealed.

Too may good content editors have already left because of this problem ... and most of them were involved at the FA level. Little is to be gained by mentioning departed editors by name, but this issue is most certainly a factor in my decreased editing: I have little inclination to constantly deal with bands of editors who show up on articles to install their personal preferences when those preferences negatively impact content. This is not only about infoboxes-- it is about tagteaming and content editors being chased off. Arbcom is not needed: more admin eyes following the problem should solve it.

Trouts to all of the editors who used inflammatory sub-headings above: do not the instructions here call for neutral sub-headings ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

From reading the above (and not being familiar at all with the gritty details of the warring at the WP:CM articles), though, it sounds like this particular issue - infoboxes within Classical Music articles - is a known and unsettled matter and that there are large numbers of legitimate content editors on both sides who view this trivial issue as worth crusading over. I'm not sure it makes any sense to dismiss the editors on one side of the disagreement as ne'er-do-well "technical editors" and to declare the others to be good "content editors". The facts don't seem to bear out this conclusion. It sounds like a large-scale discussion of the underlying issue (outside of AN/I) is what is required in order to pinpoint consensus which can then be applied to the relevant articles. Regarding the tensions between editors based on behavior, ArbCom does sound like the only solution since AN/I doesn't have the time resources to deal with it. The best way AN/I can help in my view is to contain the battle (reverting, stalking, POV-pushing talk page disruption) by imposing the above suggested 2-way interaction ban (at least temporarily until Arbitration has occurred). With a history stretching back several years, it doesn't sound like this problem is simply going to go away on its own. And I think that the increase of administrative stalking/attention on one side rather than the other is only a means to drive away those editors deemed to be on the "wrong side" of the argument. A narrowly-construed 2-way interaction ban applied only between Andy and Nikki is unlikely in my view to drive away content editors or to have a chilling effect on content edits. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Still and again ... the infobox matter has been settled several times, in several places, so some groups turn instead to making individual articles into battlegrounds to advance personal preferences, while content editors who are respecting consensus and guideline are overwhelmed by folks who tagteam and have no involvement with those articles, wanting to install their own preferences. And it is not only infoboxes ... it is that today, classical music today, but something else each time the same editors bring their personal preferences to bear on articles. Preventing admins from doing something about this is not the way to go; admins, please start adminning the issue by becoming aware of the same editors who frequently override consensus to install personal stylistic preferences on articles they don't even regularly edit. It's been going on long enough. There is no need to characterize a "wrong side" or "right side"; previous RFCs and guidelines are clear enough. I don't buy the argument that admins don't have the "time or resources" to deal with it-- awareness is enough to begin dealing with it. Why do certain editors appear en masse on articles they have never edited to install personal preferences ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What I find particularly galling about this is that a few years ago Giano came up with a perfectly good compromise in Montacute House, a partially collapsed infobox that allows for larger images, but even that was unacceptable to PoTW. Nevertheless I used it successfully in a recent FAC, Sunbeam Tiger. Eric Corbett 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone disagrees with the notion that this discussion has more than one level. One level is whether our policy is sufficiently clear on usage of infoboxes, but as SandyGeorgia points out, that summarization is too coarse, and masks other issues. However, one other level is the behavior issue, which is the original claim, that of stalking. I'm not convinced that the content issues have yet been fully resolved, but this is not the place for content resolution. Nor is Arbcom, so I'm not following the claim that this will have to go to Arbcom. They don't deal with content issues.

ANI is for behavior issues. The alleged behavior is stalking, with a list of 22 reverts as evidence. Yet, as SandyGeorgia points out, it is not prohibited to follow the edits of someone who is believed to be violating policies and guidelines. Andy presumably believes it is stalking, because he thinks he is editing within policy. Nikkimaria presumably continues to reverts because she believes policy supports her position. That's why I think the behavior claims should be closed, as two good faith editor both believe they are editing according to policy. Separately, and elsewhere, we ought to revisit the policy questions, but that's for another venue. This is ANI, where we attempt to determine whether behavior requires admonishment or more. I think both parties should be urged to cite policy when adding or reverting, and go to the talk page more, but I don't see any justification for blocks of either party. Let's close this so we can address real issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI is indeed for behaviour issues. This was an opportunity to get three high octane editors to moderate their behaviour. If that doesn’t happen — and it could be done by imposing a simple one revert rule — then we will all have been wasting our time. What is the message? It’s fine to be an aggressive edit warrior – so long as you do it skilfully, Mabbett-Nikki-Gerda style. --Kleinzach 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR is ineffective when tag-teaming is involved; it only gives an advantage to those who call in their buddies to continue reverting (I've never seen Nikkimaria travel with a pack). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If Nikkimaria was the sole champion of her side of the argument then this would be a non-issue. She could get slapped on the wrist for disruption and we could move on. But if tag-team reversion is going on then it sounds like it's occurring on both sides of the turf war. Given the level of experience and the large numbers of edits these high-profile editors make, a targeted 1RR would certainly seem to put a damper on the problem. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the impression that tag-team reversion is "occurring on both sides". I've not seen it, and I do believe a targeted 1RR would benefit only those who want to overrule already established consensus to install personal technical preferences, and that this will be to the detriment of article quality. IIRC, Arbcom has already ruled on the behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag-team reversion has hardly ever been a factor in this. It certainly hasn't been recently. Editors who revert three times in 24 hours don't need teams. 1RR would curb some of the aggression which is a feature of the argument. That's why I am recommending it as a moderate, minimal approach to the situation. --Kleinzach 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is for behavioral issues if indeed the noticeboard's participants have the time to properly address them. Unless I'm getting the wrong impression, though, the behavioral issues here sound like they extend back a few years. Add to that the fact that the parties involved are impressively prolific editors and it strikes me that this may require the kind of in-depth examination that ArbCom is better at. But I'm not completely discounting AN/I by any means. I just think there may be a need to go further at a future date. In the meanwhile I strongly feel that the whole nasty situation calls out for intervention and this AN/I thread offers a very convenient starting point. A 2-way interaction ban still seems like a sensible move to me, but mandatory 1RR as Kleinzach suggests would probably be a good alternative to that. I think most people agree that blocking or banning without much deeper examination that we've given it in this thread goes too far, but something like a narrow interaction ban or a 1RR restriction seems like it would fit the bill nicely. Doing nothing at all or (even worse) taking sides on this content dispute seems like a wasted opportunity to take some of the wind out of this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding interaction bans we'd need several, not just one, if we opted for that approach. Andy Mabbett Vs. Nikkimaria is only one of the antagonistic relationships involved, and it's certainly not the major one. If you scan the debates (that I listed above) you'll see this clearly enough. --Kleinzach 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the same would be true for the 1RR remedy. Anyway I'm not wedded to the idea that it must be an interaction ban, but it seems like something needs to be done and I think this AN/I thread provides a good place to start. The alternative of doing nothing and hoping it will go away on its own seems naive and/or apathetic - neither one a good administrative quality. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'm basically in agreement, even if we come to this from different angles. The worst option would be to do nothing. The new section started below by Andy Mabbett illustrates the on-going problem. Kleinzach 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is so hard about expecting that editors won't show up on articles they have never edited before, expecting to impose their personal technical preferences against already established consensus (particularly when the targeted articles are frequently Featured Articles)? Of course, I understand that it's easier to make everyone culpable rather than look at how content is actually being impacted and sort out the real issues ... again, if more admins followed those previously identified in dispute resolution, the problem would likely disappear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about something that is wider than the issue at hand. There are already rules against disruption and tendentious editing. Turning the Classical Music articles into a police state to catch up those less experienced at skirting the rules doesn't seem as useful as providing smaller remedies (interaction ban, 1RR, or whatever) that would coax major participants on both sides of the turf war to the negotiating table. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Response after absence

Firstly, thank you to those who have shown patience, or expressed concern, during my enforced absence following a medical emergency. For those curious, I have just posted an update on my talk page. Please be aware that I am not yet fully recovered, so may need to take further breaks from editing.

I came here to ask for assistance in ending the persistent stalking of my edits by Nikkimaria, about which she had already been cautioned, in vain, by numerous others. It is not for Nikki, who seems to believe that her stalking is both justified and permissible, to lay down conditions under which she will cease, as she has done here and elsewhere. As I pointed out, Arbcom have already ruled that such stalking is not permitted. Colleagues will note that I did not ask for any sanction to be taken against her, merely that she be warned of likely sanction if her unacceptable behaviour continues. I do not seek to stifle disagreement on talk pages for projects, nor articles where she has an interest not derived from stalking me.

It is predictable, but not surprising, that some have hijacked this discussion, particularly editors from the classical music project which was canvassed by Kleinzach. As others have noted, this is typical of attempts by members of that project to silence dissenters; but that matter is for another time. His attempts to insinuate that I have been stalking him, when each of the examples he gives is for a page where I had previously edited, is facile. Further, the vast majority of the many examples I gave in my initial post, above, of Nikki's stalking have nothing to do with classical music. They include an archaeological find, churches, a stately home, artists, sculptors, a photographer, a dancing sports fan, an academic, a judge, a theatre company, a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and a Nazi propagandist. In some cases, I had just started the article. In the sole example where the subject was related to classical music, I challenged her reversion on the associated talk page, as required by Wikipedia policy and the outcome of the RfC initiated by members of the classical music projects. (Colleagues will understand my withdrawal from that discussion; when they judge for themselves the quality of her solution on that article. If they can find the latter.)

Nor are the edits subject to Nikkimaria's stalking widely regarded as "problematic" - similar edits are not typically reverted by other editors, nor reverted by when made by other editors.

I am somewhat surprised that after nearly three weeks, no admin has yet told Nikkimaria that her stalking of me must cease. I again invite an uninvolved admin to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course attack is thought by some to be the best means of defense, and I note that his ongoing indisposition (from which of course I am glad that he has largely recovered) does not prevent Mr. Mabbett going out of his way, in his response, to accuse User:Kleinzach of 'canvassing'. WP:CANVASS is perfectly clear: 'canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate', whilst under 'appropriate notification' we read 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion [etc. etc.]'. A notification on a Project Talk Page, which does not encourage response one way or the other, is therefore not canvassing, (unless we accept the opinion of some editors that the rabid inhabitants of the Classical Music Project are ripe for any opportunity of mayhem). Chucking such imputations around does not serve Mr. Mabbett's case. Indeed it would seem to support those above who impute the onus of this controversy to him.--Smerus (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all clear who you think you're kidding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for confusing you.--Smerus (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The above claims show that Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes, with the interim stepping stone of disqualifying an opponent as a "stalker". Infoboxes are not mandatory, but collaboration is. It is disruptive to push any agenda, whether it be politics, the length of dashes, or infoboxes. It causes distress to good editors who like things differently from the pusher. The proper way to resolve this battle, which has raged for years, is to hold an RfC to establish whether infoboxes are mandatory, and if not, whether persistently pushing non-mandatory infoboxes is disruptive and should be subject to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, first - I thought about commenting about the Thumperward Smerus exchange - but meh ... you two want to take snide shots at each other .. whatever. Now .. Johnuniq. As much as I admire a lot of what you do on wiki, I must take exception to your above comment. I call bullshit. Why? "Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes," Well lets talk about all those who "belligerently push no infoboxes, k? WP:OWN doesn't simply apply to individual editors .. but to all aspects of Wikipedia. It's a concept. As much value as there is in "projects" - they can not, and should not "OWN" anything either. Hence WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC on infoboxes? Hell, there's been so damned many of 'em why not? What's one more added to the mix? (which is one reason I abandoned my RfC draft - I learned just how divisive the topic was.) Quite frankly? YEP!! This topic is well beyond ripe for an Arbcom case. Tell ya what though - if someone does it? Gonna be a TON of folks get smacked .. and smacked hard. IDGAF. The thread started with Andy's being "stalked" issue. Nikki promised to stop stalking Andy. Nikki had a problem with avoiding Gerda's edits because they both edit in the same topic area. Gerda wants to continue talking and working with Nikki in a peaceful fashion. So what the hell is there left to do in this thread exactly? — Ched :  ?  05:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched: I posted a list of music-related box infobox discussions above (in the pale yellow box). Can you at least scan some of the discussions? I posted it particularly for people like you, so the content of this debate could be more accessible. --Kleinzach 09:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone going to an article that has an infobox, then removing it because "articles should not have infoboxes". The addition of infoboxes has been reverted, but that is resisting the push of infoboxes—it is not pushing no infoboxes. Infoboxes are not currently mandatory, so condoning the civil pushing of them is condoning unnecessary disruption. If it were one or two articles, the "stop violating WP:OWN" argument might be persuasive, but it's lots of articles which are being picked off one by one by a small number of editors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched says "Nikki promised to stop stalking Andy". Did she? Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched, per Johnuniq and Kleinzach, could you please try to understand disputes before weighing in on them? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikki promised above to abide by 1RR if you agreed to the same, Andy. I agree with you that that is far from a promise to stop stalking. If anything it would seem to encourage it if Nikki was of the mind to crusade her perspective on this issue. I suggested a 2-way interaction ban above as a means to stop the stalking/following behavior. There's been disagreement with that suggestion of course, but would I think it might be fairer than imposing 1RR. A 2-way interaction ban isn't ideal, but it would convert any stalking of Nikki's into visual stalking rather than editorial stalking and it would prevent you from disrupting discussions in which Nikkimaria is taking part. I'm curious if that work as a solution to this in your view, Andy. -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have not and have never been "disrupting discussions in which Nikkimaria is taking part", that would be improper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Hans-Joachim Hessler [247]? Kleinzach 13:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about it? Nikkimaria only edited the article after I had made a dozen edits to it; and then only to revert me (I was the article's second editor and publisher); and to remove the infobox which was in the article when it was published. Another example of her stalking me? I was the first person to post on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You added an infobox [248] — which was removed — and then reverted it no less than nine times! That must be record even for you! --Kleinzach 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Impropriety is all theoretical, though. I'm speaking about pragmatic solutions here. Forgetting propriety, a 2-way interaction ban would put an end to what you've described as Nikki's stalking behavior. I'm asking if you could live with the result, not whether it's a perfect solution. I won't flog this if it's a dead horse, but are you saying that the propriety issue is too much of a hurdle for you to accept? -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ Sandy. I have no desire to engage you in childish rhetoric and snide comments. Best. — Ched :  ?  14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then stop doing it. Now, let's look at the very good example provided above at Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler. PotW, then and now, continues to insist the infobox was in the article when it was published, but the history shows it was not and that he installed it. (Does anyone else find it curious that a redlink created that article and never edited again? PotW says he was the publisher .. is that redlink his sock? If so, how was Nikkimaria to know that?) As a person who does a ton of patrolling, it is not unusual for Nikkimaria to remove the infobox after PotW installed it, against COMPOSER WP guidelines. And then the usual ensues ... PotW misrepresents, breaches BRD, re-installs ... and here come Ched, RexxS, Gerda and others who support infoboxes. Ched, INVOLVED ? Please leave the adminning here to those who are strictly uninvolved and don't frequently show up on those talk page discussions to support those who want to install personal preferences against guideline. The example above illustrates all that is going on here quite well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the fact that I didn't even have this composer watchlisted? Yes, I made two edits, link to another composer whose article I created. Check your premises, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Gerda ... you are correct in this case and I was wrong. I have struck your name above. (I also apologize for being so late to strike, as I was out most of the day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ya know Sandy, if you're going to imply that I've taken some administrative actions contrary to WP:INVOLVED, I'd really like to see the diffs for that please. Me saying that I support and like infoboxes I don't think violates any of our policies. And if my comments on one discussion constitute "frequently" to you, then I'm sorry, I just don't speak the same language. But I'm sure YMMV. — Ched :  ?  15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence of me socking; please raise it in the appropriate place and have me blocked. Otherwise you should retract that baseless slur. Your claim that the infobox was not in the article when it was published is false. "COMPOSER WP guidelines" have the status of an essay, no more, and do not excuse Nikkimaria stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor who created the article first created the article on the same subject in the German wikipedia and also uploaded a photo, apparently taken in the subjects house or some personal workspace to commons. Andy is active in both areas (although I suspect he was not in Germany on the 6th December when the photo was probably taken) so I guess it's possible he did all this just to add an infobox which he didn't add under that account (I don't know if the German wikipedia uses infoboxes but the German article still has none). More likely someone with a COI did all this hence the lack of edits and red links. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandy has offered no evidence of me socking, but has refused to retract, much less apologise for, either her bogus insinuation or the various false statements she has made here and on her talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not quite. The explanation of what happened here (provided by a third party following on probe from Newyorkbrad), and I repeat my apology here, that was there when you added this: to the extent my choice of words left the impression you were accused, that was not my intent. It was a question, not an accusation, and I am sorry that you felt accused; I will take greater care with my phrasing of questions in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion including the stuff on the talk page makes me rather sad. Firstly I as I assume others, noticed that Andy published the article to mainspace when I replied, it seemed obvious to me this was what was meant when he said he first published it particularly since the word 'publish' was used in the edit summary and it was only a few edits after the creation. I thought of mentioning this here, but it didn't seem necessary to me as I thought the issue was fairly dead and also editing from an iPad is fairly annoying. (I wasn't aware of the talk page discussion although of course the block temporarily prevented any comments here.) Given how obvious it was, it does seem to me that this is the sort of thing which one should notice before suggesting sockpuppetry. Also regardless of the intention, once it became clear Andy found the suggestion offensive, a sincere apology is surely merited. It's not like the feeling is, unresonable after all, we all view the issue differently. Even if alternate accounts are sometimes acceptable, if the person doesn't feel the case is an acceptable use, to suggest they were doing so would likely be offensive. I would also note 'sock' was the word used and this tends to imply wrong doing. But this is far from one sided hence the sad bit. Once it became clear the confusion still existed like on the talk page, its was just stupid for Andy to refuse to clarify that when he said publish he meant publish to mainspace not when the article was created. Just insisting the other side is wrong and needs to apologise when confusion still exists by multiple people and you must surely know what that confusion is achieves nothing useful. (And when someone incorrectly suggests sockpuppetry because you were not the person to create an article but you said something was there when it was first publised, you must surely realise they don't appreciate you meant 'publish to mainspace' and are not referring to when the article was first created in AFC as they are obviously thinking of.) If both sides are so intransagent, no wonder this is such a mess. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I'd like to propose a ban on infobox editing in all areas by the pair. It would greatly reduce tensions all round if such infobox warrioring was not an area where either could either add or delete. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorsed I've been suggesting merely asking the editors involved to observe a WP:1RR rule but that's not going to work now. A clear-cut ban would be more effective. Kleinzach 23:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Tentative endorsement of an infobox ban for Andy and Nikki. This is a similar remedy to the narrow interaction ban I'd proposed, and I don't think it addresses Andy's stalking concern at all, but it does sound appropriate given the extensive evidence above of an intractable situation. -Thibbs (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Per Chris Cunningham's comments below, my endorsement is predicated on a limitation of the ban to the Classical Music arena, and the ban's coverage of infobox removal as well as addition and other modification. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• "In all areas"? Overreach which would hurt the encyclopedia. Any sanctions have to be localised to identified flashpoints. It's also not an even sanction, as editors who dislike infoboxes are not going to edit them much anyway (save removing them) while a non-trivial portion of Andy's time is spent in all areas of infobox work (including being one of the most active TfD nominators of them; ironically, Andy has almost certainly deleted more infoboxes than the classical project's members combined). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Slightly flawed logic there: it pre-supposes rampant gangs removing all infoboxes, and assumes no rampant gangs reverting them or adding infoboxes. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, with individuals doing what they think is right, although the 'adders' do seem to be more active, given the aims of the infobox project. As to the "localised flashpoints", that seems to be the subject of infoboxes, rather than focused on individual topics. Just by way of openness, I am one of those who see the full use and benefit of the boxes in the majority of articles, but appreciate that they are often not needed: one size does not fit all! - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The thing is that the editors running around adding infoboxes everywhere are welcomed and encouraged in nearly every other part of the project. Which is why a ban outwith the domain of classical music (still a bad idea for the reasons given below, but at least a rational one) would do so much harm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I think it's probably appropriate to drop in a reminder about the Mos, that infoboxes are not required. That reflects the consensus of the project more than the wishes of any smaller project to include or exclude. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You're obscuring the difference between the widespread and the universal. The addition of infoboxes in most of the encyclopedia is uncontroversial and uncontested because there's a LOCALCONSENSUS at many projects of broad scope (Roads, Tree of Life, Chemistry, most or all of MILHIST, etc.) that infoboxes are appropriate within that scope. Insisting that because X, Y and Z have infoboxes and no one is complaining, therefore it should be uncontroversial to add them to A, is like the gas-station attendant telling the semi-truck driver to stop yelling at him for pumping gas instead of diesel into his vehicle. After all, the last two dozen cars thought it was great, didn't they? Choess (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It's a little more complicated. The problems occur in the humanities articles: music, literature, art, architecture, etc. where it's often hard to shoehorn movements, genre, themes, which, let's be honest, it the point of art. So the gas station attendent basically pump gas but for a hybrid of sorts. Almost everyone involved in these skirmishes is well-aware of the situation. Victoria (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Those might be reasons to improve infoboxes, or better document them. They are not reasons to remove or prohibit them. And they do not excuse Nikkimaria stalking my edits to remove them from articles on a wide variety of subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The decision to include or exclude infoboxes is not in the gift of wikiprojects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chris Cunningham here. The infobox-editing ban should be localized to the Classical Music arena if it's implemented. And of course it should include removing infoboxes as well as adding them. This absolutely doesn't mean that the infobox wars should continue on articles related to churches, photographers, and Nazis. This proposed ban doesn't touch on Andy's charge of Nikki's stalking. It seems to me a good step to address the underlying problem, though. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • All but one of the examples I give above, of Nikkimaria stalking my edits, are not related to classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria and I found an agreement, how about the others involved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something here because I find it incredible that an administrator would propose and that an experienced editor would agree to replace a nasty turf war with longterm ownership of the articles instead. Ending the turf war should ideally return the Classical Music articles to the rest of the largely peaceable Wikiverse, but the compromise you two are hoping for sounds like the enshrinement of an anti-policy Classical Music fiefdom where the turf borders are forever respected. I'm honestly pleased to see evidence of the spirit of compromise between you two but please consider what this looks like to an outside observer who is not familiar with the culture of Wikipedia's Classical Music enclave. To use Andy's phraseology the proposed remedy looks quite exceptionally improper. -Thibbs (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's good that Nikkimaria and Gerda are trying to work out their differences, but this would be a personal arrangement. As Thibbs points out this kind of agreement might be misunderstood by other editors. Kleinzach 11:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I'd be happy with an equitable solution: Nikkimaria ceases stalking my edits; and I continue not to stalk hers. Anything else can be the subject of the RfC I've repeatedly invited those opposed to infoboxes, in whatever subset of Wikipedia, to start, in order to demonstrate the consensus they allege supports restriction on their use. I will of course abide by the outcome of such an RfC, as I do with the last one on infoboxes related to classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing the composers project's self-imposed local consensus here does not restore peace in the long run. It simply fractures the community. The inevitable result of such a ban is, as already demonstrated several times, that the anti-infobox editors attempt to expand their borders from classical music to other genres. A cold war, in other words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence that anti-infobox editors are expanding their borders (other than skirmishes with opponents in the current battle)? What do you think of User talk:Johnuniq#On collaboration where I express my opinion that issues like dashes and infoboxes are not fundamental to the encyclopedia, and the best resolution for such a conflict would be for the two sides to drop the matter for a year? Editors are human, and forcing a resolution that one side does not like will create long-term bitterness to the detriment of the encyclopedia. However, forcing a truce like "you don't touch mine, and I won't touch yours" is as close to perfection as is achievable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"other than skirmishes with opponents in the current battle" is a rather odd exclusion, given that my purpose in coming here is to seek a remedy to Nikkimaria's stalking of my edits. That stalking is exactly a case of "anti-infobox editors expanding their borders"; and stalking of that type has been ruled against by Arbcom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed ban is "a resolution that one side does not like". While it's attractive to say "no pointless drama is better than pointless drama", cutting it out by putting our fingers in our ears simply leaves the problem to fester out of sight. (as for expanding borders, as the author of WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP I can hardly refuse to provide diffs if requested, but I'd hope to avoid that for the sake of not inflaming things: suffice to say that border skirmishes, as you've put it, are not unheard of.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Despite all appearances, this thread is only peripherally about infoboxes. What it's really about is two editors who think this exchange is acceptable. The rhetorical and visual merits of infoboxes can and will be debated ad nauseum, but this dispute will not be solved by handshake agreements and requests that 1RR or BRD be followed. If the involved editors were willing to honor reasonable standards of interaction, we wouldn't be here now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I should not have reverted so many times (though there was no 3RR breach). I did so in frustration at being stalked and at the various bogus reasons given by Nikkimaria when she, an admin, repeatedly reverted me. Nonetheless, that was six months ago, and I broke that chain (the article still has no infobox) and have not edited in that matter there or elsewhere since. There is no ongoing edit war there. I urge editors to read the edit history in conjunction with the talk page, where I started a dialogue and where there has still been no response to my offer of a compromise and my request that Nikki stop stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett was not being stalked. SPhilbrick carefully examined the evidence and rejected the claim [249]. For the full discussion see here and here. Kleinzach 15:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. He's done no such thing, and - as noted above - multiple editors asked her to desist from doing so (not least on the Hans-Joachim Hessler talk page. She's even attempted to justify her stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And I support the claim, because there is utterly no justification you, Nikkimaria or anyone else can provide for edits such as this. Will you be honest and admit that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Another lump of straw? Nikkimaria and Mabbett were both edit warring. Honesty? My definition is telling the truth. Yours? --Kleinzach 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again! Another Mabbett refactor to break the sense of the discussion and demonstrate his immunity from sanctions for edit warring. [250]. --Kleinzach 10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be necessary to refactor discussions if you didn't keep disruptively inserting your comments (as though they were more important than others') in the middle of existing conversations (which is what "breaks the sense of the discussion"), rather than in sequence, as everyone else here is doing. You also mis-indent them, which causes accessibility problems for screen-reader users. Quite what this has to do with "edit warring" is not clear. A distraction, perhaps, from the point Chris was making? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: if Nikkimaria and I can work out something, I am sure that she and Andy, both admired editors, can find a solution as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment and partial support: I think this is quite badly written. I've only become aware of this thread today having visited this page because of another thread below being mentioned on Wikipediocracy. At a guess "the pair" refers to Andy Mabbett who has a years-long history of being disruptive around Infoboxes including two long project bans, a current Arb and com judgment and a current topic ban from scheduled TFAs. Mabbett has a habit of turning up at articles in which he has no interest just to try to force in one of his pet infoboxes. He then tends to scream "WP:OWN" when the regular editors object. He skirted around his topic ban when the Wagner article was scheduled for TFA by confining his activities to the talk page, which was still disruptive. I fully support an infobox topic ban on him but it needs to extended to all spaces and not just the talk page. However, if it is an article he has created himself, there should be no problem with his adding an infobox and, if we can come up with a non-gameable definition of "major author" or "principle author", there should be no problems with his adding boxes to articles in which he has shown sufficient interest to become a major or the principle author. In general WP:IAR should apply as far as infoboxes and article ownership is concerned. If those who write and maintain articles in a particular content area can't stand infoboxes, then they are quite likely to miss vandalism against the boxes and for this and other reasons, the boxes are likely to drift away from what the rest of the article says. Enforcing an anti-ownership line therefore damages the encyclopedic value of the articles. I don't have a strong impression of Nikkimaria, if that is the other target of this proposed ban, and so would abstain in respect to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why Andy screams "WP:OWN", though. That's precisely the policy I'd raise myself if I was reverted on the basis that I'm not the "principal author" and that the "principal author" doesn't approve of my contributions. I'm a complete newcomer to this arena where WP:IAR is the guiding principle behind direct policy violation, so you'll have to excuse my gob smacked reaction, but to me this seems very little different from the hypothetical case where Wikiproject Professional Wrestling decided that AGF no longer applies within the talk pages of the articles in their purview. Speaking as a contributor from those parts of Wikipedia that adhere to WP:OWN, all I can say is that this sounds like a toxic environment for newcomers. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs, it was exactly that latter concern that led me to post the only ANI report I have ever initiated. The initial incivility, and making editors feel unwelcome or even afraid to express themselves without vague threats being directed at them, are what led me to investigate further into the overall issue here. Describing this as "a toxic environment for newcomers" is quite right, but still not a complete overview. An infobox/interaction ban deals with some of the symptoms, not the disease. I profoundly object to administrator NikkiMaria's stalking... she has an agenda, she has been blocked for it, and yet continues to act, in my view, as a hatchet man for the anti-infoboxers in violation of WP:BATTLE. Yes, Andy has made a number of big mistakes in his past, but he is not an admin. An admin's powers, even if not used directly, are still intimidating. Therefore as I see it the blame is tenfold on NM, and any proposed solution that attempts to treat these two editors as equally at fault has little merit in my eyes. We need to fix the overall disruption that this has become with stern sanctions, or the matter will drag on and on, consuming time that could be used much more usefully. To conclude: I care very little about infoboxes, but care greatly about abusive administrator behavior in service of an agenda and the toxic environment in classical music articles. This needs to change now for the betterment of Wikipedia. Jusdafax 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On the broad and long-running classical music infobox wars issue, I don't think either party is particularly blameless. That's why I favor a narrow (WP:CM-only) infobox-editing ban for both at this point. On the stalking issue I begin to agree that stalking has most likely occurred. Sphilbrick's analysis above demonstrates clearly that stalking is not Nikki's only or indeed her primary activity on Wikipedia. But the 20-odd above-linked infobox reversions on smallish, relatively obscure, non-classical-music articles that Andy just so happens to have created or recently edited can't seriously be regarded as nothing more than an unhappy coincidence. Nikki's following of Andy's edits has been compared above to the helpful monitoring of a wayward editor - something that any good admin should try to do. The only problem here is that altering and adding infoboxes to articles are only peccata mortalia within certain fiefs of Wikiproject Classical Music. As far as I know there is no Wikipedia-wide prohibition of infoboxes from articles on jewelry, ventriloquists, or sports dancers, etc.. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this troubling behavior. Andy has only asked that Nikki be warned not to continue to stalk him. It looks to me now like that would be a good idea. Further than that I'm not sure. I suppose it would depend on whether this is just another example of Nikki acting over-zealously again or whether this is an example of her holding a vendetta against Andy. -Thibbs (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already suggested that issues other than those related directly to Nikkimaria's stalking could be subject of an RfC, but if bans are being proposed, then the actions of editors other than her and me (such as the ownership you note above) should be examined. Again, I suggest that this is not the forum for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll clarify that there should be no prejudice against reversal of the ban through a proper full-length examination of the matter (at an RfC, ArbCom, etc.) including examination of the edits of all parties involved and all points of conflict during the past several years. An infobox ban like this is an attempt at a pragmatic solution. Considering that the vast bulk of the evidence of Nikki stalking you relates to her reverting or editing your infobox edits, it seems like it would go some distance toward achieving the desired effect of her ceasing to edit-stalk you. I think an infobox-related interaction ban would be better tailored to the issue as it would cover talk page discussions as well, but that solution seems to have been rejected. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What a remarkably wrong-headed approach! Nikkimaria is stalking me (an unacepatble behaviour), apparently to prevent me from adding infoboxes (a perfectly acceptable activity), so you propose to solve that... by preventing me from adding infoboxes. As I noted here some weeks ago now, what is needed is an uninvolved admin to remind Nikkimaria that she may be blocked, with progressive severity, if her unacceptable behaviour continues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From the sound of it, you are not the only one adding infoboxes to classical music articles and she is not the only one deleting them. I'd wager that disagreements over the matter will carry on in that sphere even without your and Nikki's involvement. I do think Nikki's stalking should stop, and for what it's worth I support your suggestion that she be warned, but banning you both from further infobox-related shenanigans on the classical music articles seems like a good move too. Feel free to carry on with your BOLD infobox edits to noncontroversial non-WP:CM articles, though. -Thibbs (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been no "shenanigans" on my part. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs: . . . only . . . within certain fiefs of Wikiproject Classical Music. No, also visual arts, buildings etc. Johnbod, Giano and others have long argued concerns unrelated to music. For one important discussion see here. Andy Mabbett was involved — he started the discussion — but no few music editors were present until the tail end of the debate. --Kleinzach 01:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe these are the examples user:Johnbod was requesting from me above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That was User:Johnuniq. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kleinzach and all: I don't see your point. 1) "no music editors were present until the tail end of the debate", wrong, I was there the first day, Nikkimaria was there even before me. 2): anybody seriously interested in infoboxes (even if against them) should have this page watchlisted. 3): 3 of 5 examples are architecture. 4) I work with Giano and others on architecture also (I do the building, he the architecture). 5) The debate was about the collapsing within existing infoboxes, not the question if they were "tolerable". - All this brings us away again from the initial problem, of which I still hope that Andy and Nikki can work something satisfying out without third-party intervention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: Andy Mabbett is unrepentant about his edit warring. He's still accusing Nikkimaria of stalking. Anyone who thinks that pair are about to be reconciled, stop edit warring, and let the rest of us get on in peace with building the encyclopedia is delusional. (BTW having now checked, I agree you did get there on the first day, but that doesn't affect the point I was making.) Kleinzach 13:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And you saw that Nikkimaria was there before me, right? - I don't think that "pair" needs to be "reconciled", a simple agreement of no edit war would do, like not reverting the other's edits without a previous talk. "Unrepentant", "delusional", too high vocabulary for me. I live by "Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them." (Mascha Kaléko), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the ownership allegation that is thrown out by Andy is something of a red herring to cloud the eaters of the infobox discussions. There are very, very few actual instances where OWN allegations would stand up here, but yet the allegation is routinely inserted regardless of the situation as just another divisive tool in the armoury. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No; allegations of ownership (which is an issue others raised here, not me) are not "routinely inserted regardless of the situation" (feel free to provide examples if you disagree). But there are occasions when they have been made, with supporting evidence, What does this have to do with Nikkimaria stalking me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is part of a wider discussion around a ban on you and Nikkimaria being involved in editing infoboxes and was a refutation of the oft-repeated and baseless OWN accusations that are thrown around. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So, nothing to do with Nikkimaria stalking me, and no examples, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has to do with your accusations, but when you come to ANI you should expect people to look into all aspects of a matter; this often invites WP:boomerang, as I am sure you know. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, Andy Mabbett is now changing the indenting on my messages [251]. Back to form. --Kleinzach 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - A ban from infobox warring could give us the needed time to straighten things out, and if the users present who are in conflict would stay away from each other, it would be a good idea. 173.58.105.155 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This user obviously didn't read what was proposed. A ban from warring would be a great idea, but is not equal from a ban from infobox editing. - Is this still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if we have to look at such measures among grown-ups? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• oppose — Ched :  ?  10:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed ban seems too crude and would just be papering over the cracks. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and we should not constrain ourselves to a format which is grounded in the past. For example, the article on Wagner doesn't seem to have any multimedia sound clips in it - the closest it seems to come is a fragment of a score. Why is that - surely there must be some public domain music which would be a good addition to the topic? We should not fossilise or freeze our format and so editors should be allowed to be bold without fear that this will become a stick to beat them with. Warden (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright — there aren't any amateur Wagner singers — to answer your question. Regarding infoboxes, this is a old publishing device taken from print encyclopedias which originally adopted them around the 1950s or 60s. The issue we have with them is exactly the same as in print — coordination with main text. Maybe one day someone will realise that we need 'smart boxes' that connect and relate data. Kleinzach 01:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems quite easy to find public domain Wagner, e.g. Ride of the Valkyries. I agree with you that infoboxes are not new but I'm not sure what they called them - they are not just a sidebar — boxout? Warden (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm sorry, but if they could have worked something out on their own, they already would have. Enough is enough. Dusti^*poke* 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So you want to ban me from constructive activity because Nikkimaria refused my, and others', repeated requests that she stop stalking me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Even newer (older) proposal

Actually I think this was proposed by someone else miles above but I can't be bothered to wade through and find it. I refer to the actual dispute that this thread should be concerned with, and I boldly cast aside audio clips of Wagner and other impendimenta which some editors seem to be keen to inject into it. My proposal is this.

• A giant trout each to both Mr. Mabbett and Nikkimaria (which is probably more attention than either of them actually deserve).
• Close this discussion.

I invite everyone to accept this and to return to real life. If you want to discuss classical music, or infoboxes, do it elsewhere in some appropriate WP forum. --Smerus (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's where we're headed. I nevertheless expect any recidivism on Nikkimaria's behalf regarding the original subject of the thread (following Andy around articles he's just created on subjects such as churches and deleting big bits of them to harrass him) will be met with swift and uncontroversial action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's where we're headed as well. It's clear from the comments above that any kind of ban is too controversial and the scope too difficult to agree on. I'd agree to act in an administrative capacity on any further conflict between them since I have no idea who they are and I have no horse in the infobox race. Someone might have to flag me down though, if I don't notice. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is where we are headed, I'd like to see a clear determination here that edit warring must stop, not just between Andy Mabbett and Nikkimaria, but between them and other editors. Without that determination, nothing good will have come out of this AN/I. --Kleinzach 23:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Get the beam from your own eye, Kleinzach. What about a prohibition on your habits of archiving live discussions, asserting consensus where there is none, canvassing, and changing infoboxes to prevent the display of cited content? Good will come out of this discussion when Nikkimaria is prevented from edit-stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I observe a WP:1RR. I also object to being censored — here of all places! [252] [253].--Kleinzach 11:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Kleinzach: I fully support the end of edit war. Without it, Sparrow Mass would have an infobox now. Instead, you called me a "new member of the infobox warrior club" because I restored it a few times. "Waste of time" has been mentioned. Instead of reverting, the content of the infobox could have been discussed, or why a factual infobox would harm that article.
• @Andy: I suggest you offer Nikkimaria to write an article with you and throw a dice if it will have an infobox, - it can be fun, we did it, The Company of Heaven, DYK ... that The Company of Heaven, Benjamin Britten's 1937 composition for speakers, soloists, choir and orchestra, contains "metrical spoken (shouted) male chorus"? ("O Freunde, nicht diese Töne" - "Oh friends, not these tones! Rather, let us raise our voices in more pleasing and more joyful sounds!") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on all you guys (and gals), I am hoping to end this, not to start another round.--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to end something without starting another round, you might get a better result if you don't add words like "which is probably more attention than either of them actually deserve". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept the reprimand and withdraw my uncalled for comments with apologies.--Smerus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a note, not a reprimand :) On that note, yes, I endorse closure. We are well past the point of diminishing returns here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I invite everyone to accept this and to return to real life. If you want to discuss classical music, or infoboxes, do it elsewhere in some appropriate WP forum." says Smerus, while at the same time working to have me sanctioned for doing just that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Circular sockpuppet accusations from fresh accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Something strange is going on with a couple of new accounts. Both were created within hours of each other and are accusing each other of being sockpuppets. Here is the timeline:

• 15:13, 27 June 2013: Hh2013 (talk · contribs) is created
• 09:23, 28 June 2013: Anishooocker (talk · contribs) is created
• 09:24, 28 June 2013: Anishooocker accuses Hh2013 of being a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi [254]
• 10:33, 28 June 2013: Hh2013 accuses Anishooocker of being a sockpuppet of User:Stubes99 [255]

In addition to this, Hh2013 has created another account, Hunor0 (talk · contribs), and has also tagged many other accounts' user pages as being a sockpuppet of User:Stubes99. I'm not familiar enough with either former SPI report to know if these accusations have any merit, so I leave it for someone else to investigate this matter and take it to SPI if warranted. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Antishocker (almost an identical username with User:Anishooocker) was blocked as a sock a few days ago. ‎User:Blashermor is also a blatant sock of Stubes99 (per behavioral evidence, a Check User could easily confirm this) Hh2013 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't had my coffee yet, but my guess is they are both right. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Socks and sleepers blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone with changing IP address making the same/repeated disruptive edit

If you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Finish_Productions&action=history you can see the same edit has been reverted 4 times by 3 different editors, the IP addresses used to make the edit have been warned (2 of the 3) but it would seem this person is determined to get their edit accepted.

Can someone with more experience and knowledge about these things look into it? Thanks Jasonfward (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future you can report this sort of thing at WP:RFPP for swift action.--Jayron32 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) and I do try to find the correct places to report things and policies to follow, but admit that I fail way too often Jasonfward (talk)

It's of small consequence. The important thing is you got it taken care of. --Jayron32 00:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 POV Pushing

As suggested here, I would start a thread on User:Anonymous209.6 POV pushing in Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 He has a history of disruptive edits. For example, he continues to edit out content on Rep. Smith, even with discussions on the talk page. He has many examples of POV pushing:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Smith Comment again 8 - Smith Comment again

I am simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing, if one looks at his history on the talk page and working on the article.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings is referring to BLP-violation removals of material on KING, under the title SMITH, and mixing in fixes of references, and other fully justified edits by me. Blind mass reverts by Casprings have not been similarly justified. Re: BLP, removal of false material on a BLP page is never considered edit warring, even if it would otherwise violate 3rr (and I have refrained from testing that limit pending objective input from admins which never came), whereas repeated INSERTION of BLP-violating material, a la Casprings, IS in fact edit warring even if it does NOT violate 3rr.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is well sourced material. It is not WP:BLP. Moreover, you aren't willing to even discuss the issue. However, that is not all I am complaining about. I am complaining about a long term effort to push a certain POV in the article and edit it away from WP:NPOV. That is far more than that simple edit.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am complaining about a long term effort to push a certain POV in the article and edit it away from WP:NPOV." Copy-paste and put Arzel's signature block on it. He'd say exactly the same thing about you. The most dangerous editor on Wikipedia is the one who doesn't recognize their own POV.--v/r - TP 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is one reason why diffs and evidence is important.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's easy enough. Click on your own diffs and click the "previous version" button.--v/r - TP 18:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are extensive discussions (without constructive input from Casprings) at the top of the page. Please keep like discussions together. Casprings; you have already been warned about making a shambles of Talk page discussions with rabbit-hole RfCs. Kindly stop trying to fork Talk page discussions, or allege that the only discussion that counts is in what place on the page you think is relevant. Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#POV_tags_for_King_and_Bartlett--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And which editor, besides yourself, thinks your edit is the way to go? I have contributed to that thread and others. Please point out the "warnings" I am violating.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Use_of_RfCsUser_talk:Casprings#Use_of_RfCs_and_requests_for_formal_closures--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Drama-board-it is a severe Wikipedia affliction. Echoing TParis's comments above. Though WP:BOOMERANG is not that far a toss. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems Casprings' approach is to report anyone who disagrees with him to the ANI, and thus silence them. Every single complaint he makes can just as readily be made about him, and from his own links at that. I completely agree that lack of civility and edit warring are serious problems and deserve punishment. So why not follow Casprings' own advice and topic ban him? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The admin TP above has gone SO far above the call of duty in trying to explain to this editor that they are just as "bad" as the person they are complaining about, even if the "truth" or "correct" POV is on their side. It makes no difference. --Malerooster (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks to all (esp TP) for pointing out to Casprings that claiming that you are "right" does not exempt anyone to edit war. Please stop referring to the rebuttal as other editors being "just as bad"; that isn't a defense of edit warring, just an argument for more blocks. I repeat, there IS NO "just as bad" here. MY edits are BLP violations removals, and edits. All are thoroughly justified, and rational, easy to understand justifications on Talk are given if needed. Casprings are not; it is the lack of rational justification that makes edit warring. Thanks also for getting this in the OTHER of Casprings' motions

Reverting to "enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", per WP:EW. The seven exceptions to WP:3rr, are for that: WP:3rr. Given that I did not violate WP:3rr and my edits are for WP:NPOV or WP:consensus rational, how is this edit warring? For example, here when I reverted to remove "Democrats’ relentless “war on women”. It seems rather hard to argue edit warring, when my reverts are all removing statements like,Feminist blogger Irin Carmon claimed. My reverts were to return what had been discussed to death on the talk page and was at WP:consensus or were clearly WP:NPOV,. Moreover, I did not violate WP:3rr. Yet this is the same as user:arzel. As with what this started with, is reverting to remove a WP:Afd template the same as reverting to put it back? Casprings (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is as close to a justification of those naked reverts by Casprings as has appeared ANYWHERE, and that is the problem. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's an incredible excerpt. Caspring's justification is literally "I can violate the 3 revert rule as much as I want because I'm right and they're wrong". Except he also takes it one step further and makes ANI complaints to silence those pesky editors who disagree with him. And unfortunately, as the discussion above shows, gets a bunch of people with similar opinions to support his Wikilawyering and censorship. Not the majority, but enough to where his complaint doesn't appear as baseless and hypocritical as it really is. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, guys, Casprings would like to reset on this issue so let's give him a chance to move forward from here. I'll note that Arzel has made very little appearance here and it's easy to avoid saying the wrong thing when you're mostly silent. Let's move on from this mess and try to learn from it so the next time we're here we can make a clear decision that isn't obfuscated by misunderstands, parallel behaviors, and side arguments.--v/r - TP 18:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Casprings has discovered any new awareness of their behavioral problems, nor any evidence that they wish to "reset" HERE, as you state. The difference between an editor in a nasty back and forth with an admin (TP), realizing they might be blocked, and agreeing to a truce with that admin only, and a wholesale change from tendentious and disruptive editing is rather large. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We're not here to make people get on their knees, gravel, and beg. He said he wants to reset, leave it at that. He wasn't wrong, he just wasn't clean. It's as much a chance for everyone to reset as it is for him. You might want to do the same and take the opportunity to mend bridges.--v/r - TP 23:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has shown no evidence of sincerity of a "reset". Casprings is a tendetious editor, meaning in this case, a long term, consistent pattern of making large, very bad, unjustified edits, and then edit warring to maintain; that certainly involves blind reverts without arguments made on Talk or Edit Summary, but also abuse of process. One such is excessive filing of empty or baseless motions, such as this ANI, your ANI, all Casprings baseless ANIs. Don't need to belabor that. On the Article Talk page, it takes the form of refusing to mount any coherent argument and either "checking in" or filing motions INSTEAD of mounting arguments as required. Casprings has been warned about the habit of not arguing on Talk, but filing non-neutral (and thus worthless) RfCs INSTEAD of responding on Talk. Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Use_of_RfCsUser_talk:Casprings#Use_of_RfCs_and_requests_for_formal_closures. You and they have a reset? Great. Except that was at 12:24. 6 hours later, at 18:14 - same problem behavior Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012&diff=prev&oldid=562001003. Evidently the reset, if it applied to anyone but you (and it didn't) did not last a day.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

[[256]]--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Yes Behind The No

I think we may have a problem with User:‎Yes Behind The No, a new contributor who's sole edits have been to the article Corina (singer). I noticed the user being listed at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and took a look at the user's contributions. It seems to me that the suggestion of vandalism was misplaced, but there do however seem to be other concerns. For a start, the first edit made to the article by Yes Behind The No [257] was copy-pasted from a 2004 press release here [258]. Though the article has been substantially edited since then, this seemed to merit discussion with the user, at least to ensure that policy is understood. I put a note on the talk page, and asked User:‎Yes Behind The No to respond - with no effect. Further investigation showed that ‎Yes Behind The No has also uploaded images for the article, claiming to own the copyright - which I think unlikely, given that one image looks like an album sleeve, and the other appears to be professional poster (?) artwork. Again, I posted on the article talk page, and on User talk:‎Yes Behind The No, and again there has been no response. At this point, I can see little point in continuing in this manner, and ask that an admin intervene - by blocking the user until communication results, if it comes to that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this user talks. I've warned them of edit warring. I've also contacted an admin at Commons (also an admin here) about the many, many images the user has uploaded of Corina claiming it's their own work. If there'd been just a couple, I would have either nominated them for deletion or tagged them for speedy deletion, but there were 16, so I took an easier way out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Yes Behind The No has now posted on my talk page, [259] claiming to be Corina, the subject of the article. I've asked her to respond here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming she is Corina, that doesn't necessarily mean she owns the copyright to the images. That would have to be verified. In the meantime, all of her uploads have been deleted at Commons. I've alerted the admin to the IP's claim.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Corina (assuming that it is her - I've no reason to doubt this for the moment) is aware of the consequences of uploading the images to Commons, assuming she does own the copyright? Releasing them under a creative commons licence may not be in her best interests. Regarding the article itself, it clearly can't stay in the unsourced and self-promotional state it was in after her edits, though I can see no reason why it can't be improved on from its prior state (which I've restored for now until we can sort this matter out) - assuming we can find proper sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Corina (assuming it is her) has now opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#TALK pages for CORINA (Singer). I am unsure of the best way to handle this. Suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello this is Yes Behind The No. My name is Maceo Rosa and I am a Co-producer at Corina's Production company. I spent the day learning wikipedia and updating her page as one of my jobs is to monitor the web and update inaccurate and or outdated information regarding Corina and her productions. I am a complete novice to the wikipedia platform and was under the assumption that information could be updated on her page by anyone. She is indeed the Artist Corina and holds all copyrights to her work. I do understand the issue of conflict of interest which Bbb23 raised however the edits were not intended for self promotion as much as to update the information. My question is, if our office is unable to correct/update information regarding the Artist herself how may we presently or in the future correct inacuracies pertaining to Corina and her work?

Please forgive the delay in communication as it has taken me some time for Corina and I even to figure out where to respond to this dispute. Yes Behind The No (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm now even more confused. I thought you were Corina, or are both you and Corina using the same account to edit, not to mention User:66.108.71.215?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just be aware that by uploading any images to commons.wikimedia.org, you're agreeing to revoke the copyright on those images. If you're OK with that then you definitely can upload them, but it's so unusual that often people on Commons will assume that it was a mistake. —Soap— 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is actually not correct. When you upload something to Commons, you continue to hold the copyright, while you are allowing others to use it for any purpose as long as they credit you. (Soap, I know you're probably trying to make it easier to digest for laypeople, but I don't think giving incorrect legal advice is the way to do it.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that when the copyright owner of an image licenses use of that image, she is not "revoking" her copyright. That said - and particularly how confusing Commons licenses are (in my view) - the best "advice" we can give anyone, and especially a commercial artist, is to consult with her attorney before licensing any images of herself. None of us should be giving legal advice. Our job is simply to determine whether an image satisfies our copyright policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I share Bbb23's concern, since Yes Behind The No just held herself out as Corina at the dispute resolution noticeboard.[260] —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, they haven't actually explicitly stated that Corina was controlling the account; they merely signed as Corina. This is analogous to the fact that Obama's Twitter account speaks in the voice of Obama but isn't actually controlled by Obama (unless he signs "-bo", but that's irrelevant here, you get the point I'm trying to make that we should WP:AGF and allow for the possibility that Maceo is the only one behind the account). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I'm interpreting the replies on Andy's talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

...or this one from their own talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) OK, from that it's pretty clear then. We should ask that one of them assume sole ownership of this account and change the password, and have the other one create a new account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We might also consider explaining how the subject of an article can provide correct information (or sources from which we can find such information) without falling afoul of WP:COI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• If we accept everything the users are saying at face value, then we have at least two individuals using one registered account and one IP address, Corina and Maceo Rosa. I propose blocking the IP address and working with just the registered account. I don't like the fact that both accounts are editing at the same time. We should then work out who is controlling the registered account and who has the password to the account. As King of Hearts says, we should make sure that only one person has the password (as best as we can), so whoever wants to own that account should change the password so it's known only to her and she should identify who she is. Then, if it's really necessary for the other person to have an account (we really don't want tag-teaming), that person can create her own account and disclose who she is. The disclosures aren't against privacy policy, assuming it's either Corina or Rosa because both have already disclosed their identities. I'm not going to take any action on any of this unless there's a consensus for doing it, or possibly an alternative proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if the account use issue were sorted out, the main problem with anyone expanding that article, let alone the subject and/or her associates, is that there is zero coverage of her in reliable independent sources (apart from very brief mentions in cast lists, billboard charts, and "What's On" columns). I don't know what photos she/he/they uploaded to Commons, but if they are the ones on her photostream at Flickr, they are all marked all rights reserved. Incidentally the first attempt by the IP to add that huge promotional blurb from her website was last September. [261] Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For those of you who didn't click on the diff above, this is the kind of stuff they were edit-warring to add:

Corina Katt Ayala is one of the most electrifying performers and broadly talented artists in a generation. Known for her honest, open hearted and intimate style she is a one of a kind Singer/Songwriter, Actor and Writer whose work goes right to the heart of love, inspiration and human triumph. Ask anyone, the world over, who have witnessed her perform in concert, on the theatrical stage or on the big screen and they will tell you that they have witnessed the truth.

Meanwhile, ‎Yes Behind The No also tells us: "the edits were not intended for self promotion as much as to update the information". Really??? He goes on to say that "one of [his] jobs is to monitor the web and update inaccurate and or outdated information." There is nothing inaccurate in the current article. She had some charted songs in the 1990s and she played the role of Frida Kahlo in a movie. Both those assertions are independently verifiable, Whatever she's done since then has received zero coverage and is completely unverifiable. There is nothing to update. Voceditenore (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Voce, there is nothing to update. Notability is marginal if non existent, and there is a massive COI and promotion, if not meat or sock puppetry. Take it to AfD and have done with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent breach of a ban (User:Pigsonthewing/Richard Wagner)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I placed the following on the talkpage of User:Georgewilliamherbert (see here) and for convenience I also copy below the comments which have followed. I have had no response from Georgewilliamherbert since 23 May or to my further enquiries. However he may of course be away - this post is not to be taken as being any reflection on him. So I am bringing the issue here, and notifying both Georgewilliamherbert and Andy Mabbett (and the other contributors). This is the first time I have ever brought anything to AN/I, so please let me know if I am doing anything incorrectly/inappropriately.--Smerus (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoted discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Mr.Mabbett.== Hi! As I understand, User:Pigsonthewing was banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day in a discussion closed by you about a year ago. As he has been interfering today with (the talk page of) Richard Wagner, today's FA of the day, placing misleading messages on it, and issuing dismissive messages related to the talk pages of editors with whom he disagrees (including myself), I am writing to ask whether it is appropriate to bring this to anyone's notice (yours? - or whatever). I am not familiar with the WP investigative/disciplinary procedures. With apologies for bringing this back from the (un)dead, --Smerus (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I am also an involved party as a large number of my edits – including even non-controversial archiving, see here — have been reverted by User:Pigsonthewing. --Kleinzach 21:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Acknowledged and reviewing (his, and the rest). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you - --Smerus (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I was the person who started the ANI thread that led to Mabbett's topic ban. At the time he had just driven away the principal editor of a classical music-related FA just as it was TFA. Mabbett's issuing of bogus vandal warnings on Smerus's talk page just as the Wagner article is about to be TFA is part of the same pattern of behaviour and looks calculated to deter him from writing another one. I find the original dispute over infoboxes (which lies behind the long-standing animosity between Mabbett and various classical music contributors) to be rather Liliputian but Mabbett's history of year-long block/bans for stirring things up in this area should be borne in mind. I think that there is an indefinite Arbcom ruling still in effect related to this under which his year long block/bans happened.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The claim that I drove away another editor is false. The assertion that I left vandal warnings (and bogus ones at that) is a lie. The allegation that my actions were calculated to deter another editor from doing anything other than censoring an ongoing (edited in the previous two days) discussion is a baseless slur. I'm surprised that Georgewilliamherbert hasn't already removed it from his talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC) On the "false... lie... baseless slur..." claims, I did make a mistake in saying that the warning was a vandalism one. It was a disruptive editing one, an area in which Mabbett has much practice. However, if GWH were to look at the last few sections in User talk:Tim riley/Archive10 and at Tim's contribution history, contrasting that in the period August-October 2012 with the current and previous patterns, he would see that Mabbett's behaviour around the Solti TFA and his obsession with infoboxes did drive Tim away for two and a half months and lost us hundreds, if not thousands, of edits by one of the best contributors Wikipedia has.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC) This is not helping, gentlemen. Please stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I am taking this page off my watch list. If anything actually happens here, can you tell me? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I have only now noticed the thread on this issue at Mr. Mabbett's talk-page. May I express some concern about some aspects of his response to you? Mr. Mabbett comments on the 'double-jeopardy and malicious nature of the ANI discussion'. I don't fathom the relevance of 'double jeopardy', nor, may I say, was there any malice in my query to you. (But of course the topic under discussion here is not other editors' motives, whatever they were, but Mr. Mabbett's behaviour). My main concern in initiating this discussion, which represents the only complaint I have ever made to an administrator about another editor, was discontent that the Wagner pages, on the day of its front page appearance, were hosting a pub brawl, which Mr. Mabbett appeared to me to be wilfully provoking. That Mr. Mabbett, in defending himself to you, takes the opportunity to gratuitously slur others, indicates a certain inability to AGF when confronted with any editors whose opinions differ from his own. But as he has commented on editors' behaviour, let me comment on his. Mr. Mabbett, with whom I have had many disagreements (normally centring on the timesink of infoboxes), is a man who, as his talkpage makes clear, has a mission. He is also a man who acts as a public face of Wikipedia,and is indeed himself an administrator. One would have hoped that in these circumstances he might be able to temper his enthusiasms with the understanding of the opinions of others who are possibly more thin-skinned than he and/or do not have the time or will he may have to indulge in extensive talk-page correspondence. I invite those who are better qualified than I to investigate the parallels between Mr. Mabbett's methods and what is often referred to as 'cyber-bullying'. Nonetheless, Mr. Mabbett's frequent persistence, relentlessness and constant resort to attack as a means of defence, seem to me to be contrary to all the principles which Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. I am clearly not the only editor who has felt that Mr. Mabbett's interventions are often attempts at intimidation. I accept that, at heart, this is a debate between Wikipedia 'reductionists' like Mr. Mabbett, who see WP as means of crystallising the world's information to an essential nucleus from which all can be extrapolated (rather like, as I have mentioned elsewhere in a debate on Mr. Mabbett's obsessions, the desire of Mr. Casaubon in 'Middlemarch' to construct a key to all mythologies), and 'expansionists' like myself who like to create and expand articles, and are not in the slightest interested in microformats, etc. That is a debate which Wikipedians must resolve amongst themselves, certainly. But they should do so without the rancour and cycle of wikifrenzy frequently induced by the interventions of Mr. Mabbett. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I appreciate that this situation was probably put on hold whilst Mr. Mabbett was unwell. As I see that he is now editing again, may I ask please if you will now be carrying it forward? With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I guess your absence of comment means you do not wish to take this forward? And that I should take the issue elsewhere? But please correct me if I am wrong. I would appreciate some response (even if it's only 'adios') as Mr. Mabbett is now recommencing his campaigns on infoboxes on articles on which he has not been an editor. --Smerus (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would therefore appreciate views on the actions of Andy Mabbett in the light of his ban from FA of the day (and of course of the reactions of others including myself, if thought appropriate) on the Richard Wagner talk page on 22 May and subsequently. The talk page in question can be found here. The issues extend to Mr. Mabbett unilaterally reverting a manual archiving of the page, and a thread relating to this can be seen at the present Richard Wagner talk page. I do not seek in this query a discussion of infoboxes or indeed of any topic not related to the intervention of Mr. Mabbett in the light of the ban which appears to have applied to him. Thanks. --Smerus (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the most recent violation of his topic ban May 22? If so, I don't see where we gain by taking any action today. It would appear from me, as an outside observer, that Andy is no longer violating his topic ban, perhaps the above month-old exchange was warning enough? If you have any evidence of more recent violations, it would be helpful, but if all we have is a month-old discussion of a month-old violation, with no subsequent problems, I'm not sure what there is to do... --Jayron32 15:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, you might put the copied text above into a collapsible hat note for better readability ... you might guess by now how long and convoluted this thread is likely to become. If you don't know how to do that, you can ask someone else to ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, Collapsible text is {{hat|explanation here}} at the top and {{hab}} at the bottom (kinda like an archive notice) Dusti^*poke* 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

ta--Smerus (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I have been called here as "involved". How am I involved? And please enlighten me: what does "topic ban" mean? That someone can't comment on an article's talk page? Come on, where are we? No breach of something that seems not to make sense anyway is "apparent" to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(Just a comment on what a topic ban is) Topic ban includes ban from commenting on the talk page of the topic too as per WP:TOPICBAN  A m i t  ❤  16:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I read that now, my latest version says "Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Gerda: As you participated in the exchange I thought I was following the rules of this page of notifying all those who were involved. Involvement is not of course an accusation,you were like most of the others a bystander.

@Smerus: You explained "involved" as "rather not", but didn't answer my main questions. I was interrupted by a notification to here in the middle of constructive article work with Andy and Voceditore, and - forgive me - would prefer to spend my time there. - Now off to choir rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Jayron: sorry, breach of a ban is a breach of a ban, isn't it? Is there some Statute of Limitations on Wikipedia? It is not my fault that, having reported the situation immediately to an administrator, nothing happened. A breachofa ban by an administrator (if this is what has happened) is not trivial,and should be considered.

@Sandy:apologies I am technically not competent in such matters. You or anyone else is welcome to adapt as appropriate. Done. I was mildly optimistic that, as the only issue at hand was whether a a ban had been breached or not, this thread might not prove too tortuous. Maybe this will be the one occasion when hope triumphs over experience.--Smerus (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

still not correctly implemented (someone recommended the wrong hatnote to you) ... perhaps someone else will fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

seems to be OK now, thanks to whoever.--Smerus (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to an expanded "collapse" box -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm used to the increasingly shrill double- multi-jeopardy attempts by various associates of the classical music projects to ban me from Wikipedia, or at least from their imagined fiefdom, but two on the go at once is a new thing. They need to decide whether this is about "banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day" or the unspecified "topic ban" imagined by Jayron. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

er, weren't you User:Dusti just a minute ago? Or was it all a dream? Anyway, I respectfully point out that my original approach on this issue substantially predates the AN/I which you yourself initiated. --Smerus (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dusti overwrote my sig with theirs; I've fixed it. This can all be seen in this page's edit history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Careful, Smerus, when asking questions here that might be misinterpreted as an accusation-- that might get you blocked. <it's a joke> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks. For clarity, the ban I had in mind was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#User:Pigsonthewing.2FAndy_Mabbett_and_featured_article_of_the_day--Smerus (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Smerus: My question is not about whether or not he violated the ban, the question is whether there is any point in taking action over 1 month later. If, in fact, he's not violated said restrictions in the intervening month, I don't know what action you want us to take today. We can all sit here and say "yup, that was a violation 1 month ago." But any action one month after the fact will not prevent any ongoing violations, any block would be purely punitive and vengeful at this point, and we don't do blocks for that reason. So yes, we can all sit here and say that it was a violation of the topic ban, but to do something about it right now solves no problems and stops no active disruption. (and as a side note to Andy, you can call these restrictions whatever word or words bring you the most joy. If the words "topic ban" bother you, when you read the letters "topic ban" you can pronounce them in your mind however you wish so long as those words in your mind correctly identify the restrictions noted in the link you already provided. As the name of something doesn't change its nature in any way, pick whatever name you want to call it.) --Jayron32 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Jayron. Thanks for this. Here's the situation. An administrator has been subject to a ban. He appears to have broken that ban. If the ban means anything in the first place, and if that ban has indeed been broken, I suppose that censure should take place. The first step should be, I propose, to examine whether or not he has broken the ban. If he has, then there exists I suppose a wide variation of responses available, from awarding him a trout, to requesting or requiring him to cease being a nuisance on his pet topics, up to (say) burning his effigy on Jimmy Wales's birthday. I am not experienced in this area, and those wiser than me may know what sentence might be appropriate. Or they may indeed advise me that no censure is appropriate, or that, even if it were, Andy might just ignore it with impunity like he did this one, or whatever. It would however seem a shame to me, and to others who have felt intimidated by Andy in the past, if it appears that Wikipedia has given him a 'get out of jail free card'. The 'point' in taking action would be to show that even an administrator is not above ANI decisions. --Smerus (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If he were not an administrator, I would still be questioning that any administrator action would be useful at this point. So that's a non-starter here. No administrator is above anything, so that has nothing to do with it. The issue is that the use of any administrator tool is only to be used to prevent ongoing problems. This is a board to request the potential use of an administrator tool (that is, to block someone, to delete a page, or to protect a page) in response to a problem. In this case, the only tool which would be a appropriate would be to block Andy, but to block him for a violation 1 month ago, of which there is no evidence that he still intends to continue, seems against policy. Indeed, given the month of a total lack of violations, is evidence that he's not going to violate his topic ban <insert whatever word Andy wants to use to describe the thingy he's not supposed to do>. We don't block someone to punish for a crime, we block to prevent a problem. You've not provided evidence of an existing problem, you've given evidence of a resolved problem, in the sense that it isn't happening anymore, and a problem that isn't happening anymore is not a problem. The fact that no one had to institute a "punishment" to stop the problem is not a bad thing, rather it is a sign that Andy has recognized the problem and self-corrected. Was it a violation? Probably. But there's nothing (IMHO) that this board can do at this point, as there is nothing to gain for the encyclopedia, no disruption to stop, etc, at this point in time. If you're seeking a broad censure or condemnation of his actions (that is, you don't want a block, you just want people to recognize the existence of a problem) then WP:RFCU is the correct venue for that. Here is not the place where you get that done. RFCU is. --Jayron32 20:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus' allegations against me are again a tissue of falsehoods, and vague and unsubstantiated insinuations, at least some of which you unfortunately and unwisely appear to have taken at face value. I'm not an administrator. There was no breach of any ban. I placed no misleading messages. I have ignored nothing with impunity. The repeated - and regularly rebuffed - attempts by a small group of editors from an intertwined set of projects to silence, block or ban me are beginning to seem like harassment Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you can call a rabbit a smeerp all you want, but 'FA of the day' is a topic, and you are banned from it, therefore you are, in fact, topic-banned from FA of the day and articles scheduled for FA of the day. That said, the question is whether or not claiming edits on the talk page of TFA violate that topic ban (as Andy only edited on the talk page of the article in question, not the article itself), when the closing statment of the topic ban discussion only mentioned the articles, is a case of WP:COMMONSENSE that the talk pages were included in the topic ban by default, or WP:WIKILAWYERING that they were included even though they weren't explicitly mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, 'common sense', that wonderful euphemism for "making it up as I go along". As you yourself say, "the closing statment [sic] of the topic ban discussion only mentioned the articles". As I said, There was no breach of any ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bushranger: I'm not sure how common that actually is. When I issue topic bans, I make sure I mention whether talk pages are included or not. I've issues topic bans several times where the user can still discuss matters on the talk pages. Whether the case here is Andy gaming or not, I'd look to see if he's tried to game it before. If he hasn't, slap on the wrist and let's get some beers. If he has, do what needs to be done. I don't know the specifics in this case, so I won't comment on what I think should happen. I just wanted to comment on this particular part.--v/r - TP 22:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, does the topic ban extend to articles Andy has substantially contributed to and has an interest in maintaining if they're featured ? Nick (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, your making a joke? Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was original with Jayron32 but on further consideration it may be useful to continue this discussion. Not because we need to issue a reprimand or something but in particular in light of the fact Andy does not agree he violated the ban and I don't think he is agreeing to stop, I think clarification on whether the ban extends to talk pages would be useful even if nothing else comes out of this. I have to say the closing wording isn't entirely clear to me on this point. Note however unless people really think the original wording was intended to include talk pages, and perhaps even then, I'm not sure that continuing this discussion is useful unless people are sure there is enough evidence of disruption to warrant such a ban. Edit: To be clear, I'm only going by the wording of the ban by the closer. As a special case, if people feel the consensus was clearly in favour of banning him from talk pages as well but acknowledge the wording isn't clear, I don't see the harm if the closing admin agrees for the the closing to be reconsidered and the wording clarified if an uninvolved admin feels the is's justified, without needing too much discussion here. Not that it should matter but that would obviously mean any 'violations' before this won't count as violations although they could still be evidence of general disruption in future discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their contributions. First I correct myself; Mr. Mabbett is an administrator for WikiMedia, but not for Wikipedia. I misread his talk page. This is of course not relevant (as others have pointed out) to the issue as to whether or not he broke a ban.

Mr. Mabbett writes: 'Smerus' allegations against me are again a tissue of falsehoods, and vague and unsubstantiated insinuations, at least some of which you unfortunately and unwisely appear to have taken at face value. '

I regret that Mr. Mabbett finds it necessary to insinuate that I am a liar; discourteous behaviour which would certainly earn anyone else a rap on the knuckles, but which apparently he can exercise with impunity, here, as elsewhere.

My 'allegations' are however, simply statements of fact, which Mr.Mabbett (typically) does not even attempt to deny:

• 1) Mr. Mabbett was, and is,uder a ban from interfering with FA articles when they come up to feature on the front page
• 2) Mr. Mabbett intervened in the Wagner article, on its talk page, on the day when it was a front page article.

There is nothing vague or unsubstantiated about either of these statements. If Mr. Mabbett did indeed break the ban, he is eligible for some appropriate penalty, and/or may be requested and expected to assure Wikipedia that he will not offend again.

As to my ancillary whinges, it is certainly the case that I find it intensely annoying and time-wasting dealing with Mr.Mabbett's personal campaigns in articles which interest me and to which (unlike him) I may often have made a more or less substantial contriubtion. Mr. Mabbett is indeed not an administrator, as I mistakenly said: but he is, according to his talk page,'currently working as the Wikipedian in Residence at Queen Street Textile Mill Museum, Burnley and also the Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall.' He is therefore in some sense a public face of Wikipedia, and indeed his ability to contribute to Wikipedia is in some sense subsidised by the system itself, unlike the rest of us who have to seek time to respond to his harrying in the interstices of a life shackled by obligations to routines unamenable to Wiki-campaigning. There is really a bit of the duck house about this.

But whilst the above paragraph is mere steam-letting, the issue at hand needs to be answered; and not by blather. The wickedness of the evil Classical Music Wikipedians is neither here nor there.--Smerus (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I note also that there was another apparent breach of this ban by Mr. Mabbett in April, at Carmen. This may indicate that Mr. Mabbett's actions at Wagner were not a one-off, and should therefore be considered in conjunction with the Wagner issue. I have altered the header to this thread accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no breach of any ban at Carmen; like I said, a tissue of falsehoods. And the 'duck house' comparison is yet another unacceptable personal attack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now Mr. Mabbett's rules - he can make comments about others, but others can't make comments about him. And I have re-edited the header to this thread. We still await from Mr. Mabbett any explanation of his behaviour at Wagner or Carmen in the light of the apparent ban on the contributions he made there - but perhaps under Mr. Mabbett's rules he is exempt from such obligations.--Smerus (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the header of this thread to its original form, so as not to break incoming links. My comments on talk pages (the 'Carmen' page you link to is an archive of 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera', not even the article talk page) breached no ban. There is nothing else to explain. Your continued complaints here are vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:84.26.108.111 - Harassment and disruption at Talk:RetroArch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there. I am involved in a protracted dispute with 84.26.108.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in Talk:RetroArch that has touched many areas of disruptive editing, including multiple personal attacks on other editors (myself included, but really the attacks have been far stronger on others), general accusations of bias, political agendas and other forms of disruption, and a general refusal to consider Wikipedia policies in the scope of a debate about an article's merits. In addition, this editor has a known conflict of interest in the article in question and has been displaying ownership behavior in it, evident through the edit summaries in the article itself (also under another IP) and through his interactions on the talk page.

Two notable instances of personal attacks and incivility:

• against Harizotoh9 (as 77.166.85.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - he later apologized to this editor upon my request, but his behavior continues.)
• against WT:VG editors, most particularly User:Czar

I have given this editor multiple warnings and tried at length to reason with him - even offering to help improve his article. He seems quite intent on calling everyone names and accusing them of trying to shut down his project and making moral judgments against him without giving any consideration to our policies. At one point, he attempted to out me personally (not very successfully, but it was enough for me to consider it harassment).

Frankly, as I said to him at one point in this dispute, I probably should have just blocked him when I was still uninvolved and was witnessing the initial round of attacks. At the time, he seemed truly convinced that we were "out to get him" and that we were members of some rival project that wanted to make sure his work got no publicity. In the spirit of good faith, I did my best to convince him that in fact the majority of us on Wikipedia are neutral third-parties who want to improve the 'pedia as a whole, and are simply trying to make sure articles conform to policies that have more than a decade of consensus behind them. It appears I can do no more. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care if this results in a ban - I really don't care about your current employment at Amazon and your prior one at Microsoft - you leave this trail of history around yourself on the Web - it's up to you to personally scrub it yourself.

I consider it dubious how persons working for such large corporate companies apparently seem so ardent on 'deleting/mass-redirecting' articles on open-source projects and how that can't be a possible COI - yet I am many times accused in the Talk section of having a possible 'Conflict of Interest' (also by you) because I am the author of the project that you are trying to mass-delete/mass-redirect to an insignificant 'list page'. I find this a bit 'disingenuous' to say the very least considering your 'connections'. Wikipedia's reputation has really taken a nosedive for me as part of this little escapade. How can you claim to be independent and neutral given all this? You really aren't.84.26.108.111 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not like who I work for is any real secret. You're the one who's been trying to tell everyone that I shouldn't be here because I happen to work for them. I only brought my occupation up to make a point in what's become an absurdly pointless dispute, mainly because I'd grown tired of trying to actually reason with you.

I'm still waiting to see how my "Connections" justify any part of your behavior, and how they actually constitute a conflict of interest on my part. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You work for a big software company that has no interest in having open-source software exist at all. Being involved in 'mass-purgings' of open source software projects based on some 'notability clause' is therefore, very supect, let's say.

BTW - dont' worry - you just won big - I just did the dirty deed myself and 'redirected' to the list of Videogame emulators myself. You got your wish - you did your damage - you should be proud of yourself now. Now get going and mass-purge/delete all those other 'open source' projects as well. It's what you and your colleague over there really want.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, when someone misses a point, they REALLY miss a point. Reverted your "redirect" (which you did wrong anyway) because that's not in fact the goal of what we've been trying to tell you this whole time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this IP likes to use the excuse of "not caring" to ignore policy. Because, you know, arguing for like 7 hours straight now is a trait of someone who doesn't care. This is clearly a SPA who who has a huge COI because he trying to write the article for a product he is currently a "lead developer" for. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Go through my 'wiki page edit history' there. I did not create it - in fact, I did not even make any edits until maybe a month ago or so - and even then, those changes were minor. You'd know this if you had actually looked at it. Never was there a 'Conflict of Interest' on my part there - it is just a basic fact that RetroArch is NOT an emulator - much like WINE is NOT. So the initial grounds for pulling it were incorrect.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And it's not a product - unlike a lot of others, we don't even derive one penny from this. We do it all for free - under very liberal licenses. We reject donations, we reject kickstarters, we reject anything monetary-based. The only type of permissible 'donations' are not 'donations' but 'hardware gifts' - ie. tangible things that directly benefit the project - and it is entirely up to the user to make that call to send over something. We don't even have any ad tracking or push ad stuff going on. We are trying to do everything right on mobile with regards to 'all the benefits of convenience computing but none of the negative privacy intrusive' stuff. So, it is not a 'product', we don't perceive it as a 'product'.84.26.108.111 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It's a COI because its a "thing" you created. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are not sole judge and executioner and therefore KieferSkunk was at least graceful enough to allow for external parties to review it and come to a consensus themselves - one person not liking something is not enough to form a consensus on. And besides - it was because of those (in my opinion invalid, but whatever) concerns over COI that I have refrained from editing the page (other than the 'redirect' when I was done with it all and that KieferSkunk reverted). That is why I added all those 'suggestions' and offered all those sources which could be used by people who were genuine about wanting to improve the article. So I have been totally respectful of any concerns over COI and have acted accordingly. Other than my (not tactful) outbursts I have been more than patient with you guys and offered a plethora of material and sources that could have been used to prop up the article to Wikipedia standards. I am willing to admit part of the blame, but you should do so yourself as well - you are not an innocent party in all this.84.26.108.111 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, you don't have to worry about COI anymore - like I said earlier, I will no longer use this for posts (or any external forums in fact). I am not happy how this turned out and I will stay out from these kinds of things from now on. Getting upset over this stuff and getting in fights with people I no longer find a nice pursuit of my time.84.26.108.111 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I just wanted to drop in and say I'll issue a final apology to KieferSkunk. I'm going to retreat from any and all external forums and venues at all and just limiting myself to my own forums. I don't really derive any pleasure from these kind of back and forths and it actually upsets me more to have conversations turn out like this in such nasty ways than people might think. I'm sorry for dragging in your employment into this thing (though that arose out of you mentioning it but whatever - I shouldn't have sidetracked into that) - it was not really about that to be honest. Anyway, I think it's best for everybody's sake if I just step back from this - let other people offer the 'suggestions/improvements' or improve it, whatever. If it gets redirected or deleted - it will - not my call, not my decision anyway. I just don't particularly like how today turned out and the people I might have hurt in the process and I'm trying to see the error of my ways and doing a policy shift in terms of behavior. Whether you think this is 'genuine' or not is your own judgement to make. All I know is that I was not like this a year ago and I want to get back to that.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Id like to point out that the IP has stated "he's done" like ten times over the course of he day, and has yet to actually withdrawal... Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You can point out whatever you like - I know my intentions are sincere and that what you are saying is a misrepresentation of my true intent. And I also know that your entire 'particpation' all along has been NOT to offer any genuine help to improve the article, but just to 'purge it'. You have admitted to that all through the Talk page and you disregarded perfectly valid sources that passed the mustard test. So I will submit my apologies to KieferSkunk since I feel bad over how that turned out, but I reject your accusations towards me.84.26.108.111 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the subject of discussion, as the IP has currently offered to retract from editing on the topic currently, there seems to be enough opportunity to solve this out in the article talk page and other editors should give the IP a valid chance to prove it and not pounce on him repetitively for each breath he takes. Give him a break. At the same time I would suggest the IP to read WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTOPINION and WP:OWN  A m i t  ❤  03:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, for whatever it's worth, I accept your apology insofar as it applies to how you've been dealing with me personally. And I want to make it clear that you are still welcome to edit and participate in discussions here on Wikipedia, so long as you're willing to play nice and respect policies. I know I said you should leave at one point, but that was in response to you saying you were going to, while obviously not intending to do so. But in general, if you're willing to actually work constructively, you're welcome to be here.

And I want to repeat what I said earlier: Wikipedia as a whole, and Sergecross and I in particular, do not just want to delete or "purge" your article, or any mention of your project. We've been trying this whole time to explain to you what the policies and guidelines are, with the intent of helping you understand what is needed in order to make your article actually work here on WP. But in order for us to get anywhere, we need you to relax and stop taking the criticism so personally. That's all we're asking. Saying that there are some issues with the article, or saying that we believe it might be better served as part of a list, is not a criticism of your project's merits, nor is it a personal attack on you or anyone involved in the project. It is an honest statement of what we're able to see, given that to a large extent we have to help represent the people who come to Wikipedia for unbiased, well-supported information. And where we can, we try to help people achieve that.

I do think some cooling-off time would be good for you, as it would be for me. For my part, I got a bit worked up too and delved a bit into trolling behavior, and I'm sorry for my part of it. I could have handled my side of the argument better as well. That said, please take what I've said into consideration - we're not trying to hurt anyone, and we genuinely do want to see your project succeed. It's just not Wikipedia's place to make that happen - WP's role is simply to inform, and in a way that your average person can understand. You need to trust that people like us who've been working in the VG Project for years (myself for around a decade now) might actually know a thing or two about this, and that we have the best interests of the project at heart. That's what's meant by assuming good faith.

Truce? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Open harassment from 84.26.108.111 (RetroArch)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, so much for the truce. I just got this edit on my Talk Page, and Harizotoh9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also received a harassing series of edits, after we had seemingly worked things out yesterday. Harizotoh9 has been editing Wikipedia for more than 2 years with no history of blocks or inappropriate behavior, and to the best of my knowledge, no conflicts of interest.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer assume this person is here to work constructively. This, IMO, is open harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. Since I'm involved with this editor, I'm prohibited from taking any such action myself. Please review. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional harassment. IP editor is evidently stalking Harizotoh9 and openly accusing him of being a member of a rival project. I have already informed him that Wikipedia is not the place to fight over rivalries. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also been contacted off-wiki twice now about this issue by apparently a different person connected with RetroArch. This person seems to be much more level-headed and is trying to explain the rivalry issues between RetroArch and bsnes/higan, but I just finished writing him back and informing him that "Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about your rivalry, and we'd prefer to not be involved in it in any way." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to cover your own backside by covering up the fact that what I already told you, you failed to double-check (that said poster -Harizotoh9 - is a bsnes/Higan fan - teammember - deemed it necessary to delete our page out of spite). And now you are outrageously suggesting that me confronting you with the facts is tantamount to 'stalking'. Frankly, you can no longer be considered 'believable' by any stretch of the imagination and I'd respectfully ask that a self-purported employee of Amazon (and previously Microsoft) retreat from discussions on the noteworthyness of open-source projects beginning right now - leave it up to other authors to consider its noteworthyness. I will still uphold my end of the bargain and retreat from any further discussion on this, but it is pretty obvious that you failed to do your fact-checking when the whole world can see that I already warned you (and told you) in advance that said person belonged to the rival group I already told you about - hence you did not take me seriously at all and therefore did not assume good faith.84.26.108.111 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I *did* fact-check your claims of COI, and multiple people have explained to you now, both here and on your own forum, that your claims are completely baseless. There is no evidence in Harizotoh's edit history that he has anything to do with BSNes/Higan, and there is further NO evidence that even if he were that project's lead developer, he's acting in any way that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. But it's evident that no amount of reasoning or attempting to show you how Wikipedia works is going to do anything to convince you of this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said in multiple places now, Wikipedia is not a place for your petty rivalries. Kindly take them elsewhere. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, my employment has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, and you are engaging in personal attacks against me (another form of harassment) by continuing to bring it up. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your employment has EVERYTHING to do with this dispute because it does not make you a honest broker. But ah well, Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about that anyways. And you (and that 'TheEditor' guy on my forum) is just as delusional as you are and you all seem to convince yourselves you are these great hive minds who've got everything figured out and you all try to protect each other's backsides, and hide behind your weasely policies. So eh - fuck it - if it's that much trouble to have a fucking wiki page, then go ahead and fucking delete it. Oh and BTW - go back to your furry shit and jack off some more over that - you freak.84.26.108.111 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He's done nothing but try to promote his product and insult Wikipedia editors. I would have blocked him yesterday had I not been arguing with him so much and become INVOLVED. Strongly support a block. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This person responding to me is also clearly trying to protect himself since he has failed to act on the evidence I presented to him yesterday (that said user- Harizotoh9 - had culpable ties to a rival project that feels the need to 'destroy/vandalize' rival project pages). Therefore, I kindly request that Sergecross73, KieferSkunk and me no longer be involved in any discussions pertaining to RetroArch since it has been made pretty clear that none of us can appear to maintain any neutrality at this point - given that both Sergecross73 and KieferSKunk are now more obsessed with attacking the person rather than actually debating the content or the relative merits of the article. It has devolved into ad-hominem ganging up.84.26.108.111 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no responsibility to check if someone who is redirecting an article has an off-wiki rivalry with the maker of the articles topic, I have nothing to "protect", and there's no reason I can't discuss things. I havent done anything other than add some tags and discuss on the talk page. I havent taken any oher action. with that out of he way, I would like everyone to read the final warning I left on the IP's talk page for some background though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Claiming to stop, then restart, then failing to get the point and just causing general disruption. This has gone on for more than enough time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, I am not part of the bsnes team or anything. I just keep up with emulation news, and noticed the page for bsnes was still using the old name, and not Higan, so I moved it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyond My Ken changes other's talk page comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...to prevent a discussion of his disruptive edits here. --91.10.61.108 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Weren't you told above to Let your personal vendetta against BMK go? --Jayron32 04:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vendetta, BMK removed a talk page comment clearly showing that he is a disruptive editor. I think this is worth mentioning here, otherwise his misbehaviour might go unnoticed, since he removes talk page comments. --91.10.61.108 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the third time that this issue has been brought up in different areas of the project? Granted it was probably not the best thing for him to remove; but it constitutes an attack with its harsh wording. You have an issue this big, take it to RFC/U because continually bringing this up in different areas is only going to get you punished. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

With "harsh wording" I assume you meant his name-calling? Tell him, I already know that that is a personal attack.

I'm not allowed to open an RFC/U. --91.10.61.108 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And two wrongs don't make a right; I only see your misbehavior in the immediate pages. If you had a stable account, you could make an RFC/U, couldn't you? I'm not commenting on the past issues; but I am concerned about the repeated bringing up of this issue in different venues... the last being one where absolutely no action is possible. It seems to antagonize only. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This ends now. I blocked the IP for 72 hours for harassment, although I could have easily justified disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken wasn't notified of this discussion. I just notified him, as a courtesy. Dusti^*poke* 14:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I have also seen this activity with BMK on multiple pages. Regardless of whether it was an IP this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It is inappropriate for BMK or any other user to remove comments from a page (unless its their own or falls within certain other criteria like vandalism and advertisement). It seems like a lot of the editors in this discussion are trying to justify BMK's actions, they should not be. It was wrong. We all know it was and so does he. You blocked the IP fine, someone needs to tell BMK to stop doing this. He has a history of it and being a generally rude and disruptive editor himself and its time for it to stop. Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I also disagree with this block. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this issue, but if Beyond My Ken is being harrassed by the IP then that is serious and BMK should report the incident at ANI and investigated thoroughly. Taking this incident in isolation, if undiscussed changes are made to the MOS then as per BRD any editor is entitled—and encouraged—to initiate a discussion regarding those changes, no matter how unfounded those concerns may be. The talk page discussion certainly should not have been removed by the editor who made the contentious edit at any rate, and was duly restored by an independent editor. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are other diffs, I don't see anything wrong with this removal.[262] It's clearly a PA against several editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Betty, I know that you know that talk page discussions are supposed to be about "content and not about the contributor." The thread that was opened had nothing to do with content. Next please scroll up and see this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RFC.2FU Beyond My Ken. These three IPs 91.10.61.108 (talk · contribs), 91.10.34.128 (talk · contribs), 91.10.61.108 (talk · contribs) have continually violated WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:STALKING, WP:NPA etc. They have been told to drop the WP:STICK and have refused to do so. The block was quite proper to prevent more of this and allow everyone to get back to editing. Finally, to anyone who has missed this previously if you have questions about BMK's editing the proper venue is WP:RFC/U not ANI. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been mentioned yet it should be noted that BMK was not the first editor to remove the offending thread on the talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio being replaced by editor I warned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked pending some indication of understanding of our copyright policies and willingness to comply. Help very welcome at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lionhead99. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Lionhead99 (talk · contribs) at Kariong, New South Wales for a number of reasons which I've discussed in some detail on the article's talk page. Among them was copyvio from a website. I then discovered that the editor has a habit of copy and paste from other sites - he's created some articles which might be barely legal as they are from government sites, but in other cases is clearly copyvio. He's reverted me at Kariong, New South Wales saying he got rid of the copyvio - which he didn't, and at Batman saying "There is no major copyright at all" - but there is copyvio. He has a number of warnings for copyvio images on his talk page and has never replied to any of them on his talk page. I warned him earlier today - he has not replied but his replacement of the copyvio was done after my warning. Because some of my reversions of his work at Kariong are due to content and BLP issues and he reverted me, I might be considered involved if I blocked him as I was considering doing (although I think that if he continues to ignore warnings about copyvio I might anyway). I've also raised this at User talk:Moonriddengirl as I think some cleanup will be needed. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfair, I need Wiki 'judge' on this

I believe Dougweller is nitpicking too much on my content (the ad hominem thing also applies - he is judging my character and not what I'm doing). If he continues reverting my content, I would do so too. He seems to be picking on my edits a little too much. Nothing on the Kariong, New South Wales page is copyrighted (sure, maybe a word or two - that's enough I guess). If the 'Egyptian glyph' section is a fringe theory, then why was the early version of the paragraph at Kariong there the whole time? All I did was source it and expand it.

Did Doug have to go to Batman with my month old edit and revert it whilst slamming it as 'copyright'? Now there, there isn't any copyright violation at all.

I hope a top regular or manager of this looks into it. I have the right to fight back and it's unfair if I, a regular contributor, get blocked.

Thank you.(talk)

At the Kariong article you added " "Professor Nageeb Kanawati of Macquarie University and rock art conservation specialist David Lambert, the National Parks and Wildlife Service believe that ‘‘the hieroglyphs are not genuine and were constructed in the early 1980s’" and replaced it when I removed it. That was copy and paste from [263], misspelled name and all. We revert copyvio no matter how old it is. As an example at Batman, the text added a month ago "Although he has no superhuman powers, Batman's unstoppable determination and strength make him an extremely formidable opponent" can be found on a number of older websites, eg [264] and see this search.[265]. At Fox Studios Australia these two edits[266] added what appeared to be obvious copyvio from promotional style and which I then found via the Wayback machine at [267]. I suspect there is more. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some issues with Lionhead99's inability to understand what is being said. Dougweller has explained on the talk page of Kariong, New South Wales (more than once), that one of the sources (von Seriff, a bus driver) is not reliable but when I tagged one claim with {{failed verification}}, Lionhead99 provided a new source, authored by von Seriff. The content being added is mostly WP:FRINGE anyway. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lionhead has been peddling this fringe theory around various Australian history articles and on each occasion it has been removed, because its fringe theory, its been called a hoax by experts in the field, the sources dont stand up to any scrutiny, as a hoax it may have some minor notoriety making it worth a passing mention in the Kariong article but it should be presented as such. I have also deleted an image of the location where fair use was in appropriately claimed. Gnangarra 11:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved Aussie - the editor's talk page is greatly concerning. How can someone rack up that many explicit warnings and block threats without WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE being called into question? The copyvio is obvious and simply not "a word or two" but whole lines word-for-word. I'd support a topic ban but the randomness of the editing (though with fairly consistent fringe strains) would make that near impossible. After years here he appeals for the attention of a WP "judge" or "manager", suggesting a distict lack of meaningful interaction with other editors outside of the many template warnings he has received and the total 1.3% of edits to talk/user talk reinforces this. Something clearly needs to be done. Stalwart111 14:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have not looked at this yet, but I have to note that the governmental sources are not necessarily free of copyright concerns. As this page notes, "Where OEH is the owner, you may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with web content for educational and non-commercial purposes, on the condition that you include the copyright notice '© State of New South Wales through the Office of Environment and Heritage' or otherwise source the content appropriately." This is not compatible with CC-By-SA. We cannot restrict reuse in this fashion - our content is reusable commercially and even for non-educational purposes." That said, I will look more deeply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• All I can guess is that the user knows about the copyright status of work by the U.S. government and mistakenly thinks that the same is true for other governments, including his own? That doesn't excuse the IDHT etc., but it might explain the underlying motivation. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would think that likely, but I've found multiple instances of copy-pasting from clearly copyrighted sources. :/ I think he may not understand our policies. Since he has been warned multiple times about copy-pasting content in the past and has demonstrably been copy-pasting for years (the oldest example I found was 2011, in the deleted article Astrology and the bible which included content taken verbatim from [this page, at least; the most recent I found was yesterday, with content taken from this pdf), I have indefinitely blocked him, pending an indication that he understands our policies and will comply with them. (I've pointed them out so he has a chance to read and grasp them.) Given other issues raised here, I've also left a word about fringe theories and our general purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good block. @Nyttend - I'm not sure the copyvio is a matter of mistaking differing government copyvio provisions. The editor's claim is that he hasn't copy-pasted at all, not that he has done so but within the rules. Stalwart111 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.