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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” [2] If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself. I think that the editors involved need to make a more determined effort to work for the betterment of the article instead of seemingly trying to "pick" at one another and "goad" one another into an uncivil response. But that is just a personal observation, and I may be misinterpreting their intent. I will attempt to AGF. Willietell (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's only really been 'involved' to the extent that he's provided comment on the behaviour he's observed. It's unclear why you imagine JohnChrysostom to be 'biased', or what specific bias you imagine him to hold. He's not a JW, if that's what you mean, but then a JW wouldn't be unbiased either. He identifies on Wikipedia as a Christian, eliminating any supposed 'atheist' bias; I've seen no indication that he's a former JW, or that he has had any particular involvement with JWs. It seems that your definition of 'unbiased' is 'agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm completely uninvolved (was browsing the AN/I threads for interest). I have no connection to the JW, and have never that I remember edited a JW-related article (if I did, it probably was a bio of a JW who happened to be in my own areas of interest). I propose an interaction ban between the two editors, a warning to both on the subject of neutrality in JW-related articles, a warning to both about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a warning especially to AuthorityTam about bad-faith accusations of bias based on another editor's perceived religion. The warnings should include an explicit mention of sanctions if behavior does not improve. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartial insight. I started official propose as you suggested. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had made my position clear, but it seems Jeffro77 (talk) doesn't quite understand my clearly stated position, thus I will state it briefly again, just for clarification "User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself." Notice that this did not require an opinion about who he chooses to agree with or how much involvement he has had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but simply his participation in discussions involving the three editors in question as well as myself. If I can be of assistance in making my position any clearer in the future, please continue to let me know. Additionally, I don't feel that any harsher sanctions should be applied to AT than to any of the other two editors in question, because there are no innocent victims here. Willietell (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand your position. I just don't agree with you. But it hardly matters because another entirely uninvolved party just responded above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the last ANI, AuthorityTam is 'laying low' rather than acknowledging his part in causing problems and ceasing the behaviour. If, when he returns, he simply ceases the behaviour, it may not be necessary to return here. However, if no action is taken and the behaviour continues, the issue will be raised here again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin cherry stones]. "laying low" = "turning the other cheek"? I'd sort of been assuming that there's no smoke without fire and that an accusation against a JW doesn't need evidence to condemn. However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [3] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI. Is there any editor on ANI who wouldn't have responded in exactly the same way? At this point in terms of disruption it all seems to be coming from Jeffro, and although not an admin or an expert in JWism if this isn't WP:Boomerang, what is? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No. AuthorityTam partially quoted, without regard to context, a conditional statement I made three days later, in response to a suggestion by another editor. No such mention of 'banning' had been made at the time AuthorityTam made the claim. The actual sentence, in response to a suggestion by JohnChrysostom, that AuthorityTam partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." Support of the suggestion was also explicitly marked "Provisional".[4]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Interaction ban propose (with all consequences Jorgath offered) [5]

Support I support this idea, but I think it should not be permanent. I suggest tentatively for 3 weeks. If next conflicts will continue after end, it should be applied again for longer period. But certainly not forever. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - At the last ANI, AuthorityTam claimed that his disingenuous comments about other editors do not constitute 'interaction', and he made the claim that—while making such accusations—he was actually 'avoiding' contact with those same editors. AuthorityTam would therefore need to be told explicitly what any 'interaction ban' would include.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban means you don't talk to the other user, you don't talk about the other user, you don't comment if someone brings up the other user's name, and you stay away from editing the same articles just to be safe. In short, you behave on-wiki as if they and the articles they work on do not exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: Do you think is it appropriate to apply it on BlackCab? I suppose that likely yes, because many comments were towards BlackCab, perhaps even more than on Jeffro77. BlackCab also participated in discussion against AT. Since the start of 'first' ANI, it was 3-person dispute. I didn't participate on those previous disputes. Some editors could still think that 'tag-team' and 'JW watchdogs' and other similar expressions are corresponding to reality at Wikipedia. However, there are no innocent editors on each side. Please comment. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as initial proposer. I didn't name a length above, but considering the apparent hostility I would say 6 weeks would be more appropriate for the initial ban. I also support formal warnings that continued behavior of this sort might also lead to topic bans, but no topic bans yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the topic need a more balanced view, and AuthorityTam is an important contributor with unique knowledges about the topic and the ability to give the topics discussion a balance. This proposal is strongly favouring the most active users, as it blocks out opinions and contributions from AuthorityTam, as I consider less active than some of the other users mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported contains sanctions and notifications of 'both sides'. Thus I don't understand why this could be bad for articles or for other editors. Simply those 2 or 3 persons will neither edit JWarticles, nor talking about other user names etc. (see Baseball Bugs contrib here). I think other editors can substitute them for some time and it cool down emotions amongst editors. I realized similar valuation like observed JohnChrysostom, who wrote here that some action have to be taken at all cost. Otherwise this dispute will come back continuously many times again with no result. In ictu Oculi and Quinn1 observed it similarly. There is very likely WP:Boomerang on AT oposers' side. I am not against AuthorityTam. I simply acknowledge that some revision between involved editors is absolutely needed or comes back here soon. I can imagine that some spontaneous self-censorship/self-control of other JWtopics editors have to be applied, each on himself (=Others have to be silent, no comments on account of those restricted, during interaction ban of those 2 or 3 editors). I hope that other JWtopics editors could cooperate normally or better after end of restrictions and this would help overall ambience amongst editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot speak for BlackCab (who has been the target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour more often than me). But as far as I'm concerned, all that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs; if he is able to modify his behaviour, there should be no problem with him continuing to contribute to JW-related articles. If he is unable to alter his behaviour, he needs to cease interacting with editors he is unable to work with. The fact of the matter is that after disappearing during the last ANI, upon returning AuthorityTam couldn't help himself for even half an hour before continuing to impugn another editor (namely, me) at article Talk. Jorgath's suggestion is ambiguous about who other than AuthorityTam might be included in any sanctions. Of course, I have no problem with not interacting with AuthorityTam if he abides by any imposed interaction ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, when I said "both" in my proposal, I meant you (Jeffro) and AuthorityTam. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any interaction ban imposed on AuthorityTam would need to include BlackCab, who has been the primary target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour.

The terms of any such interaction ban would also need to be made clear, and would ideally not prevent discussion of article content. As I stated at the last ANI: "When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I am going to have to oppose at this time unless someone says something to convince me otherwise, because I don't really see anything particularly egregious in ATam's comment. I see only an editor defending himself against what he feels is a false accusation of being a liar and providing evidence he feels supports this. In a way I can see his point of view, that being, if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place? Later when the ban was proposed, both Blackcab and Jeffro77 supported it, whether conditionally or not, they supported it. I therefore see nothing sinister about ATam's posting those edits as evidence in his defense. That being the case, at this point, exactly what has he done that deserves some form of sanction? I see nothing! Who on this board would not like to provide evidence to the contrary if someone called you a liar? Usually, in such a circumstance, I don't justify such an accusation with a reply, but I am not like most people. Most people will reply, just like ATam did, with what they feel is supporting evidence. I personally think that calling a fellow editor a liar, especially when evidence can be provided to the contrary, borders on incivility, and a particular editor seems to have adopted this as his favorite phrase, using such an accusation against a number of editors. Perhaps, this incivility also needs to be addressed here. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to stir the pot. I very clearly indicated that I would only support a topic ban as a last resort (though it should be noted that the action you are opposing is not a topic ban), and I only made that provisional statement days after AuthorityTam made the dishonest claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell asks, "if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place?" I have already been fairly unambiguous about the result I would prefer.

• April 2: "It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise."
• April 8: "The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content."
• April 30: "It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages."
• May 1: "I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs"
• May 2: "The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs."
• May 6: "All that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs."

I think it would be expecting a bit much for an apology from AuthorityTam, but what I have repeatedly and unambiguously requested is that he cease his improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should be for all 3 - an "interaction ban" would have to cover BlackCab as well as Jeffro77 and Authority Tam. Also difficult to see how an "interaction ban" can work when the only topic areas 2 of the 3 editors edit are in JW-space anyway. How can the three editors continue editing the same controversial article together and not "interact"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated earlier, and as suggested by In ictu oculi above, it's unclear how an interaction ban would work while still working on articles related to the JW WikiProject. Despite claims by a couple of editors at the last ANI that AuthorityTam often has to 'defend' himself in a '2 against 1' situation, there are currently 2 regular non-JW editors and 5 regular pro-JW editors (AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Faktnevi and Willietell, some of whom explicitly identify as JWs) involved with the JW project. Without regular editors representing a non-JW view, articles would rapidly be affected by bias. If the terms of any interaction ban were to relate to editors not referring to other editors but not preclude content-related discussion (which I have suggested from the outset), I would Support. However, if a proposed interaction ban implicitly amounts to a topic ban for the only regular non-JW editors, then I would Oppose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Jeffro77 makes several good points here. I have a feeling that, much as most of us may not like this, that maybe WP:ARBCOM should be consulted. It seems to me that discretionary sanctions on any disruptive edits by any individual is probably the best way to go here, and ArbCom is really the only place that such sanctions can be enacted. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I agree. I'd have preferred it if this could be resolved without going that far, mostly so that we could go to them if the problem continued. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my initial proposal of this same measure in the previous AN/I, for a limited time (no more than thirty days). If the antagonism continues, or if the terms of the interaction ban are repeatedly broken, I believe a thirty-day topic ban or short (fourteen days) outright block is in order, followed by standard escalating sanctions. Note that my support changes to oppose pursuant to Jeffro77's caveat speaking of a practical topic ban for non-Bible Student editors of JW articles. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I am highly disagree with the classifications used by Jeffro. I am a regular contributor, who have started several hundred articles within several topics, among them politicians and soccer players, but also philosphy and religion, and made significant contributions to several FA in Norwegian within different fields. His definition of non-JW-editors is editors supporting heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs, rather than searching for neutral sources (several secular sources are warning about relying on books written by defectors, newer sources more often than older sources). Pro-JWs are those challenging his defector-based "facts", and challenging the systematic bias found in some of the JW-related articles. As a proposed pro-JW contributor, I shouldn't have supposed to remove a watchtower source, as I recently did, and not been disagreeing or criticising to proposals or behavior of other members of Jeffro's pro-JW-list. It is also other persons on his list who could be caracterized as regular users, users more accurate to scientifics methods and source critics than Jeffro, for not mentioning BlackCab, who have openly confirmed to be an ex-JW, and to have a need to "expose" JW. I'm sure nothing disturbing and irrevertable would happen to the topic if Jeffro and BlackCab gets a time limited topic ban, together with AutTam, if that is his worries. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that you only edit JW articles. Nor did I provide any "definition of non-JW-editors", other than they would be editors who are not members of Jehovah's Witnesses. I absolutely did not suggest that "non-JW-editors" would or should make "heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs". Nor have I added such sources to articles, because I don't possess any of those works (I have sometimes restored statements that might be classified that way by JW editors; most of my changes to articles relate to copyediting of existing material). Grrahnbahr, and anyone else, is welcome to indicate what "defector-based "facts"" I have supposedly added to articles.

Being a pro-JW editor doesn't automatically mean that such an editor is not working in good faith, nor does it mean anything so absolute as never "supposed to remove a watchtower source". And nor does it mean that all pro-JW editors always agree on everything.

BlackCab was implicitly included among the "2 regular non-JW editors", and his position as a former JW is not in dispute. In the context of this discussion, I'm not aware of any recent regular non-JW editors other than BlackCab and myself who might otherwise have been implied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Several of the users on your list has chosen not to self identify their religious status (or political status), myself included. If not clearly identifying what you mean by pro-jw, you can't expect any support to a suggestion to protect yourself and BlackCab from a topic ban, as the classifications of non-jw-editors and jw-editors are nothing but a personal opinion (if pro-jw is indicating a member of the JWs, then BlackCab is more likely to be included within your definitions than any other of the users on your list (with one or two exeptions), as he has confirmed not officially to have left the building). Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with aim to divide "editors of JWtopics" and achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

• Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be fabricatelly forced if there is no such open permit for that. Otherwise they express bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classificiation is one of best ways to achieve better ambience.

• Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

• --FaktneviM (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"slang idioms"?? None of the terms were 'developed' by me, and all have a fairly fundamental meaning based on the simple meaning of the words. The notable exception is that the term "apostate" is very much a term frequently used by JWs, and that term is given special meaning by JWs.

In a perfect world, it might be nice to just classify everyone only as "Wikipedia editors". The fact of the matter though is that editors' biases (particularly the core of this ANI: that AuthorityTam behaves a certain way toward editors he believes to be former JWs that is different to the way he behaves toward other editors) necessitates that the matter be raised.

Ambiguous circumlocutory aside, it would be quite simple (though there is no obligation) for the editors named or any other editor to state directly whether they do or do not identify as members of the group or whether they do or do not adhere to the beliefs of the group. As I have stated previously, "Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with aim to divide "editors of JWtopics" and achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be fabricatelly forced if there is no such open permit for that. Otherwise they express bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classificiation is one of best ways to achieve better ambience.

Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

this is possible solution to avoid existence of prejudice and bias based on such prejudices. --FaktneviM (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey guys, we're going in circles again!!
• Jeffro77 lied about me. I clearly stated many times that I am not member of Wikiproject JW, nor would be again. I was formerly member of the project, including completely Wikipedia (see my user page). Last year I was JWtopics completely indifferent! I started to edit there about 14 days ago when I realized what happened during time I was silent. I clearly stated that I am impartial in the matter. Since last year I gained deeper insight in many matters. Though I can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor. From the start I am trying to serve as mediator, because I don't think that unbiased means always JW-viewpoint even though sometimes it is the case. JW editors could trust me and non-JW editors could at least admit that I was not involved with disputes in which I try to mediate. Hence, in fact I am impartial.
• As I read from Jeffro77' and In ictu oculi' latest comments, there is a consensus that interaction ban should include BlackCab as well. I asked Baseball Bugs' on his viewpoint in this matter. (because he is absolutely impartial and I want not taking any sides).
• I also said that nobody here is completely innocent. Everyone should learn what WP:Civil and WP:AGF really! means. Bad faith accusations are still frequent as I read terrible discussion in JW article talk page yesterday (Grrahnbahr and Jeffro). I suggest that all current members should not to have a right to poll here (oppose/support etc.), because is evident that Jeffro taking sides and JW editors taking the other sides. (not surprising, it is very common as I am knowledgeable well of the ambience amongst JWtopics editors). So no result can be achieved in any case.

--FaktneviM (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you're "a member of Wikiproject JW" ('membership' of any WikiProject is generally informal anyway); I said you've been a recent regular editor of JW-related articles. If you are not a JW, I might have mixed you up with Fazilfazil, and if that's the case, I apologise.

I don't recall a "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr, and I've actually found him to be one of the more reasonable JW editors to work with. This doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but I'm not aware of any issues about conduct between Grrahnbahr and me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I see that FaktneviM is the editor from last year who avoided discussion of his conduct at ANI by claiming his 'right to vanish' after he was reported by User:Danjel. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass (neither of the incidents were raised by me).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, you've called me a "fanatic non-believer"[6], and said I'm "not so clever, as [you and another JW editor]", but "not fully stupid as well"[7]. You have also suggested in the past that you are a JW.[8][9][10] If you're not a JW, just what did you mean by linking the JW's translation of 2 Cor 6:14-18 and then saying that scripture meant "It does mean very close friendship [with non-JW editors such as myself] or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that"?[11]

You've previously claimed that my User page (which is and was composed almost entirely of User Boxes) is "preaching" and "propagandistic and hatred"[12] and "hatred and pride ... propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance"[13] (my user page at the time is here[14]).

You've also previously stated (incorrectly) that AuthorityTam has lied about you.[15]

You seem to have suggested here[16] that you consider the term "JW editor" to be a "slang idiom"; in case there is any confusion, the term "JW editor" is intended to mean a Wikipedia editor who is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to claim that you're an 'impartial mediator'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that AuthorityTam is aware of the kind of inappropriate remarks he makes, because when he thought he'd offended a JW editor (specifically, FaktneviM) for a very minor misunderstanding (which actually was not even AuthorityTam's fault), he provided an elaborate apology, stating "I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing" (formatting from original).[17] If AuthorityTam applied this kind of contriteness when offending editors he considers to be former JWs, we would not be at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about personal attack and POV civil pushing from Jeffro. He responded non-logically and he assumed bad faith. He didn't consider my last edit at all. It is said that I remember it is very common. ((If someone other read my contributions here on this ANI and whatever else from past few months, could see what I have in mind. I just want to help here. I am ready to go away from Wikipedia again after solving this ANI. In some JW talk discussions I simply suggested everything what I observed after reading many last year edits when I was not involved. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"POV civil pushing"?? You claimed that I lied about you. I didn't. I did not say you were a member of the JW WikiProject.

When you said that you "can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor", then you either ceased being a member since last year, or you lied when you said you were a member, or you lied when you said you're not. In any case, I did not lie about you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could indicate what you consider to be the "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This may be a side point, and a little off topic. But I think of all the editors mentioned, I am the only one who I personally have noticed publicly stating they they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have a problem being referred to as a JW editor, but I am not everyone and others might. Willietell (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member. I have already provided links where FaktneviM said he was a member. I was going from memory for the other 2, and if I confused them with other editors, I apologise. In any case, they hold pro-JW positions in discussions, which was the main point of the context of my comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to membership] Well. There is no strict definition of being "member of Jehovah's Witnesses". Someone could consider to be a member when is closely involved with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when has Bible study with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Unbabtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Babtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when simply attenting their meetings without any other close affiliation. Because definition of "member" is not objective criterium, but subjectively based (aka feelings), I don't prefer to call myself "proJW editor" nor "JW editor", because both is prejudicaly defined. It depends only on encyclopaedic content and such division is not useful, becuase it is prejudice (by wrongly! so called "nonJW editors") ((=in fact "apostates" ... what is also prejudice) to expect that "members of whatever!" can't have balanced objective view in some matter. Moreover, it is personal privacy of each one and Wikipedia is not chat with person which do not exist. I can presume that Jeffro77 doesn't exist, because I never saw him. Such person is perhaps only imaginary and my messages are not read and I waste my time in Wikipedia what is also only imaganary. Due these circumstances I prefer to be "JW-sympatehetic+knowledgable" or even "JW-knowledgable" only. I didn't say that I am not Jehovah's witness. I only stated that I am not "JW editor" nor "member of WikiP JW". I said that I am impartial in case of this ANI, because I was inactive uninvolved editor in times when "AT vs BC,JF issue" happened.
• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to terrible discussion]. I had in mind discussion of Jeffro77 and Grrahnbahr, where Grrahnbahr accused Jeffro to being in a "Trinity" with BlackCab and John Chrysostom. I mentioned this, because it is a evidence of continuing tension amongst JW Project members. Due of that it seems logical to enforce my suggestion in 4th paragraph of first contrib in ===Comments=== starting with words "I also said that nobody" (4th paragraph). It is worth to mention that I agreed with observation of John Chrysostom, as well as all really impartial editors here. I think that this is evidence I am trying to be really impartial as well and no taking any sides in this ANI. See "This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported...." for that contrib where I agree with John Chrysostom's observation. I also drew JCH minds from User_talk:JohnChrysostom#AuthorityTam and several other places, where John Chrysostom noted his position and thoughts on JW project.
• Summary again: Personally, I don't see any utility of Jeffro77' trying to discredit me on the basis of very old edits. His comments adds nothing to achieving solution (aka finally) and could be seen as a way to avoid his share on restrictions as well and personally intended comments like disruptive here. I still trying to assume AGF from all, but it is evident, as I said, in first contrib in ===Comments=== that members of wikiproject JW taking sides.
• --FaktneviM (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I lied. I didn't. Semantics aside, your edits indicate that you're a 'proJW' editor whether or not you're a member of the religion (and you have indicated in the past that you are in the edits already indicated). I have also already indicated the manner in which such membership is relevant here, and that it does not automatically mean that an editor cannot be objective. Additionally, "nonJW" is not the same thing as "apostate" (neither the normal definition of the word nor the more narrow sense attributed by JWs). And I can assure you that I am not imaginary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The trinity-comment was ment partly as an practical joke (like mentioning USAs terrible record when it comes to human rights, followed by Jeffros hillarious comment), as JW are anti-trinitarists, but also with a kick to his side, as I think it is common interests between the three users, even though I won't suggest an openly cooperation. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The intention of Grrahnbarh's 'Trinity' comment was ambiguous, and seemed to mildly imply an accusation of collusion, but I certainly wouldn't have called it a "terrible discussion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

More disruption involving MMA

User:Agent00f

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

---

Firstly Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability having derailed the last attempt to reach a proposal for an RfC by filibustering in the process driving off one editor he is now using it as his own persoal soap box and forum. See this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For some background, this is a topic which has seen failure after failure in all previous attempts to be resolved for many months. The blindingly obvious common denominator in every single case are 3 editors: Mtking, TreyGeek, and Hasteur. Together they collude and dominate the discussion to the exclusion of actual contributors/users of the pages in question, then intimidate anyone who dares oppose or even question their methodology. This bred the animosity and untenable situation we find ourselves today: even though there are tens of thousands of users, hundreds of page contributors (dozens of which are were active in the discussion before), and many if not most have left in sheer disgust. None outside of their in-group have any trust or faith in them, and their string of failures are a stain on wikipedia's image. Simply observe Mtking's behavior below toward yet another user they've managed to provoke.

As to the issue at hand, I am not at all blocking their effort to repeat history, but instead only wish to introduce an alternative approach which is open to other participants. They can certainly choose not to participate, and we can move this new effort to another page if need be (several options exist). They of course see this as a threat to their dominion and engage in an active campaign to stop anyone who challenge their monopoly on power. If I just move the call for participation elsewhere, they'll simply retaliate elsewhere, so there's no safe harbor where another approach can at least be attempted. I strongly believe an effort which is not their direct control has at least a moderate chance of success, and the powers at be should consider all the other page contributors' wishes to resolve the matter when all previous attempt with our common denominators have failed miserably. Agent00f (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I request that you strike your assertion regarding the collusion and assertion regarding the common denominator. That is an assumption of bad faith on the behalf of editors in good standing with wikipedia whom have been attempting to apply the policy and standards as they exisist today. Long blocks of soapboxing and proposals which are directly contrary to the established policies are not collaberative, but disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to strike assertions that are objectively true and supported by empirical evidence. As just one example, in the last failed AN[I] attempt against me, after a round of intimidation Hasteur contacted the select group to provide (obviously biased) supporting statements. Not a single other participant on the talk page was contacted despite his claim of "neutrality". This is recorded in wiki for posterity. Singling out those who are not as well coordinated as them seems to be their modus operandi, as is clearly evident right here.

Also note that Hasteur continues to slam others for "assuming bad faith", when no assumption is necessary given copious empirical evidence. As further evidence of the tight knit nature of this clique, observe that TreyGeek immediately re-reverted when I tried to put back the comments that Mtking blatantly erased from the talk page. This is a consistent and repeated rule rather than the exception. Hasteur doesn't deny that my asserts are true, only feigning righteous indignation and wishing to strike them from the record regardless (and this is far from the first time). Again consistent with the assertion that they expect a monopoly on power. Agent00f (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now gone over the WP:3RR line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, I have filed a report at WP:3RR/N.Mtking ^(edits) 07:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. This action in itself is forum-shopping FORUMSHOP, while a link was provide, they're clearly the same issue and no link was provide back here even though it was created later. Notable given edit warring is more straightforward offense (quick block action).

As more evidence of the persistent lack of ethics noted on this page, Mtking's now trying to cover his/her deletion tactics by posting a specious AN, then offering to withdraw it only if they agree to the wholesale deletion.

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

User:Mtking and User:Hasteur

Many obvious violations by Mtking:

• The "edit war" AN just above was a consequence of blatant whole revertion/deletion (including unrelated comments) in violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. By sharing 3 reverts between 2 editors who work closely together (simply look at history for evidence), they can successfully flaunted 3RR, leaving the status of any new material in doubt and successful blocking contributions of any one person they choose. General intimidation.

• The collusion between Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion constitutes blatant BITE on all their parts. Using intimidation strategies in turn against people less versed in the long list of rules. This has apparently gone on for months.

• Just one specific case out of many by Hasteur is these "final warning" threats. Clear case of WP:Harassment. When they're brought to attention of broader community, he/she further ratchets up the threat level to force others to immediately apologize "or else". This is recorded at the MMA talk page. This resulted in WP:CANVASING, a very embarrassing ANI on their part, but this obviously continues unabated.

• Flooding of my user talk page by the lot above + Newmanoconnor (who just joined their gang a week ago), another case of #User_space_harassment. They never reply with any specifics when asked for evidence of violation. Seems the strategy is to flood for stuff they can't get away with at AN, and forums shop on anything borderline.

• Blatant ADMINSHOP given that multiple admins have already been involved in this general situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant WP:CANVASSING by User:Hasteur) and the common denominator for months in all these problems remains Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek.

• This whole AN is done in bad faith, no assumption necessary. The talk page in question has long devolved into the state it's in, and my edit was only to get normative processes back into order by analyzing previous failures and trying to avoid them in the future. Even the former admin was soapboxing. Nothing but desperate last ditch attempt at ADMINSHOP.
• One of the comments on the page above was "closed" completely at odds with closure rules, pretending to be the admin of the place despite having no authoritative power.

• In another blatant violation of ADMIN SHOPPING elsewhere, all 3 have conducted multiple aggressive campaigns of AfD's on entire sets of MMA pages even during collaboration with page's contributors, often voting in concord between themselves. Simply look at their histories, it's nothing but trying to trash MMA related pages and hunt down MMA contributors. They're not always successful, but doesn't stop the "try try again" approach. Even minor successes can break a set of page's cohesion, which is why they keep trying instead of waiting for any kind of resolution. This kind of SHOPPING is clearly an asymmetric "terrorism" against a whole wiki community since it costs them nothing while hugely disrupting others.

Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f named me in this subsection and did not notify me. Again, we have the same demonstration of lack of good faith. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur is already subscribed to this, aka already knows this AN exists. Note timestamp on his/her direct reply to me above. BTW, I'm also not going to spam TreyGeek's talk since he also knows this exist. Personally I think spamming someone's page with AN notices when they already know is close to User space harassment. Agent00f (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This list has sat here uncontested for many days. It can only be concluded that any admins who've seen it don't disagree with its claims, yet choose to do nothing about MtKing and Hasteur's behavior regardless. I was blocked by one admin for apparently posting too many claims (ie TLDR: ban, so it's not surprising he/she's yet to reply to any request to explain this odd decision), but no one's addressed these violations above. It's notable that even while this AN section is ongoing, the harassment (Newmanoconnor specifically) on my talk page continues. Agent00f (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of comments does not mean your accusations are uncontested or that anyone agrees with them. You have provided no evidence to back your accusations against any of these editors and your attempt on this page to manufacture consensus from a lack of comments makes it look like you, not they, are the problem. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is linked above where convenient, often by Mtking himself. Some are simply self-explanatory like the aggregate history of two users. The talk page where some of it resides is a mess, but note that none of the many users from there familiar with the intimate details deny any of this occurred. In every case below where someone asked for specifics, I've provided it to their satisfaction. Please be specific about your own personal curiosities.

As for consensus, I've simply listed the facts of the case, and it's up to others (not me) to use their own reasoning facilities. Note that Treygeek below has vetted the list for factual accuracy and it's been properly amended. Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So far you have a list, but no differences that back it up. You opinion is not evidence. Edward321 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe what constitutes evidence for you? Or opinion for that matter? For example, is Mtking's own link to the edit that he wholesale deleted evidence or opinion? Agent00f (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Portillo

Secondly Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to attack other editors, see this, this and this. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply more WP:Harassment by MtKing. Targets pages someone's involved with for deletion (since no sanctions for excessive AfDs, even failed ones), and when they lash back, tries to drive them out. Just look at Mtking's history, it's purely destructive, and it's daily routine. Agent00f (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors has been incredibly disruptive and confusing. Interesting how UFC articles were doing perfectly fine for years, enjoyed by thousands of visitors. Until someone suddenly noticed that UFC events are against Wikipedia policy. Took a while to figure that out. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is not now, nor has ever been, a defense to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines consisting of "It's been up for years and no one noticed before now that they were in violation." Quite aside from that standards change, and that handwaving was done in the cowboy days that don't pass muster now, there is no statute of limitations here.

  That being said, those links were unacceptable personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, pure and simple, and it is curious that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have might not understand that. Strange though it might appear to some that an editor could think so without some unwholesome bias, it is quite possible to believe that a particular type of article fails to pass notability muster (and, indeed, continue to hold it) without having a "personal agenda" or being on a "witch hunt." Ravenswing 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the perfectly coherent defense is the 5th and last pillar of wiki: it is not a bureaucracy. This means that while following rules are convenient for daily operations, rules are not the defining characteristic. The MMA event articles are not some flash by night operation. They've used and appreciated by countless users. They also exist as a coherent and cohesive where it's worth as a whole is significantly diminished with deletion of each election. Without a consistent solution in hand, it's simply reckless (not bold) to allow individual hit-and-run AfDs to ruin a useful resource. Help the topic's long term contributors make it right, instead of capitulating to destructive editor with no stake in the outcome. I hope that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have could understand this. Agent00f (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that, but a consistent solution is at hand: the omnibus yearly articles. (It's not that employing them is an "inconsistent" solution, of course; it's that you don't like them.) That being said, I note that you are perfectly willing to cite rules and policies when they suit your purpose to do so, and this strikes me as another area where you argue policy when you believe it favors your stance, and that policy should be ignored when you believe it doesn't. Moreover, what I note you do not attempt to rebut are your unacceptable personal attacks ... unless you believe that falls under IAR as well.

  That being said, there's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based boards which applies: "It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that I don't agree with your position." Ravenswing 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Their design is incoherent, user unfriendly, and aesthetically terrible. I've gone over the details at length on the omnibus, but I see that you've managed to understand the specifics even without knowing anything about the subject. More importantly, because of this, nobody in the actual audience for the rules and pages likes them in any way. You can of course "disagree", but unfortunately factual reality isn't very considerate about this type of opinion. Agent00f (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, you seem to be accusing me of hypocrisy. Please cite some evidence of this, or at least let me now if asking for citation is against wiki policy since these types of requests never seem to get fulfilled. If it's simply your "opinion", not meant to reflect factual reality, please note that in the statement to avoid confusion, thanks. Also, the only reason the sections above were written is because it's unfortunate reality that that idiotic AN's often get results. Not my rule, but we're in a place where it happens nonetheless. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer for relief

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

---

As an editor who has been around and around the bush with the various SPAs that show up, disrupt all forward momentum on developing a workable solution to the MMA article space and then vanish in the night to leave the crew of regulars to do their best to demonstrate good faith by addressing the points raised by the SPAs, I with to enter a plea for relief. I request an uninvolved administrator (or multiple administrators) to start calling out (and sanctioning) the violations of community policy on all participants in the debate (yes, I open myself up to the calling out). The only way forward is to demonstrate to the externally canvassed (as has been demonstrated multiple times) editors that violations of community policy and standards will no longer be tolerated in the space. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The regulars who don't support this small clique's monopoly over the agenda have long left in disgust. Admin involvement to sanction any remaining dissent from their agenda will only further antagonize a poisonous situation. In the broader picture, it's the MMA page contributors who have to live with the consequences of the group's polarizing choices. They have little interest in the actual subject as evidenced by their terrible design for "omnibus pages" (which they stealth-implemented to the protestations of everyone else), and this means the rest of us will be saddled with the a burden they have no real stake in. This is not only demotivating to the masses but breeds contempt and grounds for future conflict, which is exactly we are trying to avoid. My alternative proposal is simply that those from the sporting community get a chance to create a plan consistent with both wiki rules and also the stakeholders in this case. We can do this among ourselves without issue if only those who consider themselves an executive elite stop actively sabotaging any efforts they can't directly control and manipulate. For a renewed effort to settle this matter, I've spend considerable time developing a process which would prevent take-overs by single parties in decision-making in the hopes that everyone gets a voice. This is a obviously a threat to them, and why they're trying to block me in a panic.

As to the technical specifics of the matter, most of us want brightline tests for MMA notability, and some level of protection for coherent sets of well formatted/presented and cleanly linked event pages as long as they can fit a minimal template standard. The first issue is obvious. A brightline test would provide clear precedence of what's acceptable. Recall this is the same group that's been actively AfD'ing subject pages at random, even during the "collaborative" process demonstrating bad faith, to gain leverage. A consistent test would sap the power of this tool in the future, so it's against their interests and not an option they'd consider at all. On the second issue, the MMA wiki community has for years used a consistent and well-established format to chain together cohesive sets of events whose value in sum are greater than their parts. Breaking these chains inflict damage well beyond the individual entries and thus why they're the choice of target for this AfD group to gain leverage. We're complete open to more stringent requirements (ie template) to establish brightline tests, but not unexpectedly this minority also won't table this.

What's been even more frustrating is that these features were presented as appendages to the clique's existing plan (in something of 80-20 split in their favor), and they willfull ignored any mention it. Such is the nature of their attitude of complete domination. Rather than let anyone else present their ideas, this small group has intentionally driven off collaborators. No matter how you look at it, the common denominator of the string of previous failures is still them. Agent00f (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, can you link the specific edit where you made a proposal for possible guidelines on the notability of MMA events? I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I've seen walls of text, much like this one, that don't seem to go anywhere, in my opinion. It is difficult to comment or discuss a proposal that I haven't seen clearly. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply search for "I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth" on the omnibus page. Note that it's bulleted to be easy to see and read. It was of course ignored by the clique.

More importantly, I believe the approach that you and Mtking took when writing your proposal is already poisoned. The broader community was never consulted, so they have zero incentive to buy in except to capitulate to the constant intimidation and harassment. This is why I proposed a new start with the MMA base onboard from the start. The can choose your plan, or they can choose something else, but they're not forced either way, esp by admin pressure. If it needs to be revised to meet wiki boundaries, so be it, that's their responsibility. It's not your right to take that away from everyone else.

I've started writing this when Mtking immediately saw it as a threat and started this AN. My first post in a line to be posted over time was wholesale deleted. You know what got deleted given you were part of the 3RR. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would provide an actual link so we could be sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am going to assume you are referring to this edit. If this assumption is correct, the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't understand it. I cannot tell what you want WP:MMAEVENT to read or how it is related to existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if at all. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it? Users want something with a given structure. The rules should be written to accommodate this, not the other way around. Maybe it's due to your background, but these are not physically or mathematically defined impermeable constructs to assemble towards an end. They're guidelines which can be simply created out of thin air as long as they're reasonably consistent to the general spirit of wiki. If you don't feel MMAEVENT can be stretched to accomodate, then it doesn't even need to enter into this. Agent00f (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seem like blatant ADMIN SHOPPING, esp when factoring in "multiple administrators". Multiple admins have already been involved in this situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant CANVASING by Hasteur) and common denominator in all these problems remains the 3 named above. Also, calling out "SPA's" with every breath, who are often the only people left to oppose them, is directly in violation of BITING. Rotating between them to throw the rulebook at newbies to intimidate them also seems like BITEing. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE says that if you see a SPA acting like a SPA you should call them a SPA. Tagging them as SPAs only allows other editors who aren't as quick on the uptake to see if the actions do warrant further response. Please strike your assertions of canvassing. No action was taken during the last ANI where you believe I canvassed therefore you should WP:DROP the claim. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:BITEing with rulebook. Below are the CANVASING links. These are the only people to comment against me on the ANI directly after. These are the named people (Newmanoconnor is newest member and thus not part of the "common denominator", but he's already been WP:Harrassing me in turn with Hasteur right I joined), plus the admin who strongly endorses MtKing + TreyGeek plan (his own words). They are a solid votingblock. The ANI didn't go anywhere, esp after posting these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mtking#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newmanoconnor#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#FYI:_Agent00f

I have no intention of retracting a 100% factual statement. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "SPA"s, one quick look through all these user's histories clearly indicate that all 3 of them basically try to delete or otherwise disrupt MMA articles for a living. Includes many trips to AN's and votingblock at AfD's. Fortunately there's no wiki rule WP:HYPOCRISY or we wouldn't all be entertained by this ridiculous forum shopping right now. Agent00f (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you to strike the above mentioned assertion. I am not a Single Purpose account. I do not edit exclusively MMA based topics. My edit history very clearly shows a focus on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) based articles, but no singular purpose in any editing. You on the other hand have exclusively edited the talk page for WP:MMANOT, your talk page, and this noticeboard. Your actions are a textbook definition of a single purpose account. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of the last 500 edits, the vast majority involves destructive tendencies against MMA material/users. Also, you don't "edit exclusively MMA based topics" since you don't edit anything in them at all. Agent00f (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f - statements that people are trying to delete articles "for a living" (implying paid editing) or calling edits "terrorism" are very serious personal attacks and if continued would warrant admin action under WP:NPA. They do not help to reach resolutions of the dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"for a living" is a figure of speech. If you look through history, the vast majority of their actions are destruction against MMA material. Asymmetric "terrorism" is much more literal. The idea of terrorism is low-cost strikes (which AfD's are, they cost nothing) against higher value targets (which articles in a coherent set are, take out one and the sum suffers). It is also a tool of threat/fear. Note that these AfD's are being fired even during the "consensus" process, implying that they will stop so long as we agree to their plan. This is not unlike bringing guns to arms reduction talks and randomly shooting at people until the other side capitulates. It doesn't always have to hit, but occasionally hitting helps. We literally have no recourse against this other than capitulating. The clique has no material to AfD, so it is by definition asymmetric. These are direct factual statements and abstract reasoning and thus need no retraction. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Facts of the case

In good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved. So instead of working further on rules for proposals and proposals, I'll write some background to the case, valuable to any decision. Good decisions are based on factual knowledge.

These are mostly for any intervening admin (which I think should intervene). They are empirical observations, assuming good faith in all cases (and no value judgments to minimize bias). They are my direct experience after 1 week (and reading the history):

1. The current MMA omnibus "design" is the product of Mtking and Treygeek. An admin verified this. Mtking knows nothing about the subject, and Treygeek claims to but he's never really demonstrated it anywhere other than improving an event page with some generic prose. He also claimed this took him a significant investment over a whole week, so I guess he works slow.

2. The design they've come up with is both visual atrocious (mismatched sidebars, etc) and obscenely long (already hard to navigate even though only 1/2 complete). Not to mention completely irrational for a non-seasonal sport (which is not sorted by calendar year), and potentially inconsistent in presentation between different organization. This can only be because someone's incompetent or willfully incompetent. We are told to assume good faith, so logically that leaves the former, and it would make sense given 1. Regardless, this doesn't bode well for MMA on wiki in the long term. Because this was already stealth-implemented for one sporting org (the biggest), it's now inconsistent with everything else. This means the work falls on "the regulars" to do the rest of work implementing something they strongly dislike (a fact noted again and again). Rule-enforcing bad design on a volunteer community drives away both contributors and readers, ruins morale, and lowers the quality of everything. This is simply a fact of human nature.

3. Furthermore, despite the process going on for months, it's still incomplete and not ready for RfC. This work is something a competent person can figure out in a weekend, maybe two if they didn't have much wiki domain knowledge. Their excuse is that MMA fans have been obstructing them, but that makes no sense since work done in your own time can be completed regardless of what others do. Their plan eventually came to incorporate some suggested improvements from others, but still none of those contributors are supporting it now.

4. The editing histories of these two + Hasteur (which constitutes their votingblock on anything mma related) shows that they're all ardent deletionists. The histories for Mtking and Hasteur for many months is almost exclusively hunting down mma pages to AfD, plus the ensuing drama. This doesn't suggest they enjoy the sport to say the least. On the other, the Agent00f is clearly thus far mostly an SPA except some kinect material previously. The follow is not citable given privacy concerns so it's "trust me", but it's factually basic: I'm a sometimes MMA fan, and joined the fray because I saw some weirdness in the pages, and found what was going on. It seemed fundamentally unethical at the time so I wrote my two cents, but got trolled in by the clear BS and "warnings" I got in reply. I also know I'm somewhat motivated by anger that gradually built over the week over this as these facts surfaced. Now I would feel I would betray my own sense of ethics if I let this lie. This is simply what happened based on my own recollection of feelings.

5. Let's be honest, we all know that Wiki's rules can be game-theoried by a clique over less organized individuals. From votingblocks to avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, or round-robin around 3RR (noted in section above), there are many moral hazards here that can encourage a small cohesive group to work together against singular targets. Their histories suggest they stick together on the topic, and never go against anyone in the group. I suppose assuming good faith that can be attributed to sheer coincidence. However game theory is math, and not an assumption.

6. One of Hasteur and Mtking's most notable attributes is unsubstantial replies. If you look at their histories, they rarely post more than a couple lines, often littered with WP: tags instead of actual english. I've found better contributors think moderately deep thoughts, that's just a fact. This is strange given that one of their favorite excuses for deletionism is unsubstantial content, or no prose. This is at least hypocritical as a matter of pure logic. Note this does not apply to Treygeek.

7. Speaking of excuses for AfD, another is lack of sources. But that's also ironic because these two often make frivolous accusations which they don't substantiate, which leads to:

8. Another attributes of all 3 is selective replies. There's apparently no Wiki rule for ignoring people, so they usually just ignore any comment or reply where there's no trite WP tag to counterpoint. This tends to frustrate those who are the exact opposite in substantive replies, so when those call them out, they flaunt WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. This is very evident in the whole MMA omnibus thread and it's clearly gaming the system as matter of game theory.

9. To be fair, one of Agent00f's attributes is being too verbose, and centering everything on reasoning/logic instead of human feelings. Based on personal observation, it's a character flaw.

10. Mtking and Hasteur often accuse others first of things they're guilty themselves for. This can be seen by the harassment on my talk page and the AN itself. In the abstract this is a psychological strategy but let's assume good faith so they just do it by accident. The effect it has is still real, though, like this AN. Point 8 above is a good example, too. They're simply very proactive about striking out first at everyone else as an empirical observation.

Agent00f (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact - most of the above "facts" are purely opinion. But hey, why cloud the issue with actual facts supported by evidence? Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not they clearly are not. An "observation" is just that: something you see clearly, like a bottle on table. A bottle on a table is not a matter of opinion. If you need something cited, please point to it specifically and I will oblige. But as a matter of basic fairness you also must oblige to acknowledge in reply that it's observable fact. I didn't cite everything as a time consideration, because the MMA talk page is a mess of a revision history. Please do not think I don't have a very technical background where discerning the difference is critical. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet clearly, they are just your opinion about the matter. BTW - I totally love how you denigrate editors by labeling them. Hmm, how about calling you and those who support you rapid MMA fanboys? So we can have the AFD deletionists vs the fanboys. Hmm, suddenly labels aren't that attractive, are they? Ah, but you'll say, they are AFD deletionists! It's a fact (in my opinion...)! Ah, but others can point out, you are just an MMA fanboy! It's a fact (in their opinion)! And all of the vitriol, hostility and gamemanship you show on the MMA talk page does nothing to help the matter. Except, of course, chase several admins away that were trying to help. What's odd is you've not made a single edit to an MMA article. You do realize that the ultimate way to pull something out of the omnibus is to put the details that would show to anyone that it deserves it's own article. Good grief - UFC 145 probably could be split off without too much work, but that isn't being done. Think about it ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not bother if someone calls another a rabid MMA fanboy if they provide a proper definition, just like a bottle on a table is predicated on a definition of "on". Both are observable. Please provide a definition for you statement I'll be happy to accept the label since it changes nothing but the letters. Observable facts are largely linguistically context-free.
2. Also, the admin left of his own free volition. This is a fact as evidenced by his own statement.
3. Since you seem to expect substance from me, it's only fair you provide similar substance in reply. Please substantiate your claims clear as I've done mine.
4. Later I'm working on a set of interpretations based on external reasoning (ie knowledge from outside instead of simple observations) from these facts. This should make the difference abundantly clear. Note in the vernacular, "opinions" is not well defined, so please be much more specific so that we're on the same page.
5. Finally, a slight correction: these are not just facts, but also math as explained within the writing. For example, hypocrisy as formally defined is axiomatic, and easy to deduct. If you have disputes with any of the math, please point out which and we can either go through a thought experiment or the formally deduction. Agent00f (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For #1, can you link to an edit where I claimed to spend a week "full-time" working on UFC 140? If I did make such a claim it was in error, however, I doubt I said that. I spent a week researching the event so that I could write the prose and have it sourced as well as I could. If that is bad, I apologize, I was doing the best I could with the time I had available to me. I would love to see you bring an MMA event article up to the same standards or to a higher standard.

• I believe you claimed that you did this during an no-work week, and you wouldn't be able to resume this kind of commitment afterward, which would imply it was a sizable investment. I commend your commitment. Since we seem to more or less agree on the basics, I'll just reword it. If you wish to specify X hours out of 40 let me know, but I don't think that's necessary.

For #2, the original version of the article lacked the sidebars and raw event results. These other features were added afterwards in order to attempt to work with others interested in the MMA article space. For you to blame the current format of the article exclusively on me and/or Mtking is misplaced blame.

• This plan was specified by Dennis the admin as the result of you and Mtking's work. However, given that none of the those others you speak of want anything to do with it anymore, I think calling it you and Mtking's plan is fairly accurate. I will however amend 3 because not all elements of the design are yours.

For #3... you may not have intended it to be. However, it appears to be a personal attack against any and everyone who has participated in the discussions at WT:MMANOT because you are claiming we are incompetent since the discussion has lasted as long as it has.... thanks.

• This is a bad interpretation of a plain fact. The incompetence is displayed in a plan that no one liked. Had competent work been done in the first place, then the process wouldn't have taken months because people wouldn't have objected so severely. However I sympathize with your distaste for bureaucracy. I'm wasting time here much better spent coming up with proposals a superior plan which everyone except you 3 would like. In fact you and Mtking gaming of the system (wholesale deletion and then 3rr, remember that?) is blocking proposals from being tabled. Bureaucracy often means incompetence blocking ideas that aren't institutional. Such is life.

For #7 "they often make frivolous accusations"[citation needed] (particularly for the "frivolous accusations" I have made).

• It probably wasn't unambiguous that 7 follows from 6, where you are not named. I've clarified it. I hope this doesn't imply that you've internalized the clique. ;) If you want citations for them, simply read the flood of their spam/harassment on my talk page. There is of course much more in the talk page (WP:WARNINGS at every turn), and you should be aware of it from your history on this case.

For #8 I historically don't respond to comments, questions, etc that I do not understand. Also, I try not to immediately respond to talk pages (though I am not always successful) and in discussion that have rapid comments from multiple people it can be easy to miss something to respond to.

• I don't know what you're talking about, please clarify. This is one example of a good reply to a confusing comment instead of ignoring it.

For #10 I stand by the vast majority of my edits and actions on Wikipedia. If administrators and/or the larger Wikipedia community feels that I have been in error I fully expect them to let me know up to and including talk page warnings, blocks of editing privileges and/or topic bans.

• I apologize I didn't exclude you from this point, that was clearly an error and I've fixed it. You're actually a quite honest person and don't indulge in this like your colleagues.

For the points that I did not address, I don't understand why you bring them up aside from possibly blowing off steam. I had hoped that both in the original WT:MMANOT discussions and my attempts to renew the discussion that everyone could try to work together. Unfortunately, it seems those efforts are failing and I'm not sure why aside from the possibility that my involvement inherently negatively polarizes the situation. Now I must run, UFC on Fox is about to start. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The facts listed here are a large part of the reason why people are very reluctant to work with the 3 amigos, and frankly despise them even if they're not allowed to express it. I've noted above that background facts are important to making decision, like for example this AN. That's why they're placed as a primer for the admin who might not be familiar with the situation otherwise.

Replied Agent00f (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Situation

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

---

This is based on my own value judgement and external logic (ie uses things not inherent in the observation). It's separated from the above because it is not 100% provably true.

1. It seems what happened is that when the group above was warring against mma pages, a few mma fans took matters into their own hands. This had a unfortunate polarizing effect on wiki administration whereby the latter became the "bad guys" as an aggregate, and the former by extension and axiomatic symmetry the good guys. This gave the former considerable more leeway when gaming the system. There is extensive psych research for this if citation is necessary.

2. Allowing a small disinterested clique to systematically ruin a whole functional community on wiki is a stain on the wiki reputation, even if it's by accident. By doing nothing to dissuade (ie allowing) gaming of the system, it paints a picture that the org is more about the letter of the law than the spirit. It defines the site as a bureaucratic nightmare instead of good judgement. This is fundamentally discouraging to smart and creative contributors which is what any site needs.

3. As a matter of good judgement, there are two issues to consider here: the good of the few against the many, and legal consistency. The former is obvious, but the later often encourages enforcing the letter of the law if only to minimize exceptions. However, in that case we also have to consider that allowing the precedent that a few people can game the site rules for months without punishment.

4. This seems a clear case where a few (again, perhaps only by circumstance) took over the reigns of power by abusing the common rules. In a way it's the wort kind of takeover since they've gotten to make substantial decisions even though they have no stake in the longer term outcome. This is very akin to predatory takeover or private equity business in equivalent function, which are very well documented cases. In all these circumstances, demoralization at the lower ranks and moral hazards abound. Given this has already happened, the question is how to resolve it: silence the whistle-blowers, turn a blind eye, solve the problem by closing loopholes, or solve the problem by sanctioning people've taken advantage of them (even if they only happen upon it). The decision is an easy one to make, and it's certainly not mine to make, but the necessary info to do it was presented.

Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Call for sanctions

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

---

Administrators Surely this 3 ring circus has gone on long enough. The thread a few days ago coupled with these 2 threads should illuminate beyond any shadow of a doubt the disruptive actions of Agent00f who will filibuster, claim bureaucratic abuse, claim anything in the book just to slow down the process of building consensus regarding the MMA articles.

I do acknowledge that my own actions in response to Agent00f have been less than exemplary, however I challenge you to find any other editor who has dealt with the same intensity and duration of abuse of community guidelines as we (MtKing, TreyGeek, and myself) have and still maintain the same level of composure.

I call for an indefinite block on Agent00f on grounds of deliberate disruption, lack of Assuming Good Faith, Personal Attacks, and deliberate obfuscation after being warned repeatedly being asked to strike assumptions of bad faith and to discontinue their disruptive behavior.

My name is Hasteur and I endorse this set of proposed sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so much admin shopping just like the last ANI it's not even funny. First, thorough explanations are not "Obfuscation". Some things in the world are just complicated. Second, sometimes facts can reflect badly, but that's no a function of facts, but interpretation. Just like a bottle on the table that you were supposed to put away can reflect badly on one's sense of responsibility. I suppose it's possible of all who sees this one will oblige and you'll get your way in complete violation of the shopping rule. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user in question has a perfectly clean block log. Calling for an indefinite block at this point is inappropriate and easily seen as pointy. Please follow proper procedures and an escalating block system. Calling for this right away seems like an attempt to remove an opponent in a dispute, even if that isn't what it is meant as. Silverseren^C 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have striked my request for an indef block, however I point to the below created section, their blocking by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and their WP:NOTTHEM groundwork laying on their talk page in response to their block. While I prefer to see the good things in editors, I suspect that no change in behavior will result from the preventative measure that was taken. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Reflections on the Ridiculousness of this AN

1. It was clearly created in ridiculously bad faith. Mtking wholesale deletes a new comment, which is a direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule and then has the nerve to FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP by creating this AN over his own violation.
2. When I tried to revert back this blatant disregard for wiki rules, Mtking and Treygeek team up to run around 3RR together, and Mtking creates yet another AN to FORUMSHOP/ADMINSHOP against me so that his blatant disregard for policy can't stopped.
3. When that didn't get anywhere, Mtking instead attempts subterfuge to make sure the comment is never seen.

This AN is basically an attempt to hid one comment by either keeping it deleted or blocking the user who created it. It's nothing bad faith to the Nth degree.

Frankly Mtking's actions here an insult to the intelligence of admins by assuming they're can't see through these flagrant attempts at flaunting wiki standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Blackmane's solution. Delete all MMA articles, SALT them, blacklist the acronym MMA ... guys can't play well with others - we get DAILY edit-wars, ANI filings, AFD's, PROD's, CSD's ... what a load of crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about you guys go create a MMA wiki on Wikia? Then you can all fight with each other and we don't have to read about it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:

  1) Some editors attempt to apply certain policies and guidelines to a series of articles, such as WP:ROUTINE, WP:IRS, WP:NSPORT, WP:CRYSTAL and the like.

  2) A handful of contrarians, whose arguments tend to rest on illegitimate grounds such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, spam some bulletin boards with oft-obscene exhortations to "take the mofos down," whereupon the effort is flooded by wave after wave of SPAs, sockpuppets and meatpuppets, for whom civility and NPA rules are sick jokes.

  3) Although quite literally dozens of these sock/meatpuppets are indef blocked, for some astonishing reason, a number of parties are taking their filibustering seriously, and this organized, canvassed disruption is allowed to persist.

  These people do not care about Wikipedia. They don't care about our policies, our guidelines, our customs and our rules. They don't merely admit that they're bent on disrupting anyone who attempts to thwart their use of Wikipedia as a webhost for their information, they boast about it. Why in the hell are we letting them do it, and why would we want thereby to admit to the world that a well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies and guidelines to impose their will? Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• " well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies"
• The problem has rather been the opposite. The existance of many motivated but unorganized "SPA's" (mainly wiki contributors and users) vs an smaller entrench wiki "elite" (observations which no one disagrees with, given that it's your own statement) is by definition a demonstrate that a "well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies" against a majority of actual users/stakeholder. Committee decisions reached via uninformed opinions, by people who don't understand the situation, against the interests of the afflicted userbase is the main reason why we're still here after many months. It's notable that ALL of the dozens of regular MMA contributors/stakeholders who were part of the process at the start have left or been pushed out. Please think about this per your recommendation above. Agent00f (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Conditionally Support Blackmane's solution. However, the parties targeted are the wrong ones. According to reality thishas been a war between a very few but active AfD enthusiasts and the rest of the community who contribute/read material on wiki. The former are the only ones who've been here since the start of this destructive ordeal and they've had their second chance about 5 chances ago. Everyone else has left, often in disgust. Of course those left get to point the finger. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many opportunities before the wiki powers that be says enough with epic failure? Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd partially meant my comment to be facetious albeit with a very substantial portion of seriousness. The MMA project is becoming the very definition of a walled garden. This is the last thing an open project needs. This is Wikipedia not fricking Fanboypedia. And purely for my own benefit, how does one go about vaping an entire project? If this rather drastic idea gains traction, it might be worth putting it up for proper community consideration Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that this is going to require an arbcom case placing discretionary sanctions of the sort that exist in the Balkans articles, i.e. disruption by SPAs and IPs can be immediately vaped (blocked) by a patrolling admin. The MMA fanboys will never want to play on their own Wiki because it will never get the traffic that Wikipedia does. When you combine hundreds of meatpuppets with not only ignorance of rules but an outright refusal to believe that rules apply to them, you get this mess. We can't feasibly remove all MMA from the encyclopedia, but we can block all of this ridiculousness on sight. Chillllls (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say whether Arbcom would take this case on without the full gamut of dispute resolution cards being played, but given the sheer scale of disruption that the MMA fanboys are causing I don't think there would be much option. However, that doesn't really solve the problem, it merely enhances the administrative workload because the fanboys will not give up. The best option may still come down to nuking the project from orbit. A RFC may be the next thing to consider on this. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be tarred by both sides for saying this, but 80% of the MMA content is not a problem. It's only the hyper motivated enthusiast crowd that is causing a problem. Heck, up to when some editors came on the scene we were nearly ready to get the blue ribbon RfC moving along so that we could finish the debate about how to protect the smaller articles that are already here and how to ensure that MMA is covered reasonably. It was suggested previously that the way to get a discretionary sanctions like regime passed would be to go for General Sanctions at WP:AN. I've personally been holding back from using this route because I've wanted to demonstrate good faith above and beyond a WikiSaint so that claims of being biased against MMA topics can be deflected by the aforementioned good faith. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is expected of this ever snowballing ANI?

Exactly what is expected to be achieved here? This started off as Mtking+Hasteur vs Agent00f and it's basically blown up into something about MMA as a whole. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noted yet, the prior attempts at resolving this problem only seem to have a few common denominators. Basic logic would dictate that repeating the same wouldn't generate novel results. However, your interpretation of the same info yields the opinion that the solution rather involves nuking everyone else outside the common denominator of previous failures. This isn't necessarily a terrible plan outside of its basic destructiveness, but do note that it's those outside that circle who will be saddled with the resulting rules/plans. In comparison, nuking the whole subject (including all contributors) seems much more consistent with the that general scheme. Agent00f (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• cough* Notification *cough* You make a suggestion of an IBAN between me and Agent00f, then give credit for "the crap they've been through". Inconsistent much? This entire thread has transformed from it's initial purpose of Agent00f screaming harassment that Mtking and I were perpetrating against him, into a request for undissolveduninvolved admins to start policing the community guidelines (which still has yet to occur), to a examination of how Agent00f has conducted themselves, to a ill planned request for an indefinite block (which I have since retracted), to a further look at how to improve the MMA article space. I will admit to being somewhat uncivil in some of my communication with Agent00f, but I contest the need of an IBAN as I have not been warned once regarding my interaction. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd drop a notice on Agent00f's talk page about this sub-thread but I don't think any posting from me at this time would be well received at all. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just don't screw up the formatting or you'll get barked at. Ravensfire (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I asked the question whether my suggestion is off the scale. I bolded it to make it stand out not to make it a formal proposal. I'm more than happy to strike it out if you have issue with it. My preference would be to have at least something come out of this extended discussion and a rather extreme suggestion was hopefully going to push for a compromising position from others. A rather large amount of time and discussion has gone into this and to have it closed merely as "no admin action required" is, to my mind at least, nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that admin action (or involvement) is required, but jumping to the level of IBAN is unwarranted. It's been my understanding that interaction bans are for when there is mutual persistent incompatibility with both editors or one going and harassing another. While I don't think we're at that level, I think an uninvolved experienced editor taking Agent00f as a mentoree would be the best way to modify the issues that have been identified while at the same time allowing Agent00f to to continue contributing to the community. I'm staying away from other/further recommendations as I precieve myself to be already very involved with Agent00f's behavior. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"unwarranted"??? How many kb is this thread? Clearly that word cannot be used here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unwarranted!" There, I used it.

(ahem) I'd say this has gone beyond the scope of ANI at this point. And I personally feel IBANs are useless, as they're far too easy to game around. The whole MMA issue needs to go to ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the comment that the only people opposing the MMA articles are a small clique of 3 deletionists: I oppose many of them also, and support the consolidation proposal. So do some others, but they can be seem on the discussions--I don't want to bring them to this mess involutarily. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In like fashion, I oppose many of them, support the portmanteau articles, and spit contemptuously on the premise that failure to give every show of every fed its own article equates to wanting to eliminate MMA from Wikipedia. (Of course, if there were twenty experienced editors all over these articles, no doubt the disruptors would come up with some other Conspiracy To Get Us line of reasoning.) Ravenswing 03:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please keep an eye Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability ,a little progress, but more recently more of the same..Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've read through (and am still reading through) the MMANOT talk page and frankly I'm appalled. The discussion that started there was moving forwards with contributions from a number of editors but has since been bogged down in a morass of circular discussions by Agentoof. I'm going to bite the bullet and take the hits that come. I'm going to formally propose a topic ban for Agent00f for sustained disruption at the WT:MMANOT. While I grant that it is constructive to have points debated and holes looked over and patched but not to the point that it becomes badgering. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to take multiple servings of seafoodBlackmane (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is this some kind of joke? Did you notice that I was just about the only one to bring up domain-specific Rfc-related points (~10 in total) to a domain-specific RfC in a flood of generic comments that don't even mention details? Or that the "circular discussions" is only one user repeating the same thing over and over again in the most obnoxious way possible while dodging a simple question? With a ready group of indignant editors ready to jump on their cross at the slightest perceived slights to start shopping, it's no wonder there are no regular subject contributors left in this discussion. Would you want to put up with this? Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I quite doubt that anyone is laughing; certainly I'm not, after looking over that talk page myself. Indeed - after filtering out many personal attacks, broad attacks and irrelevancies - you asked a number of questions. Where pertinent, by and large they were answered. That you might not like the answers is another matter, but I hope and trust you can concede that no one is required to provide you an answer with which you agree.

  As far as "regular subject contributors" go, though, do you count yourself as one? I was quite startled when, upon review of your edit history, I found that you had only made two articlespace comments ever, both two years ago, that you had never improved an article (MMA or otherwise) and that you had never created an article (MMA or otherwise). As I remarked on that talk page this morning, your commentary in the couple weeks you have again been active has been entirely negative: trying to shut down AfDs, attempting to discredit editors with whom you disagree, labeling your opponents as serving a "deletionist agenda" and opposing any proposal to set MMA notability criteria. As such, I would Support a topic ban as Blackmane proposes, until such time as you demonstrate that you intend to be a productive Wikipedia editor. Ravenswing 10:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Where pertinent, by and large they were answered". First, I have no idea what these "questions" are since I don't need to ask questions about the RfC given that I understand the specifics quite well. The one question I ask about how you define "quality" is still un-answered btw despite the waffling.

1. I generally don't feel the need to log in and prove anything to the world when by chance I feel the need to append a technical entry. The main reason I did so for this MMANOT topic was due to the ridiculous SOCK accusations/"investigation" dropped by the deletionist crowd at every opportunity.
2. the accusation I tried to "shut down AfDs" is entirely true: I said it shows bad faith to use them as leverage during a discussion about the AfD's in question. This is a matter of acting ethically, and I don't know why you feel it's a slight to be ethical.
3. if stating that it's unethically to use AfD's "discredits" anyone, I'll be happy to take credit. I'll repeat again: it's unethical to keep AfDing while the articles are under discussion/review. If there are any other basic moral stances you dislike, please list them as well.
4. "deletionist agenda". I very explicitly said a couple people had deletionist histories, just as you very explicitly said my account has a lackluster history. Both are true, yet you seem to think the statement that's not yours is grounds for a block. Why is that?

Also, please note the impropriety of "supporting" sanctions in an argument you're part of. Same for Blackmane. Shopping for a ban after coming out the worse end of a conversation is a display of conflict of interest and unCIVILized behavior. Agent00f (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused. What I was referring to was your conduct on the MMA notability talk page. If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it. Secondly, your repeated insistence that I define "quality" for you is an example of the behavior which we find objectionable; that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor. As far as sockpuppet allegations go, it was not at all ridiculous given the recent history of MMA here, where dozens of sock- and meatpuppets have already been blocked. Finally, another disruptive habit you display is in distorting people's words and actions. I am not "shopping" for a ban; I responded to a proposal for one here, as I often do, being modestly active in ANI discussions. My first posts on that talk page were less than six hours ago, to which you were quite prompt in tendentious and hostile responses which violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as even one editor quite sympathetic to you pointed out. Ravenswing 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it." What are you talking about? You replied in the RfC.
2. "that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor". It was a simple question about the core your argument lies around. If you don't want to define it, whatever, just ignore it as you've done everywhere else. This is how you replied: "Now I see that you're not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you have almost no experience with article building (with only 280 edits, and only two in articlespace). While reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR would no doubt prove informative, I especially commend to you WP:ITSUSEFUL, as an example of a generally discredited argument at AfD. " An amusing answer given those pages undermined you own point. When that was pointed out, you were the only one throwing out personal accusations: Finally, while you are so eager to discuss the agenda of others ... what about yours? It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to improve articles - you never have improved an article. It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to create MMA articles - you never have. You’re not even here to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia - your commentary has been entirely negative, from trying to shut down AfDs, to trying to discredit editors whom you perceive as opposing your agenda, to opposing any proposal to set notability criteria. Would you care to put your labeling and the talk of agendas to rest, sir, or are you comfortable with your own quite blatant agenda - it’s not that you can claim you are on Wikipedia for any other purpose - being the subject of frequent commentary? Now that you seem to be angry this about this, you appear to seek to sanction anyone who dares bring it about.
3. The only remotely "hostile" comment was the remark that the above was petty authority, which is it. The solution here is easy. Don't act with petty authority if that's not a good impression to leave. Agent00f (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• As Chillllls noted below, your battleground mentality is part of the problem. As such, I see no reason to further respond to your filibustering, and will restrict myself to answering other editors, who can reasonably be expected to keep their comments concise and to the point. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban as one of the few ways to stop the incessant disruptive attitude. I note that a topic ban from MMA articles is a de facto siteban as Agent00f has shown effectively no interest in editing outside the MMA topic space Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, just a note this is the user who's been harassing me for the last two weeks, like just 5 min ago striking out anything which doesn't suit his/her sensibilities on the MMA talk page in direct violation of TALKO rules. It's pretty amusing nothing ever gets done about this kind of DISRUPTIVE behavior, like selective replies and whatnot, and all this AN harassment.
• PS. Hasteur, don't forget to canvas for more sure sympathetic votes like last time. Agent00f (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been involved in any of the discussions on articles/policies/guidelines regarding MMA. Unless someone can point to the relevant interactions that suggest otherwise, I would say I'm a fairly neutral party in this matter. Sure I have some strong opinions about how things could be done better, but that isn't clouding my judgement in this matter. Agent00f, you may think I'm here to "win" an argument, that is entirely untrue. I put forward my perspective and will debate them, but if others decide otherwise, then so be it. It's no skin off my back if what I say is judged not to be something worth pursuing. You may see that I have a conflict of interest here in that I am attempting to silence the opposition. Again, you are wrong as I have no horse in the race with regards to MMA, if you are topic banned then it is the community's decision. I decided to put forward the proposal after studying WT:MMANOT. If the topic ban proposal is not agreed to, that too is the community's decision and will not be something I will pursue adamantly to enact against the community's consensus. I have nothing against you personally and in fact have somewhat enjoyed the sparring, but it is what I perceive in how you have stalled the discussion at the talk page that has led me to decide to make this proposal. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, is this meant as parody? Just look at your own previous comments (note this is was all before the "studying" that supposed changed your mind):

1. Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2. And in the rush to endorse this?: Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:... Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC), oops.
3. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur also claimed to contact "neutral" members in the last ANI, and I don't recall the admin look too favorably on this when it was shown otherwise. Seem like everyone is quite neutral here, if by neutral we mean kinda hopes the whole thing gets vaped. Remember these are all recorded for posterity. Agent00f (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see that my opinion, from a bystander's perspective, is that sometimes the best way to deal with an infested paddock is to burn the lot to the ground and start again, then either I'm being too vague or you're not reading between the lines. If it looks like I'm siding with anyone, I'm siding with protecting the 'pedia. In fact, I'm going to expand on my call for your topic ban to include general violations of WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if by bystander you mean someone not a day ago was high-fiving with those berating "fanboys" and support dropping the bomb on a whole subject to prove a point, not a day ago. Surely you have nothing against someone who vehemently opposed the idea, and who you've now found is the only domain expert and stakeholder interest advocate left in the discussion. Oh and btw, the bomb was your proposal. But let's be fair here, you never intended these bombs to start any BATTLE, and it's just awful you need to block someone for the good of wiki. Is it standard policy to assume admins to be idiots who'll believe this? Agent00f (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects with related walled garden problems

To be truly honest, the underlying issue is about notability and I think it affects more than just MMA. The core question is simply do major MMA pay-per-view events, such as those held regularly by UFC, meet the notability requirements with just the basic fight information (location, crowd, payouts) and results? That question isn't limited to just MMA though. Take tennis. The tennis project's notability guidelines say that top tier tournaments are notable, but secondary ones aren't, but with 15 seconds of effort, I find 2010 GEMAX Open. For all the MMA drama, any of UFC event articles have far more information than that article. With a bit more effort, you can find similar articles for many other sports. I'll give the MLB and NFL folks huge credit that you don't see as much of this in those areas, especially in football. I have no question that any give NFL game, especially a big rivalry game, generates more and lasting coverage than the average UFC PPV event. There are some attempts to answer the notability question (when it's not being derailed by someone declaring a revolution), but it's a bigger question than just MMA. There are large number of articles across Wikipedia that are simply results for various tournaments / events. Per WP:ROUTINE, those should be simple and easy AFD's. Anyone care to start trying that? You can see the madness from MMA, I somehow think other sports will be just as bad if not worse. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you for being thoughtful. Unfortunately these aren't novel insights, but rather tend to crop up each of the half dozen attempts at resolving this issue. Even more unfortunate, historically the persons bring up these insights and subsequent solutions have been ignored or otherwise driven off. Had they been acted on, there's no doubt this would've over months ago and probably set an excellent precedent for all other other entries of the type (you've noted). This isn't at all to trivialize what you're saying (esp since I entirely agree), just noting that we've already been here before. IOW, being more thoughtful about the specifics is very unfortunately not the solution.
2. As mentioned, these types of thoughtful replies constitute the minority on the subject. In fact through direct observation of this AN as a microcosm of the broader dilemma, we can see that it's mostly just throwing around trite WP:BULLSHIT. It's uncertain whether this is simply a relection of an opinion that application of "established" processes takes priority over thinking about what's going on; or at this point, implies a lack of capacity to self-refection or understand 1. Without the kind of detail/insight which you're trying to provide, it's not possible to resolve problems except by accident, and we haven't been that lucky due to WP:TLDR and WP:ASSUMETHISWORKS. Put another way, this is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it, but this kind of observation is inherently difficult to appreciate.
3. This specific proposition of "nuke it from orbit" is the perfect reflection of the mindset and situation just described. The general idea is not only that topics which aren't "encyclopedic" don't belong here, but issues which can't be resolved by the same mindset don't belong here. While this isn't a bad point to make since compatibility with the wiki zeitgeist is a concern, but the solution proposed has nothing to do with the broader goal of serving wiki users. My main observation on it is that it's a mindset and idea mainly propagated by those with no stake in the outcome: iow, "I don't care for this subject so let's just get rid of it." Agent00f (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the link that Ravensfire posted for the tennis tournament, if you go to the category there are literally hundreds of articles which are little more than results scorecards and draws. Interestingly, sampling just a few almost all of them were created by just one editor. In fact, I randomly sampled about 30 articles from that category for 2009 and almost every one was created by them, with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. The ones I sampled in 2010 were created by another user. This is a little off topic but this surface scratching is only just revealing the scale of the issue here. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; these type of walled gardens are commonplace in many Wikiprojects, even those that don't focus on sports topics. When an attempt is made by a non-project editor to enforce what should be a site-wide notability policy for inclusion or an element of the MOS, the project editors come out of the woodwork to give their reasons as to why articles on such-and-such topic are exempt from the rules (mostly clever variations of ILIKEIT). It's not that the MMA project is the worst when it comes to stuff like this, they just have the most visible (and arguably the most obtuse) IP meatpuppets at this time. Chillllls (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Projects sometimes set their own notability rules or style conventions &c (with style, it's more often the habit of one or two prolific editors, rather than a written guideline); this is not inherently a bad thing, but when those project rules conflict with en.wikipedia rules, we get lots of drama and timewasting. In terms of notability, it often leans towards inclusionism, but not always. IIRC there was one case where a project had a spring-clean and took a bunch of articles to AfD which appeared to fall short of the project's notability guideline even though some passed the GNG by a considerable margin. I stumbled across one project which had a very widely used template which is inherently incompatible with the MOS. There are limits to centralisation - and I wouldn't call for millions of ritual edits to shift articles from project-style to MOS-style - but the conflicts between projects rules and en.wikipedia rules are a problem which we should try to mitigate. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've split this section off as it's not really related to the situation above and may just move this to the talk page, although we could continue this discussion on one of our talk pages until we can come up with some sensible plan of action (if such is required or desirable). We're coming to the point we're some of us have identified a deep rooted issue and it looks like this really requires a much wider community input than just a few people having a "hmmmm" moment on ANI. I'm not against any particular wikiptoject (although the MMA makes me sigh...repeatedly) but allowing each project to go off and establish their own rules and guidelines outside those of the core policies is going to be a nightmare to fix. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's been a problem in the diacritics wars, too. It's not a crisis but we really ought to do something... somewhere... bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I contest there's a back room deal going on to make a lower standard for MMA than the rest of en.WP. We're having the discussion at the SNG page for MMA to help define a very specific set of "It Must Have"s so that the MMA community can know exactly what is needed.Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. There needs to be a stringent set of absolute minimum baseline notability requirements that all sports projects should adhere to with no loosening. Projects should be free to build on the requirements but not weaken them to their liking so that articles can scrape by with notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically this is what the MMA userbase has said from the start: the general guidelines for established sports contains elements which are difficult to apply to the unique circumstances and format of MMA, a new burgeoning sport (high double digit year over year growth). This is a general problem for all such sports, and MMA is only notable for the often negative attention it draws from some elements in society. However, instead of using this an opportunity to fix the problem, we're only allowed to look at thoughtless and trite bandaids. Agent00f (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the MMA user(fan)base wants is to have the SNG loosened so they can have their individual event pages policy abiding. This opens up a can of worms that allows virtually any sport to have similar pages. How popular a sport is, or is becoming, is irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. The tactic they've gone with is obfuscation, delay, denigration of opponents and ignoring points made. Ravensfire (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a very substantive proposal on the talk page which avoids these problems. Unfortunately the anti-fans here continue to make assertion despite ignorance of these specifics. Also, Ravensfire, I can't speak for anyone else but can you point to which points I've avoided? I'd be happy to address them provide you can promise a reply in kind. All I see is the exact opposite on this page: dozens of points from me conveniently ignored by anti-fans under the banner of TLDR. Many of them were directly to you. This seems extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith. If it was because they were difficult to understand, I can try to reformulate. Agent00f (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This sees extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith." Facepalm Chillllls (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is tautological, the only factor open to interpretation is intent. How would you describe it instead? That is not a rhetorical question. Agent00f (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're saying the hypocrisy may be unintentional when many of your posts here and at the WP:MMANOT talk page heavily imply that you believe there is a grand conspiracy of four or five editors attempting to deliberately sidetrack discussion of the MMA guidelines. As to my facepalm, I simply thought the juxtaposition of the accusation of hypocrisy and AGF was humorous. You can play rhetorical games all you want (and I actually enjoy them); but c'mon, I know apophasis when I see it. Chillllls (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no belief or assuming involved here. 3 editors have been the common denominator of all previous failures. This is a simple observable fact (do you disagree?). That they often work together is also a fact stated by an admin who worked with them, and also readily evidenced when they want to delete something (always vote together, always revert war together, whereas no one else is nearly as organized). The hypocrisy is also not much of an "accusation". It's blatantly obvious that Ravensfire, et al, stated the MMA fanbase avoids their points, all while ignoring many many points to the extent of remaining silent when this behavior is called out. This is recorded right above. That's what hypocrisy is by definition. I don't see how any of this is a "game". If anything, being told to AGF when I say a bottle is resting on the table feels more like a game. Agent00f (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, the only reason there's "3 editors" instead of a landslide is because a small group of, we'll call them "pro-MMA editors" for want of a better term, have so poisoned the well that nobody who actually cares about Wikipedia policy dares go there anymore. it's such an absolutely disgusting morass of fanboyism, incivility, personal attacks and bad faith that we've all washed our hands and left in disgust because we have better things to do than suffer the slings and arrows of outraged 'editors' for whom anything other than a page for every event, ever, is proof of a cabal that's out to destroy MMA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, for all those previous failures, only a consistent tiny minority with no interest in the subject have been allowed to control the agenda while hopping on their cross, while regular MMA stakeholders (you know, people who'll be saddled with the rules) continue to either leave in disgust or forcibly. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many failures a given executive group are granted before we allow pursuit of alternative strategies? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell ya what - when you stop with the attacks on folks you disagree with, I'll start responding to your concerns. I'm way past tired of the crap from you that's directed soley at editors and their motives. That's been your MO for quite a while and you've been called out about it, but haven't chanced. Until you decide to change, quite simply, I'm going to ignore you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify if something in my fact-checking or analysis is amiss, or it just you don't like what the results say? Personally, I don't think the results are surprising given the history of this whole affair. They're unfortunate, I agree, but not unexpected. This isn't a rhetorical question and the answer quite important to my decision. Agent00f (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the big problem here is that you are fundamentally unable to comprehend this situation in a non-battleground mentality. You see it as a conflict between some cabal of "non-interested" editors who want to gut your focus area and a few valiant defenders of your noble sport. Your "Facts of the Case" in the above section is a perfect example of this: you describe your personal perception of how you see the debate as a list of objective facts! Your analysis is just that, your own personal subjective analysis. How do you not understand that distinction? You vacillate between alleging conpiracies and condescending dismissals of reasoning that doesn't fit your POV. You think you're frustrated? Try to step outside yourself for a moment and see things from another point of view. Chillllls (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize that it's not trivial to the see the difficulty of either my situation or anyone who dissents against a very dominant opinion on this topic. However, simply look at the record of my first week on the talk page: but a small sample of the threats ("final warning") and intimation. I've had so many calls for sanctions against me by now from the same predictable parties that I mostly act a comedy routine. If there's a BATTLE going on, it's not been one that anyone on the wrong side of dominant opinion on this subject chooses, unless their participation is that choice. When I look at the other side, I see mostly cross hopping by people who game the system with questionable ethics (eg. the "neutral" editor who just happens to call for nuking the space and everyone on the wrong side). Perhaps I've become biased, though, so maybe you can point to what they've been suffering in comparison. If anything with time I've only seen just how much they milk it.

The real irony though is despite my profession which dictates what constitutes "fact" to humanity, I still get these ridiculous accusations that I don't understand how empirical observation works. In a way it's poignant for a community like wiki to by populated by know-it-alls, but OTOH it's also why tight citation requirements exist on mainstream articles. The technical side of the project has quite lackluster sourcing, yet seems generally safe from the ridiculous AfD campaigns. Should we expect Liouville_function or Soft_Heap to come under attack by this group anytime soon or should MMA peeps make their articles just as obscure to protect them? Agent00f (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles

Some MMA fanboys:

• Mississippistfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.147.72.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• AugustWest1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have nominated/called for the deletion of some ANTM articles in the mistaken belief it will somehow annoy me, they are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model. Can an admin have a look. Mtking ^(edits) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Never did I nominate any article for deletion. I gave my opinion on an existing aFd, and in no way did I ever mention you or make it personal. You drag me to ANI in retaliation? I quoted Wiki policy when giving my Delete vote. You have a problem with it? Debate it in the aFd. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious - based on your strikeout, will you also be going through and striking out all hostile terms being directed towards Mtking? Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious, which are you referring? The aFd's for ATM made no mention of Mtking, and I believe that is the subject of this ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustWest1980 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your (non) answer which was pretty much as expected. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not directed any hostile terms at MtKing, but he most certainly directed one at me, which I struck-out. It is not my job to go protect Mtking from insults on WP, but I can most certainly react when they are hurled at me. I guess you felt it needed unstruck, so you're also okay with insults being hurled in ANI. Noted. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Does use of a derogatory insult like fanboys and resorting to name-calling really proper for ANI? AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "fanboy" is used 20 (now 21 times) on this page so it would appear so. Mtking ^(edits) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the person using the insulting term will jump to defend it. Definitely not civil. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

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

---

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) and I have been somewhat tempered over the Bradley/Breanna Manning issue at the moment; I made a comment on Talk:Bradley Manning that a person who ignores a reliable source that Manning identified as female was either "dense or bigoted", which has inflamed tempers to the point that he has made this comment towards me. It's a severe personal attack, and would be blockable even without his prior comments leading to the "only warning". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Andy calling you a turd is wrong. You trolling him on his own talk page and then running to ANI so you can win a content dispute is also wrong. Both of you should start acting like adults. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  After being warned not to make personal attacks, and then making such a blistering personal attack, going to ANI is the next step since the closure of the personal attack noticeboard years ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Block everyone. -— Isarra ༆ 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  (ec)I notice that the personal attack warning was from you, that you jumped straight to the final warning, and that everyone else who has commented on Andy's talk page regarding that has defended him. You should both settle your differences without name-calling or running to mommy. If you can't or won't do that, then I back Isarra's recommendation. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • Given that his conduct was close to harassment, given that he was publicly attacking me in several forums where several other people were constructively discussing the issue, and given that he was blocked six months ago for making this comment, a block is indeed warranted. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at your (Sceptre) chutzpah. I am the editor that Sceptre called "dense or bigoted". I asked him to retract it, and he didn't retract or respond. Two admins asked him to retract, and he didn't retract or respond. And yet here he is complaining about Andy calling him a bigot. It's just a bit much. As far as I'm concerned, Sceptre has been on a rampage about the Manning article and gender identity such that anyone who disagrees with him has to be stupid, bigoted, or god knows what else. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, WP:WQA was alive and kicking, although he may be referring to some other board of which I'm unaware.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• What Bbb said. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That I may have attacked you -- and I retract the comment as referred to you -- does not have any bearing on the fact of Andy's egregious personal attack. There is no doctrine of unclean hands on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a concept of unclean hands on Wikipedia, and particularly on this board. Also, although I will accept your retraction, I note that it comes very late and probably only so you can move on with your report on Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This all started when Sceptre decided to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning's gender identity in the article, against prior consensus, and based on a selective reading of reports of private conversations Manning had. At no point has Manning publicly stated that he wishes to be known as a 'she', named 'Breanna'. Sceptre is pushing a POV, and using a vulnerable person in no position to respond to do so. When asked to desist, and conform to policy, Sceptre has instead responded by accusations of 'bigotry', 'transphobia' and who knows what else. If he has the gall to make further personal attacks on me on my talk page under a posting that refers explicitly to WP:NPA that Sceptre posted, I can see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't respond in kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's comments during this protracted Manning battle have been, not surprisingly, incisive. They have also been remarkably sensitive to Manning. That said, words like "turd" and "bigot" (I'm assuming he said them, I haven't verified it) shouldn't be used, even when strongly provoked. Although I suppose I'm somewhat biased, Sceptre still had no business coming here. He's done nothing but provoke from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensitive or insensitive? I don't think it's sensitive to repeatedly and deliberately refer to someone who (privately, mind, but still) said they didn't want to be remembered as male. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

...and currently refers to himself as 'a boy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Source? There's no way that you can read the Lamo logs and can come away with a perspective that Manning was comfortable with being male. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being "comfortable with being male" isn't the same thing as wishing to be publicly identified as a female named 'Breanna'. Manning clearly wasn't comfortable about a lot of things - and I've seen no evidence that he is comfortable with being used as a convenient fall-guy/gal for your POV-pushing antics. If Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female, he can say so - until then it isn't Wikipedia's job to arbitrarily 'gender reassign' him on the basis of a selective reading of his private conversations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede on the name issue, but not on the gender issue: in her chats with Lamo, she talks about how she was uncomfortable with her male body, about her presenting as female while on leave in Boston, and her plans to transition upon discharge. In the New York source, her counsellor talks about the fact that she was "very solid" on feeling female. We use both thing as sources in the article; if they're admissible in the article to source the facts as currently presented in "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", then they're admissible as confirmation to her gender identity. It's not a "arbitrary" change at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are 'willing to concede' or not is irrelevant. You are engaging in soapboxing and POV-pushing to assign an gender identity to Manning that he has not publicly identified with - that is what 'identity' means - and no, the fact that we consider a source as reliable for one thing doesn't make it reliable for every ridiculous bit of spin you can put on it to support something else entirely. You have no right whatsoever to use Wikipedia as a platform for your POPV-pushing nonsense. Bradley Manning will remain Bradley manning until he publicly asserts otherwise, regardless of your bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

She's already been "outed", and we reflect that in the section "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge"; I'd like to hear your reason why the sources are okay to source the fact that she "feels female" and was going to transition, but not okay to change the gender. And no, that isn't what "identity" means, unless you're saying all the closeted LGBT people aren't really LGBT; you're still gay even if you're still in the closet. If she weren't arrested, Manning would have been discharged, and intended to start the transition process. She was fully aware that she was probably going to get arrested, and expressed fears about being described as male. (see: the Lamo caht logs) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet more of the same bullshit. You are in no position to make any such assertions. And no, we shouldn't be using the source cited to state that Manning "feels female" - we don't. We write that he apparently wrote this to an unnamed gender counselor in 2009: and the same source: and this same counselor repeatedly refers to Manning as 'he', and makes clear that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state not just because of his uncertainties over gender, but because of his direct involvement in military actions which were leading to the deaths of innocent civilians. Manning was in crisis, and as the Lamo logs make clear, unsure of his own mental stability: The very next statement he makes after his comment that "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy" he says "i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..." Any credible reading of these comments can only conclude that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state (and incidentally, still describing himself as 'a boy') - this isn't an assertion that he wishes to change his public gender identity. It isn't an assertion of anything, except his own mental state - which he seems to have been well aware of as being confused, and conflicted. To take such comments from the isolated private conversations of a disturbed individual as 'evidence' that Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female is not only 'original research' engaged in to promote a particular POV, but morally reprehensible, and utterly incompatible with the sexual politics you claim to espouse. You have no right whatsoever to cherry-pick sources to 'reassign' Manning, and that you chose to do so suggests that your own motivations are questionable, to say the least. One final point - more comments by Manning from the Lamo logs [18]: "8 months ago, if you’d have asked me whether i wanted i would identify as female, i’d say you were crazy", "that started to slip very quickly, as the stresses continued and piled up", "i had about three breakdowns… successively worse, each one revealing more and more of my uncertainty and emotional insecurity". Not only is Manning stating that he is having a breakdown, but he says that 8 months earlier he had no thoughts of identifying as female at all. If you are going to pick cherries, it is sensible to see what else is in the tree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're treading close to saying that trans people with mental illnesses aren't sure of their gender identity, which is also offensive. And Manning did wish to be publicly female; she did appear so while on leave in Boston. (And gender identity is fluid; we don't have a source saying she self-identified as male after May 2010, understandable as she's still under arrest awaiting trial, so we use the most recent self-identification, which is female). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"gender identity is fluid". Precisely. Which makes your ridiculous claims that Manning currently wishes to be identified as a female named Breanna even less tenable. And how the heck do you know what Manning's most recent self-identification is? Perhaps fortunately, we don't have access to every private conversation he has. You are not Manning's spokesperson. As for 'offensiveness', straw man arguments about something I didn't say to support your own POV-pushing unilateral 'gender reassignment' of a troubled individual are infinitely worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JaParker Jones, Agnes Torres Sulca, Paige Clay, and Brandy Martell didn't make public statements to the media about their gender identity either, but we refer to all four of them as transgender women. In any case, regardless of conduct, you should know better than to refer to someone as a "moronic little turd" when a) you've been blocked for personal attacks in the past and b) you were warned not to make personal attacks. (Also, nice appeal to emotion there) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead people rarely make public statements. Nice appeal to emotion there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that a trans person needs to make a public statement to the media to be recognised as such, then we should refer to Jones, Sulca, Clay, Martell as men. As it is, all four and Manning identified as female (which is all we need under MOS:IDENTITY), and presented as female when she could. Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female (see the Lamo chat logs), like the other four. This is a digression, mind. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A digression from being boomeranged, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female". Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. What we do know is that at the moment Manning has neither done so, nor made any public statement that such a 'transition' is desired. Since when has it been morally justifiable to 'out' people as transgendered based on a POV-pushing reading of cherry-picked sources? Please put the crystal ball away, come down from the soapbox, and explain how you know what 'would' have happened, and why your knowledge of this should be seen a a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How about everyone here calm down and just chill. I'm always amazed that in working on articles on living people, the people who work the hardest to enforce it (see Point 6) by saying we're not allowed to hold, or god forbid express on occasion, negative opinions on anyone are the same people who are often the source of a great deal of incivility towards other editors. I'm not blaming anyone in particular in this instance, as I think blocks can be avoided if everyone here does what I'm doing now; kicking back with a Tiger beer watching a program on Billy Martin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would never mention something like this, ever, but the parallels are so very extreme, because yes, there is not so much 'just' insults and personal attacks going on, but insults and personal attacks that should be framed on the NPA page as what not to do. But that said, this is precisely the embodiment of the term 'consenting adults' and Sceptre, you need to look a lot less like someone turning up at a hospital in a bondage outfit saying your injuries are entirely someone else's fault. Because the parallels to things like this (DO NOT LOOK) explicit text content are just going to keep people laughing at the situation, tragic but true, because if you don't dress up in leather and ask to be spanked he will leave you alone, problem solved.

Further the 'only solution is to ban the lot of you' idea, whilst it is quite valid, is also going to be a drawn out process if it has any chance of success at all, not just because Andy is only defensive by nature, but because with God as my witness everyone wants to see what happens next, there are some things that you just can't look away from, and this is one of those things. Everyone with a remote control to switch off the TV has slow if not paralysed hands right now. Penyulap ☏ 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like a BLP violation. If this Manning weren't under arrest for espionage, he would have no notability at all. As it is, it looks like an editor is trying to make some implicit connection between his alleged gender identity and his alleged espionage - either trying to justify it, or to smear the subject. Either way, it's not good, and Andy the Gump's response, while somewhat over the top, is understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block of Sceptre for this page move, and if that's not enough, edit-warring to repeat it a quarter hour later. Small tadpole to AtG for rising to a pretty obvious bait. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's complaint does not square with his user page philosophy, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine with that philosophy. The right to freedom of expression does not preclude taking their soapbox away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it's not fine. He demands the right of free opinion and expression for himself, and gripes when someone else exercises their own right of free opinion and expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
        • ... I don't think you quite grasped what I wrote. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of that expression. You're free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but it's well established that you still go to jail for doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No. He quotes, "...without interference." So he wants to express anything he wants, unrestricted, but doesn't extend the same right to others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, I missed that bit. yeah, that does make it rather hypocritical. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Boomerang block of Sceptre. Andy's position has rectitude even if his barbs are too quickly thrown. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block Sceptre and consider topic banning. Going against consensus, gaming the system, and refusal to get the point. At this point, his involvement is disruptive as he is here admittedly as an advocate with an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• We would never refer to somebody with a stable genetic identity except as the gender they wish to be considered, but I don't think any one including Manning is under the impression that anything about gender identity in this instance is stable. We can't change on the basis of private conversations even if reported in the press, or by inference. It's hard to apply BLP when a person is undeniably a public figure, but for a site such as this to make such a change strike me as hopelessly wrong. I've gone to some trouble revising these three sentences to avoid gender-based pronouns , & it took me several rounds to do it. But in the context of the article what Sceptre is doing is pointy. I think the consensus is strongly against Sceptre, but there is no reason to block unless they continues. If they do , it's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You are Belorn? That is the account that made that edit which you just described.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I assumed DGG was referring to his own last post here - it is almost impossible to write about Manning in gender-neutral language: English just doesn't work that way, and we can't take it upon ourselves to revise it so it does, as worthy a project as that might seem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Here I am doing the impossible again. ☺ I find it quite easy to write about people in English using gender-neutral language. "as the gender xe wishes to be considered […] anything about xyr gender identity is". I wouldn't have had DGG's trouble writing on this noticeboard what he wrote above. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - see 7 May Newsweek article [19] thereon ...

“I’m trying to play off the civil rights card. Thus all the gay rights stuff on the side. My life goal is the expansion of human knowledge, and the elimination of the earth-moon system as the boundary of human influence."

Which seems to mean Wikipedia may be on a snipe hunt with this. Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the intent or viewpoint of that article is to show what a worthless soldier Manning was, then it does a good job. Including that kind of material is still questionable, BLP-wise. It's an attempt to put Manning on trial inside wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Berean - block Sceptre and consider topic banning. I think DGG's view, although understandable, is overly cautious considering this thread and every subsequent comment or action Sceptre has taken since backing off from the more egregious moving the article and moving it yet again. Beween a block and a topic ban, I would go with a topic ban and only block if he reoffends. I will give Sceptre the benefit of the doubt that there may be articles involving other topics that he can productively contribute to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a little reluctant to get involved here, but I want to explain the problem to Sceptre in simple terms: Until Manning identifies as female publicly (rather than saying conflict, etc.), any assignment of gender other than the previous public identity (male) is synthesis. Also, you're neglecting a possibility: Manning has indicated zhe (I'll be polite to your POV) does not wish to be male, but that in no way guarantees zhe wishes to be female. Zhe may be trying to escape the gender binary. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  She has self-identified as female, although to her counsellor (see the New York source). While there's a debate on said counsellor's ethics, it still doesn't change the fact that it's in a reliable source (otherwise, it wouldn't be used in the article). We don't have a later source where she identifies as male, so by MOS:IDENTITY, we should use the most recent self-identification, which is female. MOS:IDENTITY did not (at the time of the move) require "public" identification, it's required self-identification as reflected in a reliable source: there is a subtle difference between the two. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still trying to justify your arbitrary 'gender-reorientation' on the basis of this single quote from a private conversation that just happens to have become public, and ignoring all the comments - including your own - to the effect that Manning's 'gender identity' appear to have been 'fluid' at the time, and cannot be taken as definitive statement of Manning's current position on the issue? It looks like it. It also looks to me as if you are intent on making a martyr of yourself to some imaginary cause over this (jealous of Manning perhaps?). Well whoop-de-doo, good for you - now fuck off and troll elsewhere, you moronic little turd. Oh-er, I've said it again! Now go and report it on your facebook page. You are clearly a scumbag, exploiting Manning to push your own bizarre agenda, which seems to have more to do with your own narcissistic desire for attention than any concern for Manning, sexual politics, or anything but your own infantile desires. If Manning wishes to publicly identify as a woman named 'Breanna', we will report the fact. We don't however give a shit about your opinions as to whether he should or not, or whether a particular private conversation can be taken as 'evidence' that he has made such a decision. That is an outright falsification. You are a liar, a troll, and given your repeated exploitation of a vulnerable person to push your narcissistic agenda, a moronic little turd. My initial comment was entirely correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read this - "Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning", by Rainey Reitman, BMSN Steering Committee. March 1, 2012. (Originally published in the Washington Blade.): [20] "If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". "...he didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise". AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gee, Jorgath, why on earth would you want to get him started again? Anyway, I suppose it's just more confirmation that a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gender identity is irrelevant and non-notable. This Manning character is charged with espionage, not cross-dressing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, the allegation appears to be bogus. This support website[21] calls him "Bradley" throughout. No "Breanna". Maybe they didn't get the message. OR, maybe the whole "gender identity" thing is a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic issue

• Note: I removed the unproductive thread and personal attacks from Andy's talk page, and advised the parties to seek dispute resolution. Andy restored them (contrary to policy). Both parties need to realize that not only is this unproductive, but that the other party is acting in good faith over the content - however strange their positions may seem to each other. The personal attacks should be removed, the parties go their separate ways or to DR. This type of thing brings the project into disrepute. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
  

Can you please cite the policy which permits you to arbitrarily remove material from user talk pages? I am unaware of any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA - you do not WP:OWN your talk page. And I would think you would realise that re-adding the personal attack is repeating the offence. A comical user name does not exempt you from NPA. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

• (Using some automation)???? — Ched :  ?  20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And WP:NPA entitles you to remove the entire thread, including the comments of others? Actually, I see nothing in WP:NPA that justifies you removing the lot, replacing it with commentary of your own [22], and adding a meaningless edit summary "automation assisted". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Timbo's Rule No. 10 - "Anyone who says 'Wikipedia is not censored' has never paid particularly close attention to the way talk pages are treated by third parties. (Feb. 2012)" Carrite (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• One would think that when under an ArbCom case over his use of automated tools, Rich would use a bit more common sense! Boomerang spinning… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you to find another thread for the boomerang though? We really don't need this thread to get even more convoluted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump making personal attacks against another user

(moved from bottom, was new thread) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) very recently made a series of personal attacks against another user here, here, and here. The user was given their second 4im for WP:NPA this week. The user's response was to reiterate their attack. The user was reported to WP:AIV but I was told to take it to ANI. Here it is. --TreyGeek (talk)

Hm. This is one of those cases where Andy flips out and loses it, and will likely get admonished or worse. I wish the underlying issue could be addressed; Andy seems to (once again) be trying to enforce BLP stuff, admittedly in his own peculiar way... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue is really getting users involved in the discussion a bit emotional/involved - a bit of backing of is needed - Youreallycan 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that Sceptre has persistently attempted to justify his unilateral 'gender reassignment' of Bradley Manning, against the express wishes of the individual concerned - which he could easily have discovered for himself if he'd bothered to look in the obvious places. [23] As long as Sceptre gets away with this disgusting exploitation of a vulnerable and disturbed individual with no means to respond, I will continue to expose Sceptre as the narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked or not. I'm less than convinced at this point that he is the 'LGBT/feminist activist' that he claims to be anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Impolite language, but it clearly appears after looking over the discussions previously that this Sceptre editor is pushing a POV. I would say it is more likely to do damage to Bradley Manning's reputation to push the POV that Sceptre is pushing than to help it. Wikipedia should not be in the business of trying to forcibly 'out' people, and this type of attitude is diametrically opposed to the underlying principles of WP:BLP. I realize that this might not be considered outing by some, but it is a very similar situation and I would expect some degree of frustration to build after repeatedly telling Sceptre to acknowledge the spirit of BLP. I would suggest that other editors become involved in the debate in order to de-escalate it, or alternatively, the article could just be locked. With the article locked, the editors could debate this at leisure without someone deciding it is time to unilaterally decide a person's gender for them. The media sources use male, it isn't a BLP violation to use a person's observable or obvious appearance and natural gender, but it is BLP to 'expose' or 'promote' something that the person doesn't appear to be or simply isn't promoting strongly themselves. If a person appeared to be a woman, and was passing, we wouldn't arbitrarily put a 'fact' that she was born a man into a Wikipedia article unless that appeared to be something the individual was comfortable with. In this situation, you have an obviously male individual, who some are pushing, notably Sceptre, to identify as a woman, for whatever personal satisfaction that brings Sceptre. This is already a politically charged and contentious case, and Wikipedia doesn't need to bring additional potentially contentious things into the article unless they are directly relevant, supported by sources, and can pass muster under the WP:BLP policy. Andy, relax, take a breath, but I have to say I applaud you trying to keep the article on a good track. -- Avanu (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Spectre: WP:TROUT @Andy: Please be nice. Are we done here now? Arcandam (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read further and looked into the matter, commenting on where Andy has said, as linked to above, "Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere. blah blah blah" well what do you know, looking at Sceptre's consistent behaviour ignoring community standards, policy, guidelines and assistance from other editors, then I would say, if I may borrow a wordsmiths phrase.... Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere.

So put me down for whatever AndyTheGrump is having, Arcandam has the right approach at the bare minimum, whereas a block for Spectre is indicated, TreyGeek, have you read up on this enough ? Penyulap ☏ 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if I put my mind to it, I'm sure I could be a really good Troll myself, but I really doubt if I could match Spectre's skill in choosing the very best weakpoints of the community in question, the wider wikipedia community, and still stay under the radar. I take my hat off to him for getting away with it this long.

Generally a simple thing like calling a boy a girl or calling a woman a man is the sort of thing that simply doesn't matter, water off a ducks back. For other people it can be more important to them. In that community, it can reasonably be expected by anyone that people are more sensitive than normal to gender identity considering the lengths that they go to, drugs, surgery, social and family stigma. So if a reasonable person like you, the reader, wanted to troll that community or an individual within it, what could you come up with better than to rename an individuals article from one gender to another ? In this case, rather than think 'oh Fudge what have I done' when it's been brought up by other editors and the mistake corrected, no change in course or intent is apparent. Penyulap ☏ 07:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing the archive template from this thread due to concern at the statement that is was by a "self-confessed AndyTheGrump fanboy". To consider this matter resolved, it makes sense for discussion to be closed down by someone who is not a fanboy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Sceptre from LGBT articles

It can be reasonably expected by a reasonable editor that some issues like gender identity are a sensitive issue to the Lesbian / Gay / Bisexual / Transsexual community (guessing the acronym here). Spectre seems to lack the sensitivity required for editing these articles without upsetting the wikipedia community, or to learn fast enough to prevent continuing disruption. I propose Sceptre should focus editing on unrelated topics only. Penyulap ☏ 07:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I boldly edited your comment, you accidentally misspelled Sceptre's name. Arcandam (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, trolling, or both. I support a topic ban on LGBT articles, broadly defined (including all LGBT BLP's). Arcandam (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he should be restricted from editing those articles. After all, they have nothing to do with the Bradley Manning article. The idea of pre-emptive punishment on the off chance he does something wrong is an outrage. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

If we wanted to punish we would ask for a block, not for a topic ban. We are asking for a topic ban because Sceptre has demonstrated an inability to understand what is wrong with those edits. If I AGF I think he does not understand what is wrong with those edits (and we do not topic ban him pre-emptively but after he demonstrated he does not understand what is wrong with those edits but is nonetheless willing to make edits like those). If I ABF I think he is trolling. In both cases a topic ban would be helpful. Arcandam (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) to head off further outrage. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's way, way, way over-the-top to topic ban me from all LGBT articles; doing so would prevent me from maintaining an article I spent months getting to featured. The fact is, from a reading of the sources given in the article, as given in the article, I had good faith to move to Breanna Manning. I think the bigger problem is the conduct of the Wikipedia community with regard to transgender people. If you look at Talk:Tom Gabel, you'll see the same kind of arguments being used when talking about a trans woman who in no uncertain terms came out.

Look, I don't make any secrets about the fact I'm LGBT. I'm in the category for LGBT Wikipedians. And one of the first things you learn when you are part of a LGBT community is that you don't have the right to define what a person is or isn't. This goes especially for trans people. You don't get to say that an individual isn't gay enough, or isn't trans enough, even if you're gay or trans yourself. A person's identity is defined through themselves and nothing else. Obviously, being Wikipedia, we need those reliable sources, but between the Lamo chat logs and the New York source, I was confident that Manning had identified as female.

That isn't to say I'm uncomfortable with how the gender identity became known to the public. I would have appreciated it if Manning said it publicly. I'm aware that Manning is okay with being referred to by the name "Bradley", but a) it's not identification as male, and b) it's not in the article. I appreciate the argument in the Reitman piece, but Reitman is not Manning.

As I said, there is a massive problem on Wikipedia with our treatment of transgender people. There seem to be many cisgender editors trying to define the terms of being transgender, which, as I've said, is a massive faux pas. The sort of arguments seen on Talk:Tom Gabel show it's encyclopedia-wide: one editor is arguing (from ignorance rather than spite) that Gabel should be referred to as he as she hasn't started the transition yet, despite a massive Rolling Stone article in which she says that she's a woman. This is a digression of sorts, but it goes back to a central point: I don't get to define anyone's identity other than my own, and neither does anyone else. As I had good faith to believe Manning identified as female, all I did was respect that identification. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with your edits? Can you describe it in your own words? Are you going to continue doing edits like those? Arcandam (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in consideration of being called a "narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked" on this noticeboard by the AndyTheGrump as typical of the uncivil and disrespectful behaviour that Sceptre has been subject to, this thread is plainly unhelpful and inflammatory. Reminder - does anyone recall Five pillars includes "respect"? Let's see some more of it, at the moment ANI has a severe lack of it as every time I drop in here, it looks more like a blood sport cheered on by the same old nasty dramah queens. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• As other people have pointed out above, more eloquently than I can, Andy was impolite (he is a bit of a grump, remember) but Sceptre's behaviour has been much more damaging to Wikipedia. Pointing out the word "respect" in the five pillars does not help your case because Sceptre's behaviour is not very respectful. You can call me nasty, you can call me a dramah queen, but please don't say I am old. I am not old. Please "respect" me too. Arcandam (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. On this page you can find evidence that I am not a dramah queen. Please read this page and retract your comment.
  • Sorry, indeed I hope you are lithe, smooth skinned, delightfully gym bunny toned and spend the weekends working out as a podium dancer. My used of "old" was more in the sense of old tired and jaded, as most of us become who peer into the dark void of this drama board too often. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can send you a picture if you want me to. Sorry, I am not a dancer, but I am rather lithe and smooth skinned. Gym bunny toned is a bit too optimistic, but I am quite happy with the way I look. I am experienced, but not old, tired and jaded (yet). If you would read this page you would find evidence that I am not a dramah queen. This is getting a bit offtopic. My point was that the first one to throw the respect-stone was not without sin. Let's give Sceptre the chance to respond to the questions I asked at 10:23. Arcandam (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly Sceptre needs to be banned from the topic of Manning as the views revealed in that area show that no rational behavior is possible (for anyone who hasn't looked: Andy is exploding precisely because Sceptre cannot respond to clear statements that Manning has no publicly expressed gender identity, and because the community will not reign in Sceptre's IDIDNTHEARTHAT circular refrains). The above mention of 5P completely misses the point: we are adults, and respect is not handed out in equal dollops to anyone who can click "edit"—a certain amount of rational and helpful behavior is needed in order to earn respect. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  Since when was a public declaration needed per MOS:IDENTITY? It doesn't, because otherwise we'd be describing Billy Tipton as a woman. All that's needed is that the self-expression is included in a reliable source. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  In fairness to those mentioning the self-declaration argument; for living persons it is well established (see WP:BLPCAT for example) that self-declaration is the marker to use in controversial matters of identity etc. The lack of a firm precedent/policy for transgender issues means that, obviously, we are making this up as we go :) FWIW is Tipton a good example? He was born a woman but no one knew this until his death. So indeed, his public declaration is that he was male... --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this is necessary. I think that Sceptre needs to appreciate the insensitivity of the actions undertaken on the Manning article - particularly preferring to make such a controversial change without prior discussion. Sceptre may need (in the future) restricting from transgender issues; there is a sensible agreement on the Gabel article on how to handle a complex issue, I find the description of it above unfair to the participants there. Sceptre clearly sees these issues in a black/white context - but by definition they are shades of grey. Gender issues are a big pressure point; given the increasing number of people publicly coming out as transgender we should probably discuss a more specific approach to the various issues (i.e. how to deal with someone who transitions part way through their public life, etc.) as we are basically making this up as we go. However, I see no particular indication that Sceptre's actions in general on LGBT articles are problematic, and indeed they appear to be a net benefit. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I hope it is not necessary. Exactly that black/white vision seems to be the problem. If he does not understand the problem with the edits made on the Manning article there is huge risk something similar will happen again in the future. Arcandam (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Insensitivity to whom? With regards to Manning, yes, the circumstances of which the gender dysphoria became public knowledge is somewhat problematic, but Manning also expressed (again, privately) fear that the press would immortalise her as male; Lamo may have even turned the logs over to the press partially because of that. If it's insensitivity to editors, I'd rather annoy a few cisgender editors by doing BOLD actions which I believe comport with our guidelines and policies, than otherwise be in the position of saying a trans person isn't "trans enough". Sceptre ^(talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please answer the following questions: Do you understand the problem with your edits? Can you describe it in your own words? Are you going to continue doing edits like those? I think those are the most important questions at this moment. Arcandam (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry Sceptre, but the issue of Manning's gender preference is undetermined and I feel you misused a lot of the material to decide Manning's explicit and ongoing preference is to be a woman. Your blitz move/editing of the article is highly insensitive and inconsiderate to Manning based on your own viewpoint that Manning should be referred to as a woman. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is overly sweeping and premature, although the page-move at Bradley Manning certainly deserves a painful whacking with the cluebat. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT in subsequent discussions at the talkpage is also troubling but does not rise to disciplinary level, annoying though it may be. My advice to Sceptre is to drop it now. If this drama drags on I'll support a page-ban from the Manning article, I guess, but no more. Moreschi (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, you invoke MOS:IDENTITY above, stating "All that's needed is that the self-expression is included in a reliable source." I wonder if you even bothered to read the rest of that section? Keep in mind the Manual of Style is a guideline, not a command. The section you quote invokes WP:Verifiability *and* WP:NPOV. Those are both policies. If you care about enforcing a neutral tone in an article, one of the things you look at is context. In the Manning article, the main reason it exists at all in Wikipedia is because of the Wikileaks stuff. While the article does cover some of the gender stuff in detail, it doesn't go out of its way to put that front and center, except for providing some basis for Manning's motivations. For you to singularly take it upon yourself to rename this article and refuse to listen to others' counsel on this, despite a dozen editors trying to explain that this should be handled carefully, shows that you're not trying to recognize the impact of this. You are instead pushing a POV. You have accused Wikipedia editors of simply not caring enough about LGBT issues and so on, and your use of the term 'cisgender' tells me how invested you are in the subject, but you don't give a care to how other people are trying to help. You seem to be more of the ilk that would justify forced 'outing' of people because that's their 'real' identity. Despite an increased level of tolerance for such things, homosexuality and gender identity are not simply things that the average person accepts without at least some internal debate and at most a level of emotionally-charged response. You want to live in a perfect world where these things don't matter, but Wikipedia articles are not here to conform to the world of the future. We have policies in place, like BLP and NPOV that protect people today. The article topic material is contentious enough. You now want to add in another *immediate* bias that will cause quite a few people to question Manning without trying to understand his motivations first. This angle that you propose to make front and center is rarely the focus on news stories on Bradley Manning. If I could conceive of how this change would be beneficial to the overall situation, I'd wholeheartedly support it. But the realistic view is that it does not. -- Avanu (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would not support so broad a topic ban. I would support a ban from the Manning article; I think Sceptre's behaviour has done nothing except inflame the situation dramatically. But an LGBT topic ban is too broad and excessive. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Fae outlined everything. Topic ban is way overboard.
• Question: Outside of this Manning article; are there any other BLP or LGBT articles in which there's been a problem with Sceptre's editing? — Ched :  ?  12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing the archive template from this thread due to concern at the statement that is was by a "self-confessed AndyTheGrump fanboy". To consider this matter resolved, it makes sense for discussion to be closed down by someone who is not a fanboy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User AndyTheGrump continues with personal attacks

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

---

(title should have been: Why was the complaint about continued personal attacks from Andy closed within 2 hours by supportive non-admin, while the overal case is still running)

• 05:19, 10 May - [24]
• 05:22, 10 May - [25]
• 05:28, 10 May - [26]
• 05:37, 10 May - [27]

I don't see how a "closure" by User:Arcandam of the discussion (above) can waive this behaviour, whatever the targetted user has done. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears you are wikistalking AndyTheGrump. Note that the above editor account is a dedicated SPA who is only allowed to edit cold fusion related articles with this particular account. Also considering that Andy has recently reported POVbrigand to ANI: [28], this has the appearance of being tit for tat. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? AndyTheGrump is clearly failing to meet Five pillars #4 in a persistent and sustained manner than now appears an aggressive series of hostile and disturbing public personal attacks in multiple forums. The minimum action we should be discussing is a six month interaction ban between AndyTheGrump and Sceptre. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All these diffs appear to be from before the above close. They were even used in the original complaint. If no further incidents have occurred since the above close then there doesn't appear to be an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was mistakenly reading these as from this morning. If the unacceptable behaviour continues after the date and time of the close above, then this should be resurrected in all its visceral unpleasantness. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Passing comment, you people need to grow a pair, just because a guy is rude does not mean run to mummy every time ffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so that I understand: 1) is this user's behaviour tolerable ? 2) Is a "closure" by a non-admin on a AN/I normal practise ?

The appearance it gives to me is that as long as you have enough supportive editors around you can get away with rudeness, even if reported on the AN/I. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AN & ANI closures are like knife fights in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -- there are no rules. Nobody Ent 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darkness Shines Thanks for your drive-by comment. There is a different between being an abusive vulgar prawn, being egged on by blood-thirsty "fans", and crossing the line into direct personal attacks. AndyTheGrump crossed that line some time ago, his behaviour should remain of concern and taken seriously when we receive complaints from those distressed by his actions. We all, right now, have a serious problem with our unwelcoming culture, for example how many new admins do you think we have this year compared to last and why do you think that is? --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As highlighted now below the title, the user made the personal attacks while the "main" AN/I complaint is still running. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that POVbrigand considers it entirely appropriate to make personal attacks on the integrity of respected academics when it suits his cause, based on nothing more than conspiracy theories, I see no reason to consider his opinions worthy of attention. Or are personal attacks ok so long as the person being attacked isn't a Wikipedia contributor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, an ANI discussion about something which does not concern Cold Fusion appears to be far outside the remit of your dedicated single purpose account. I am unsure why you are getting involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fæ: A reason why fewer of the right kind of editor want to to be an admin is the lack of support that is evident on any noticeboard—even when someone's intuition leads them to rename a BLP article to change the person's gender, there will still be onlookers supporting their team. In a more sensible environment, there would be a brief discussion where the sources and facts were listed, and the matter settled. I don't blame POV pushers for exploiting the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—it is their enablers that take the blame. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand we have perfectly good processes for reaching a consensus. AndyTheGrump seems to prefer making personal attacks rather than applying them. My comments with regard to a blood-sport/fanboy drama hungry mob are indeed the "enablers" you refer to. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, a simple question. Do you support Sceptre's attempt to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning as a female named Breanna, against his own express wishes? I fail to see what 'consensus' has to do with this - Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and we have no right to reach 'decisions' revising the sexual identity of living persons based on anything but public self identification. Frankly, I find it bizarre that anyone from the LGBT community could support attempts to engage in such behaviour. As for 'personal attacks', Sceptre was the first to engage in this, with off-wikipedia comments that "Wikipedia's full of transphobic fucks", followed by further multiple accusations of 'transphobia' and 'bigotry', canvassing for support with misleading postings, all combined with a complete refusal to even consider the possibility that his selective reading of cherry-picked sources reporting private conversations might not be an appropriate way to deal with a sensitive issue. Even when direct evidence was provided that Manning has made clear that at this time, he still identifies as male, Sceptre has tried to argue that his 'reassignment' was correct. So yes, I responded to his personal attacks with some of my own. But who's behaviour do you consider worse? Which one of us is exploiting a clearly troubled and vulnerable individual to score points in regard to his bizarre interpretation of sexual politics? Or do you also think that we should 'determine' gender identity through reports of such private conversations, rather than according to the wishes of the person involved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AtG's behavior (civility wise) is worse because he should be experienced enough to know retaliating a personal attack with another personal attack causes drama and wiki-churn and doesn't benefit the project. Nobody Ent 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And which is worse encyclopaedia-wise? What are we here for anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question implies a choice that doesn't (or shouldn't) have to be made. Why an individual is here is a personal matter and answers may vary. Humans are capable of change and reason -- you can choose to do good encyclopedia work without the PAs. Wiki conflict is often like drag racing towards the edge of a cliff -- the "winner" isn't the editor who's faster but the one who knows when to stop first. Conflict wise it's more tactically astute to remain ice cold and let the other editor's behavior stand out in contrast to your own. Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of bans or blocks for AtG are way premature. If there's concern about his long term pattern of editing, initiate Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AndyTheGrump Nobody Ent 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, "they started it first" is in no way ever a defence for breaking Five pillars and an argument you expect in a primary school. If you really want Sceptre to be subject to meaningful sanctions use a real dispute resolution process and stick to being civil, without this, you are just another handbag clutching annoying drama monger. Thanks for admitting honestly that you have been indulging yourself by making personal attacks. You have some choices, you can continue making personal attacks and get blocked, you can walk away and ignore Sceptre or you could request a six month interaction ban to give yourself and the rest of us a holiday from reading your vulgar visceral vitriol. Thanks again. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"just another handbag clutching annoying drama monger" does not deescalate the situation and is possibly a PA in itself -- can't really tell as I don't know what "handbag clutching" means. I'm also unable to interpret "Thanks again" as anything but unnecessary snark. Nobody Ent 13:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How odd that you would object to a handbag and yet have far less of a problem with liar or turd. Non-snarky cheers and good afternoon to you. Fæ (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC

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

Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits

I would appreciate some assistance here. User:Alan Liefting has started recategorizing animal rights articles without discussion. He is removing articles from one to another, creating a new cat, removing pages from existing cats, and adding others. He's using AWB and Hotcat.

I've asked him to stop and explain (see discussion here), as some of the distinctions he is making make no sense to me. They might make sense if he would explain, but he won't. One red flag is that he said there is a "subtle" difference between animal rights and animal welfare groups. But there is a significant difference between these groups. Therefore, if he continues, there's a chance he will start categorizing groups together inappropriately, and because of the speed of his edits, undoing them would cause a significant amount of work.

Alan says he plans to continue without discussion. I have seen similar complaints about his category work before. Can anything be done about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've also asked him to stop and explain here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two main concerns. First, there is a big difference between animal welfare (AW) and animal rights (AR) advocacy, which Alan indicates he doesn't recognize. The distinction has narrowed over the last 10 years, and will continue to narrow in my opinion, but in the view of some groups and individuals it's still a stark distinction. BLP kicks in because people don't like to be labelled incorrectly -- I've had several emails from AW people over the years asking to be removed from an AR category or template.

Secondly, the AR movement consists of established organizations (e.g. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), as well as amorphous groupings set up for one specific campaign (e.g. SHAC), and then leaderless resistance movements (e.g. the Animal Liberation Front), which are not "groups" in any meaningful sense. To avoid confusion, I created an Animal rights movement category, so that editors not familiar with the differences don't have to worry about them. Alan wants to split this category into "organizations" on the one hand, and something else (he won't say what) on the other.

I'm not totally resistant to change, but I'd like to make sure that whoever carries it out knows something about the movement, so they can spot the pitfalls, and that requires discussion before making the changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please credit me with at least a little intelligence in being able to distinguish between an organisation and something else. You will note that I am only moving the organisations to the category that I created. And I said nothing about creating any other category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You categorized Safe Humane Chicago as an AR group though there's no indication that they are, and their use of the word "humane" suggests they're an animal welfare group. You categorized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as an AR group, which they're not; they have AR sympathies, but several of the senior members don't see themselves as AR, and AR is not their primary focus. Then there are the rallying cries sometimes used by one section of the AR movement – such as Oxford Arson Squad and Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade. These aren't organizations in any meaningful sense, but you've moved them into that cat. Those are just a few examples of the problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

• Safe Humane Chicago - animal rights org according to infobox
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - they promote animal rights but not via activism. What the leaders of the group say is not relevant. What are they looking from the outside in an neutral, unbiased manner?
• Oxford Arson Squad defined as an organisation in the article
• Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade - self described as leaderless resistance but is quite clearly an organisation

You appear to want to have a narrowly defined definition of what should be called an animal rights organisation and to me it seems overly narrow. I sorry to make accusations SlimVirgin but this does smack of WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions to articles say, or to impose your own idea of what an AR group is, or what a leaderless resistance is. For example, the word "humane" in a title almost always signals animal welfare, not rights. I have yet to see an exception to that; if this group is such an exception, we would need a source.

Making mass changes without being familiar with the background, and failing to stop when someone who is familiar with it points out problems, just makes no sense. It's not a question of OWN, but of not wanting to get things wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the mass changes you talk about the edits I did to avoid a template redirect, and setting the collapsible option, and then setting most of the article to the collapsed option because the template was too big? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You say "It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions". This is clutching at straws. If I cannot carry out the simple task of reassigning a category after reading an article then either the article is at fault, I have made a mistake, or you do not agree. If I you do not agree with four of the edits it is an editorial issue not worthy of an ANI. Like you, I also don't want to get thinks wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find this all very ridiculous and very frustrating. I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of mu edits to SlimVirgin. I did not say that I plan to continue without discussion. And, I am yet to be told why my edits are contentious. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of my edits to SlimVirgin". I read what you wrote on your talk page, and it was not clear to me. Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoeSperrazza and Slim Virgin, I read the talk page and did not see any clear rationale for what you're doing. I have, at this time, no opinion about your actions one way or the other, but that's partly because you really haven't explained yourself adequately and, specifically, you have not answered Slim Virgin's reasonable questions. You should address those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Communication should be better, yes. I understand that it might make sense that there be a category on organizations (and the response to that would be a terse 'why not') but there are questions of scope that need to be hashed out and editors must discuss those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But I did communicate. Am I dealing with a bunch of thicko's or am I not making myself clear? Don't answer that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is above such mere trifles as policy and consensus. This issue arises regularly and his behaviour is an infallibly unperturbed as we might expect from such an Olympian presence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A mere opinion Andy, and given you grumpy attitude towards me I give it no credence to it. ("Olympian presence"? Huh?) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also of concern is this - tagging an article with 3 sources as 'BLPPROD'. GiantSnowman 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of editors make that mistake, as long as he doesn't keep repeating it, then there shouldn't be a problem. More worrying is AfD nominations like this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What is wrong with it? he-he.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Editors turning up at the AfD should easily be able to make a judgement on the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)"Ah! But it did not have references! It only had external links." crowed Alan triumphantly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that such pointy nominations (and proddings) are rather common--I'm not going to give a full list, but see his talk p. and edit history. (in this case I think his point here was that the reason for deletion was so obvious it didn't need to mbe mentioned (lack of third party sources). That he failed to consider merging or redirection is typical. There are two possible solutions: one is dealing with his contempt for reasonable procedure, and the other is altering deletion policy to require the use of WP:BEFORE, both with respect to a reasonable search and explicit consideration of other options. We could figure out how to deal with him specifically, but I think it would be much better to deal with the general problem. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The general problem I think you are referring to is new page creation? Using WP:BEFORE to try and keep the crap out of WP is not going to work. We have been forever tweaking policy to keep crap edits under control BUT IT IS NOT WORKING. It is pathetic that WP is flooded with crap new pages. I want to build WP yet seem to waste a lot of my valuable editing time at new page patrol. The inherent conservative nature of Wikipedians and the bureaucratic behemoth that the project has become (but I am not opposed to some degree of bureaucracy) is not conducive to policy change. So we are stuck with the problem. Maybe that is why I have become POINTy with my edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If its not working then we need to consider why it isn't working and what factors if any are exacerbating it. May I suggest that you look again at that AFD nomination and ask yourself, how clearly did that explain our standards to the creator of that article? The problem with a deletion nomination that would only be obvious to Wikipedians is that to a non-wikipedian it could comes across as unprofessional, or even malicious. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah! Go on you lot! Kick me over a little levity on an AFD and bending the rules (rules? what rules?) on a PROD in order to incrementally up the quality of WP. But ignore my other 10s of 1000s of edits!! I need some wikilove or a barnstar or milk and cookies or a cup or tea. Naarh. Piss off. Just kidding! And that's another thing. All that cloying budding up with new editors who do a crap job is pathetic. We need to encourage good new editors not only old new editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly we ought to encourage good new editors; we also agree about the need to discourage the hopeless; where we apparently disagree is in the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of teaching those who at first are less than satisfactory. I don't want this to become personal between us--we share about 90% of the same goals. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. And you have been very tactful with the 10% on which we disagree. I try not to judge people on initial face value in the real world but in the wikiworld it is real easy to judge if a new editor is worth grooming. I have encourage a few over the years but more often than not I just want to tell them to piss off. I don't think I could be an administrator. I would be listed here every day! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I'd like to see this discussion result in your agreement to respect process just a little more, especially when it comes to mass changes. We're left with a bit of a mess now at the AR cats where (it seems) you won't discuss how to move forward in a way that makes sense, so I may have to undo the category moves you've made so far to restore consistency, which is work I could do without. (I'm assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you won't undo them yourself.)

People have expressed concern about this before on your talk page, e.g. here and here. The key issues are that you make mass changes (ones that you must know might be contentious) without prior discussion, and when asked to stop won't. So I hope you'll agree not to do those things anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course there will be disagreements with my edits. I have done quite a lot of them. Sometimes I come across an area that is closely guarded from outsiders, or there has been a fractious past discussion, and I am hounded until I leave. I stumble across them because the categories are way out of line with convention and/or policy (they don't alway match). Also, I respect process most of the time but if process stops me from improving WP I ignore it. There is policy on the somewhere. And which animal rights edits do you want me to revert? I did almost a couple of hundred of them. Calling the result of my edits is a mess is only your opinion at this stage. We have yet to get someone else to corroborate that opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You assume correctly that I will not undo my edits because I think I am right in this case (note - "in this case"). Arrogant I know, but to me the edits are quite clearly an improvement. I want to finish what I started. I don't want it sitting there half finished. Also, how is the "we" that you type about? Is the the royal we? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And as I stated on my take page I did stop when you contacted me. I had to to answer my talk page msgs for one!. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've created mistakes and inconsistencies because you've labelled some animal welfare articles as animal rights, and now some groups are in "organizations," and some in "movements," and others that are only ephemeral rallying cries are in groups (the latter is like calling "BE BOLD" a Wikipedia group).

Alan, this is what I mean. I had to ask you the same thing several times on your talk page, and you kept giving non-answer replies. I've made the same point here about the difference between AR and AW, and groups and rallying cries, more than once already. But still you respond as though I haven't explained. This is the repeated complaint people have of your approach, going back months, namely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This can be annoying when it comes to normal article edits, but it's disruptive when it comes to mass changes that are harder to undo. So that's what really needs to end. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to disagree, but you have to acknowledge and try to accommodate (or at least address) people's objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your point above that you stopped when asked, that's not correct. I asked you to stop at 00:39 7 May, you replied to that post at 00:58 7 May, and at 01:10 7 May, you continued with your changes, [29] then started editing the category pages to reflect those changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, as I have already pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_for_using_AWB. I am tiring of this which is why I gave a short-form reply and why I won't bother with the rest of the nit-picking. As my parting shot, unless my editing capabilities are going to being questioned again, and since you are making a serious effort to discredit me, I will say this: it is all about WP:OWNERSHIP isn't it? I did maybe a couple of hundred edits in your patch and you did not like it. All you have managed to do of substance out of all of those is wrongly query a few categorisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a score here umpire? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an "umpire", but I'll try to offer a suggestion. I write this not looking at anything to do with the dispute itself. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Alan, this would normally merely be an issue of "the second mover conundrum". A response to which might be to try to get one or more WP:3PO, to hope for a resolution. (For example, something potentially possible here at WP:AN/I.) However, the way you are acting, and your responses in this thread, would seem to me to be alienating those who might step up and look at the situation, and potentially support your assertions.

I've been there. You feel you know and understand the "way things should be done", and someone else comes along with a different interpretation of how they think things should be done.

Something important for any Wikipedian to learn is the duality of how WP:BOLD actually meshes with WP:CON. And how self assertion of "what is right" only goes so far.

Not everyone fully understands this, and what makes it more challenging for some is that it's constantly evolving on Wikipedia.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that at this point, I suggest that if you still feel that your position is correct, and you don't feel that you are going to come to a consensus with SV, then start an RfC of some kind. Express your views and see how the rest of the community feels about it.

But continuing to "shout to the sky" is obviously not getting you anywhere, and is probably not the successful action that you may be hoping it to be.

I hope this helps. - jc37 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Yep. Yep. I consider myself to be BOLD on occasion but I am not reckless. I understand consensus but only seek it if is potentially contentious. I have just come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights, SlimVirgins' little fiefdom, and I am not impressed. I was a mess! Granted, how she/he manages the WikiProject is of a lesser concern than the actual content side of WP but it may not bode well for his/her other edits. I am now under the impression that this ANI is a mean of getting me to stay away from animal right related articles. I don't like making these assumptions about other editors motivations but I have been pushed TOO far in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of WP:NOTTHEM and bordering on personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have read the reasons given by Slim and by Alan. Slimvirgin seems to be an editor knowledgeable of the field who has been working on the articles for a long while, while Alan is simply using his personal idea of what an organization is. I suggest Alan to stop changing these categories and to move to a different set of articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And, Alan, please, members of the local wikiprojects have been reading the sources and writing the articles. They are bound to know better than you how the article should be categorized. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge on a topic does not necessarily translate into a knowledge on what is the best way to categorise articles to serve the Reader. I had come across a lot of improvements that were needed relating to the animal rights WikiProject. Admittedly, some were just minor administrative changes, but it also showed a lack of knowledge by SlimVirgin about WP policy/guidelines/conventions. And if I am incapable of the simple task of categorising articles relating to organisations then I should not be anywhere near Wikipedia. Do you want me to leave now? But I would really like to stay... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I too have found that categorization seems to be a special province of Wikipedia, where there is a considerable amount of OWNership from a few regulars; when I participate in a discussion there, I am sometimes made to feel less than welcome, for suggesting a change in the settled way they do things. But I disagree with Alan that categorization is always a simple matter: categories are inter-related, and it is of surprising difficulty keeping them consistent. When I first came here 5 years ago, since I as a librarian have some training and experience in the general process of classification, I thought I might be able to make some contribution there, but I soon learned I was not wanted. So for many years I avoided the process, figuring that I indeed might be as a newcomer not realizing everything that might be involved -- and I found quite enough other things to do here. But all processes at Wikipedia -- and elsewhere -- can benefit from occasional look-ins by the non-specialists. Indeed, that's the whole basis underlying WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To some extent this is true of the Animal rights wikproject also. SV has a definite opinion on the overall subject, and it is very different from my general opinion--neither of us have a NPOV in Real life here. I don't think either of us should be trying to coordinate the project. Not looking for unnecessary quarrels, I've kept away except when there's an incidental overlap with one of my primary WP interests. I regret it was necessary. (I also would say just the same of a number of other areas here--I mention this one only because it has been brought up already.) DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken is making a small but obviousy misplaced change to Reach for the Sky. He reacts to my reversal (including an explanation) with active attempts to prevent a discussion by repeatedly erasing the pertinent section on the talk page. Please make him join the discussion. Thanks. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox just protected the page. Neither of you had any productive effect — the comment does not change anything. It's simply a request not to erase a nearby space. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The nearby space is what the non-discussion is about. There shouldn't be a space.

BTW: Do you think an IP wouldn't have gotten away with the shit Beyond pulled? Not only avoiding the discussion, but actively disrupting it? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Nyytend: User:79.223.4.134 and User:91.10.47.34 (clearly the same editor) are very probably socks of banned user Otto4711. I presented the evidence that got Otto's latest sock account - User:Iridescentlavender - indef blocked, and this seems like some puerile backlash. (Otto's well-known for harrassing those who file SPIs against him -- just look at his behavior toward User:Lihaas.) The IPs are clearly WikiVeterans, not newbies -- they hit the ground running -- but the behavioral evidence is not yet sufficient to compare against Otto's many blocked socks: although editing articles about TV shows is one of his focuses. Filing an SPI would be silly, not only because the evidence is thin, but CUs generally won't connect an IP to a named account (although why not when it comes to long-banned sockmeisters I don't really understand).

In any event, I see no reason to discuss anything with probable socks, especially when they want to discuss a general issue on an article talk page, and especially when they post a demanding comment title and tell me to "Go", as if I was a recalcitrant servant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, Otto's plan went like this: 1. Remove a comment from an article. 2. Hope that you will be around to re-add it. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

I'm nobody's sock, my provider switches IPs from time to time. You should not violate AGF quite this blatantly. (I'm also not a newbie, but never claimed I was.)

I started running when it was obivous that you don't want to discuss the matter, and even deleted the discussion for others. Imagine that would have happened to you: What would your reaction be? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you sound very much like Iridescentlavender when he was protesting his innocence. As for AGF, well, I have a pretty good nose for socks, and a good track record when I report them -- not perfect, by any means, but good enough that I've learned I can trust my instincts. When that happens and my SockSense is buzzing, my ability to AGF is quite limited. As a colleague of Carl Sagan once remarked, having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

What "Otto's plan" was, I haven't the foggiest idea. I find it almost impossible to understand the motivations of a person who will come back to edit Wikipedia time and time again after it's been made quite clear that his inability to edit collegially makes him unwanted here, and who returns with the full knowledge that he will erventually be found out and shut down. A reasonable and mature person would find another outlet for their energies - but that does not describe Otto4711. I really can't grok him at all -- but fortunately I don't have to understand his behavior in order to recognize it.

Regarding the demanding comments on the article talk page: article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions". This is a very reasonable statement, and seems well grounded in policy. Perhaps the IP user can open a discussion on a policy page to discuss article consistency in formatting, and this section of ANI and the talk section could be closed? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which policy page that would be. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:COMMENT, I think a new section on WT:MOS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ofWP:COMMENT, and since it supports my position, I see no reason to open up a discussion there. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it supports your position (which is that no comment should be included), as it states "They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors. Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode.". That's why a discussion may be warranted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (my emphasis) --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See my response to this point on the article's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What, a new one, I thought I was Otto?

Anyway, put up or shut up. Next time you accuse me of socking without evidence, I'm reporting you for making personal attacks.

The discussion is about the article. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a discussion about the article would be a content dispute, which would be inappropirate for AN/I, which deals with behavioral problems -- presumably why you brought me here. The thing is, when you file an AN/I report, the behavior of all parties becomes the scope of the discussion, including you, the filing party (or "OP"). This is why my thoughts about your probable sockiness are appropriate. It's quite often the case that an AN/I filing will bounce back and bite the OP; we even have a page about it: see WP:BOOMARANG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So I could legitimately accuse you of threatening me with a lawyer, with no evidence whatsoever? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the page with or without the comment line. Why is the IP edit-warring over something so monumentally trivial? And how does he get away with calling it "vandalism" when it clearly is no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF much? Why don't you ask the same question about Beyond My Ken?

It's vandalism because he was damaging the article, without even an edit comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His change is invisible to the reader, therefore it does not damage the article. And your insistence otherwise demonstrates bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it.

The main isssue (and the reason this was blown out of proportion) is his disruptive "discussion" style and his personal attacks against me. That's why we are here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I really think it got "blown out of proportion" because you chose to come here with it, in the attempt to force me to discuss something in an inapproriate forum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I came here. You left me no choice by actively preventing any discussion about it. What else was I supposed to do?

What do you think would have happened if you picked up the discussion on /Talk, only to point out that the forum was wrong? Maybe even pointing out the right place? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ECx3) Call it a personal policy: just as the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists, I don't do discussions with socks, once I'm sure enough that they're socks -- this current discussion being a rare exception. (BTW, Bugs, the IP's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me.) Incidentally, I was EC'd in trying to say that the discussion was clearly going to continue to chase its tail, so I don't plan to participate further. Any editor -- apart from the OP -- who wants more input from me, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll dip my toe in again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. "BTW, Bugs, Beyond's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me." Now what? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That little blurb is not visible unless you go into edit mode specificaly looking for it. It makes no difference in the way the article displays in "read mode". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A small spacing difference in read mode has been reported, which is the point being made by the IP. However, I believe the difference is not materiel, and thus not worthy of dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article??? BTW, I liberally add those spacings to articles. Makes the page look nicer. Just remembered that there is some sort of footer template enclusure template. Might try and get a top spacing put on that. I am not holding my breath. Hard enough to do the the dab template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I want back the 15 minutes that I wasted reading this. I ECed with Errant, who basically said the same thing I was trying to close it with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd feel better if you blocked the IP, as he's now continuing his ridiculous edit war on this incredibly minor matter, in other articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to stir shit up, but the change was supposed to have a visible difference: This diff shows the effect he was intending. The two extra newlines got stripped out, which BMK evidently didn't notice, and so the two versions that were being edit-warred over were functionally the same. The fact that he neither of the editors even looked to see if their reversions were even affecting (much less improving) the article is really the final, capping lunacy to this whole thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper is deliberately reverting BMK now, in other articles, further demonstrating bad faith. I'm guessing he hasn't been blocked yet simply because the admins are enjoying the ping-pong match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting Beyond's reverts of my edits which are implementing WP:MOS. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I chucked the IP a 24hr block for continuing to edit war over trivialities (on another article). At least I think I did... some parts of the interface say he is blocked, but it threw up a wierd error when I blocked him, and it is not showing in the logs :S --Errant ^(chat!) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have worked, just is not logged :S Anyway - we immediately have an unblock request. Someone else can handle it from here, I need my bed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Handled. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Additional discussion about BMK's behavior

It was pointed out to me that closing the chapter on the disruptive IP also shut down conversation regarding BMK's conduct. That was not my intent. I am opening this subthread (as the closer) to facilitate the requested discussion on BMK without rendering any opinion on the matter. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent to this re-opening, it appears that BMK understands that his behavior could use improvement, based upon the acceptance of the awarded Oncorhynchus. I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I must say that this issue arose because a probable sock deliberately chose something that would rile him up. With that I entirely empathize with him as someone who socks have targeted for years. When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK. Socks are unwanted. The sock was going to find any issue to engage him on.

That said above, I doubt this "I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed". The addition of his < ! spacing > hidden comments and other style issues, and edit warring to keep them, has been going on for his entire wiki career over three accounts. His previous accounts have a block log for it. He has his own peculiar style that he puts on articles that goes against the project approved MOS, and he justifies edit warring with WP:IAR. He's been asked, and refuses, to discuss his style differences with editors on the MOS talk pages. The MOS must take into account more than just typical desktop usage, and as pointed out to him, some of those style differences he implements are actually destructive to users not using a desktop browser. He continues to ignore that his style doesn't benefit the project and creates a bad experience for some readers.

This issue was raised, and asked for justification by others besides the IP sock. It shouldn't just be ignored because of the obvious issue of being provoked by a sock. This is a cooperative project and his attitude when confronted on non-standard style is... pompous. This does need correction. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RfC/U, maybe? Unless this is garnering support for some sort of necessary preventative block, to protect the project from harm, of course. Doc talk 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in. I agree that in theory RFC/U is the right approach here if only to get a record of this somewhere less ephemeral than ANI or in some old talk archive (under a different user name in some cases). The difficulty is convincing someone to waste an entire afternoon of his life writing said RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me clarify something: You said " When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK" That is very bad advice. Many a time have I seen someone reporting socks get blocked because of their behavior during the Checkuser process. If you think someone is a sock, got to SPI, report it, avoid them. 3RR against a sock will still get you blocked for edit warring if their edits are not clearly vandalism or major BLP violations. And there always exists the chance that you are wrong, in which case, you have acted in bad faith and edit warred against a non-sock, likely biting a new user. A claim of "sock" doesn't exempt you from the guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the above. I agree with all of it.

I believe it was me who requested the reopening of the thread because I was not able to comment before the thread was closed. I asked User:Toddst1 here for advice to proceed and I thank him for reopening the thread.

Basically, what happened I believe on Reach for the Sky was that User:Beyond My Ken inserted whitespace here, was removed here by User:91.10.47.34, was readded by User:Beyond My Ken here and removed again here by User:Bzuk. On the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and aforementioned undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting.

User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles. Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this and because he is the only person who does this; In this same thread I explained the guideline where it whitespace should not be used and suggested if he wanted to change the guideline that he can propose to do so at its talk page. I hoped he stopped adding whitespace but it is obvious he is oppositional and does not and uses WP:IAR to continue the formatting. And it seems this is the only guideline that he does not want to follow. The rationale behind NOT using his "white space formatting" is that it is excessive.

Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.".

Regarding RFC/U, I can file it, but I would appreciate some help and pointers as it will be my RFC/U and I am not sure the work that is involved.Curb Chain (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, the SPI was closed by the clerk as " The three accounts appear Unrelated at this point. There are similarities, yes, but no smoking gun. ", with no comment as the content dispute. The observations of a single editor regarding a dispute in content in the middle of an SPI isn't something I normally consider as demonstrating a consensus, so not really relevant here. This edit by Ken [30] seems to indicate that he gets the point, and this was after his last edit on the page. Granted, the page is fully protected now, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt since he has admitted some error. At this stage while the article is fully protected, there is still nothing for us to do at ANI, however, and I am not inclined to unprotect it. What I DO suggest, is that everyone, especially Ken, go to the talk page of the article and make the consensus clear. And do so in a neutral, fair and polite manner. It could start as simple as "I think $x because of $y". This is missing, and is always the first step in dispute resolution. Until that happens, I see no point in taking any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also added a friendly reminder on his talk page, which should suffice and get the point across. If not, then he has no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper trouted me on my talk page regarding my edits on Reach for the Sky with the comment:

"Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now."

He was correct, my actions were distictly sub-optimal, which is why I accepted the trout. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any other issue, which I have no plans to discuss here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to go ahead with your white space editing?Curb Chain (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given his complete dismissal of the complaints against him based on the rationale that every editor who has complained is part of a tiny minority of malcontents, and that he recently edited the MoS with a seemingly-innocuous "clarification" to the introduction of whitespace of articles with the purpose of allowing him to lawyer away because his introduction of whitespace is not "inadvertent", I'd say that's a given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BMK's changes make no visible difference in the articles. There's no reason to do it, and there's also no reason to remove it. It looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Someone gave me a better example. It's still not worth edit-warring over. If it's detrimental to iPhone users, or whatever, then it should be stopped.

Besides which, a single white space works just as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary white space. I don't think so. In the example of mobile phone users, it can be a lot of useless scrolling and a lot of useless space that doesn't help the reader. Adding an extra line is not helpful, so unless there is a functional reason to have it in, I don't think this is necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, a single white space doesn't cause "a lot of useless space". No need to to get drawn out over something so minor. Moreover, a lot of his edits REDUCED the amount of space currently wasted. Let it go. Buffs (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We are simply asking him to stop doing it. As demonstrated by your comment, the white space may be minor, but still nonstandard. And regularly removed.

WP:COMMENT: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."

Wikipedia:BODY#Headings and sections: "multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article"

MOS:HEAD: "Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page."

WP:WHITE (summary: don't add whitespace)

WP:MOS#Formatting issues - blank space ... is for the style sheet.

{{-}} documentation says don't use it to add whitespace.

Help:Hidden text - don't use hidden text to create whitespace.Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of non-standard spacing throughout wikipedia. Obsessing over this minor trivia does nothing to improve wikipedia for the readers, who are generally interested in article content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in both the look and the content of an article. As such, keeping things similar sounds reasonable.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you had best stop hassling specific editors, and start plowing through every article from A to Z and fix this horrible problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I can do that without having the same problem made and reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of AFD notices on Pesoguin

The creator of this page keeps deleting the AFD banner on a page he created[31]. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. If I restore the banner a 3rd time my change will almost certainly be deleted again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted under A7 --Guerillero | My Talk 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial response on seeing this page crop-up in new-pages-patrol. My Speedy-deletion was rejected. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a bot automatically re-adds the templates anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, (a) the uw-afd templates (or equivilant original text) can be used to get the attention of AFD-tag-removers, and (b) I'm pretty sure the removal of an active AfD tag is vandalism and thus exempt from WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with copy/paste move please

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

---

Someone has asked me to fix up a copy/paste move of StooShe to Stooshe, but the target has since been significantly edited and a history merge will be needed - and I don't know how to do that. Can someone who does please fix it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I shy away from the complicated ones, but this was relatively simple. Complete article history is now at Stooshe, and StooShe is a redirect. I checked it twice, but let me know if I screwed something up. There are still 5 deleted edits at StooShe, but those edits were deleted well before the current page was created, so they don't need to be moved, as they are not part of the history of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

IP editor 98.211.240.43

98.211.240.43 (talk · contribs) has been editing the Gary Player to state he has won nine Senior Major Championships rather than six. These edits can be seen here[32], here[33], here[34], here[35], here[36], here[37], and here[38]. The number of Senior majors Gary Player has been the subject of a talk page discussion. Please note the discussion was moved from Tewapack (talk · contribs) to the Gary Player talk page by editor Tewapack. Editor Tewapack who like myself does many agrees with me on the total amount of Senior major wins for Player. Let me explain. The Senior British Open aka SBO began in the late 1980's but wasn't recognized as a major championship till 2003. The sources to verify this can be found here[39], here[40], and here[41]. Gary Player won the SBO three times prior to it being recognized as a major championship.

This IP editor and GKLipsco (talk · contribs) have been changing Gary Player's article to include his SBO wins as major championship ones but at the same time never changing any other article on a player who won the SBO prior to 2003. I warned the IP editor at the talk page[User_talk:98.211.240.43], but he disregarded it so I brought the matter here. The other editor has been informed also but hasn't made any recent edits.

Please note the misguided edits are due to this[42] where Gary Player claims the SBO as a major championship. Unfortunately neither the European Senior Tour or the Champions Tour recognize the SBO as a major when Player won it.

What I'm suggesting is a warning be issued to the IP editor....William 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fine, warn the IP then. You can do that. Come back if the problem persists, we can semiprotect the article or block the IP, but I suspect that dialogue will work if you can get their attention. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• No discussion had with the user at the time, no warnings given to user at the time. Take it upon yourself to speak to the editor, they are a person, just like you. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 10:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I tried posting to this editor's talk page[43] before coming here[44] and that came after he again repeated the same edit.[45] No reply and since then he has continued to make the same edit.[46] He continues to do this and I expect him or her to be back again because he's reverting three times a day. How about a violation of 3RR? So is anything going to be done?...William 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

    How about trying the 3RR noticeboard? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

    • And he's back again.[47] Why do you, and the rest of this board, either want to sit on your hands or pass the buck?...William 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • He's come back for the third time today, the 4th time since I posted time since I posted here, and the ninth time in a little over two days. Anybody out there going to do anything?...William 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Again.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Player&diff=491854813&oldid=491850700}...William 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for ten-days to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of process deletion and creation protection by User:JzG

I knew this was going to have to come here. I knew full well when I asked for the articles to be reinstated, he was going to refuse. But, hey, had to take the chance. And now we're here.

User:JzG has deleted two articles, L'CHAIM Vodka and Shemspeed, under CSD G11. He also then creation protected the articles so that no one could recreate them, which is entirely out of process, as there was no creation spamming or the threat to do so. Furthermore, both L'CHAIM and Shemspeed are clearly notable topics and both of the articles prior to deletion had such secondary sources in them. L'CHAIM could definitely have used some writing fixing, but it's about a product, which is difficult to get sounding perfectly neutral. But it was no way so non-neutral that it should have been deleted under G11 and Shemspeed didn't sound POV at all, it was a fine article.

I ask that this noticeboard please review this out of process deletion and creation protection (salting) of these two articles and I request that both articles be reinstated. Silverseren^C 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review....after you show me where you then followed the correct process by going to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to do a REFUND on an article purposefully deleted by an admin and creation protected? I didn't think of DRV though. But that wouldn't be the proper place to discuss the improper actions taken here. Silverseren^C 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that needed if G11 is misapplied? G11 specifically states An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. The deletion comment Advertorial written by self-admitted paid editor seems to be the reason. But does that make it a G11? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as an "improper action" needing immediate action by an admin. Take it to DRV and if consensus is to overturn the deletion, an admin can unsalt the articles then. Before that decision is made, it's a bit premature to take other actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

You don't think it's improper for an admin to delete and salt two articles because they dislike that the creator is a paid editor? Silverseren^C 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The deleting admin felt they were spam. Normally, that's what we do to spam. The issue is whether or not the rest of the community agrees it was spam. That's what DRV is for. If it's found they were not spam, then it becomes actionable. Until then, it's a bit premature to jump to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood, i've started the DRVs. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to read this or this for a fuller understanding of this issue. Note also that L'CHAIM vodka co-sponsored a festival mounted by Shemspeed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The connections between the two have nothing to do with their notability or the state of the article prior to deletion. Silverseren^C 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRV is down the hall, third door on the right. Determining whether a speedy deletion is out of process is squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DRVs started. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Related issue

For reasons which aren't clear to me, the three images that were used on L'CHAIM vodka have not been deleted with the article. They have been marked as CC-by-SA, but appear to be non-free content. There is an OTRS ticket, but OTRS volunteers tend to be very gullible non-critical when it comes to claims of ownership. One of these images (File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg) was copied over to Commons (commons:File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg). although I believe that non-free content is no allowed on Commons. Taking the image which is obviously an ad, an editor has cropped it down to File:Matisyahu in shades.jpg and it is now being used in Matisyahu. Convoluted enough for you? Can someone take a close look at these images and decide which license is appropriate and if they should be on Commons or not? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the OTRS ticket, and I am dramatically unconvinced that the person who sent the email has any authority to give permissions related to this image. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't follow. Since he's a paid editor, the images he got would have been directly from his clients, so the permissions should be fine. Silverseren^C 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that the client (and the models, and the advertising agent, and the photographer, etc.) are all in on making their logo and advert available under GFDL and CC? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Who sent the OTRS ticket then? And, yes, I would expect Bernie44 to do so, since he's properly followed all of the other article making rules, via neutrality and referencing. Silverseren^C 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Being paid to create an article and being permitted to alter the copyright on an image are entirely separate issues. This is actually one of the most common problems with tickets sent to the permissions queue: a random employee of a company has absolutely zero legal control over that company's intellectual property unless such control is officially granted by the actual copyright owner. Many OTRS volunteers don't know this, and even fewer paid editors do. As for who sent the email, I do not wish to say due to the OTRS privacy policy. But I can say that I do not believe the person who sent it has the authority. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c) I'll second what Someguy said, since he said it better than I was going to say it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44 might not have known that actually or thought that someone with the ability to release it had done so, since he probably just asked his client (more specifically, the person in the client's company that was working with him) to go about getting the permissions released for the image and Bernie44 just gave them the directions to do so. I'm sure with some clarification though, Bernie44 will be able to get the proper permissions. Actually, i'm going to go notify him about this discussion, since it actually involved him directly now. I should have notified him about the DRVs anyways, I forgot about that, oops. Silverseren^C 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he does come here, there is something else he should know about the permissions. We need an actual contact from the copyright owner directly, ideally from an email address we can be confident is the copyright-holder. An attached digital letter that could have theoretically been written by anyone doesn't cut it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bernie44 here. Permission to upload the L'Chaim images was given to me by L'Chaim's owner, not a "random employee" of the company. I was under the impression that the image's owner had the authority to place it into the creative commons. I wasn't aware it was necessary for the image's owner to send the email granting permission to do so, but now I know. I didn't intend to violate any of the rules regarding the creative commons. If an email from L'Chaim's owner is the next step in the process, please let me know. Thank you. --Bernie44 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the next step. I'd like you to know that I never thought you were breaking the rules, rather that you didn't know them. We have these rules in place because people actually do show up handing us copyright content, claiming to have the authority, and even pretending to be the owner of a company! Ideally, you can have L'Chaim's owner see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was brought to the OTRS Noticeboard before it was transferred to Commons. Permissions should probably be verified for the newspaper covers that Bernie44 uploaded to Commons as well. [48][49] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44, I would be surprised if the company wants to change the license on these. If the intention is to use them in an article about L'CHAIM vodka, then I believe all that is needed is for them to be properly identified as non-free media. One is probably enough, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I agree that one image is enough. I will look into identifying the images as non-free media, and using just one on the page. Someguy1221, thank you for your response. So I'll either identify the images as non-free media or have the owner send an email as you suggest. Gobōnobo ^{+ c}, I already went through a long process/discussion after the first newspaper image I uploaded in February 2011. I located the discussions - they are here and here. I don't feel this warrants further discussion, but let me know if you think it does. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the requests concerning the newspaper images were not handled by someone more competent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first step is waiting for the close of the Deletion Review discussions. If the articles are restored, as seems very likely at this time, then there might be a reason to discuss whether JzG is unduly prejudiced against paid editors to the extent of not following normal deletion policy. (I'm not entirely sure I would blame him in this case as much as I usually would, considering the publicity about this particular editor off-wiki). Most admins learn from an overturn at Del Rev, and that handles the problem--encouraging them to learn is part of the purpose of that process. When the admin continues on the same wrong-headed course that was opposed by clear consensus, then it may be worth going further. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alessandra Napolitano

• Alessandra Napolitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have completed a review of the contributions and technical data of Alessandra Napolitano (AN). Based on that review, AN looks to be yet another incarnation of the banned User:John254. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. Given that AN has been editing for a few months, and so that I am not delivering a checkuser block from lofty heights, I thought it appropriate to give the community this courtesy notification.

I gave consideration to not blocking the account because AN put up a 'retired' notice a few days ago, but decided to proceed due to the abundance of evidence and the fact that John254 is a serial socker and banned user. AGK [•] 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Block I would have done the same to be fair. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 10:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/John254/Archive has been remarkably quiet. Did you dig anything else up, Mr. Big Shot CU? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. I suggested this a few days ago on the arbcom mailing list and later on the arbcom review PD talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's restrictions

I was given restrictions by User:Bwilkins that became effective as of 15 September 2011. It states: These restrictions are on you, the person. Any violations of the above 3 restrictions will lead to an immediate indefinite block. After 6 months you may request a loosening of these restrictions at WP:ANI. These restrictions will be logged for all administrators to view. You will also keep these restrictions on your talkpage for viewing for the duration of the restrictions. It's been well over 6 months and I would like to be given my full user rights back if possible. I have not been too active on Wikipedia since January 2012 and I have not been getting in any trouble since then. So I will let you guys decide weather or not I should be allowed to perform all normal tasks. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The information on Jona's block and Wilkins' edit requests can be found here. Wilkins' three restrictions are as follows

1. You are limited to 1 account, and only one. This means you cannot edit anonymously either.
2. You may not upload images.
3. You must follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to the letter.

To be frank, 1 and 3 aren't really restrictions per se, he's just expecting Jona to follow the same rules everybody else does. As such, I see no reason why 1 and 3 shouldn't still continue. 2 can be debated, however. pbp 00:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll support lifting restriction #2 and giving a second chance. I understand a bit of growth can happen in that time, and I think AJona1992 has improved quite significantly since those restrictions. --MuZemike 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd like to know what image work Ajona thinks they need to do now? The wide swath of copyvios led to that limitation - what's going to be different? Do they understand they can't simply use any old image willynilly because of copyright? When asking for loosening of restrictions, you need to give us a bone - tell us how it will improve the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than a blanket lifting, given the previous copyright issues, I suggest that Ajona seek out an editor, or be directed to one, who is well versed in image uploading and copy right and effectively undergo an upload mentorship. Provided that the mentor is satisfied with AJona's progress for, say, a month then full lifting of that restriction could be revisited by the community. Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Support for Blackmane proposal Best for all involved.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm supportive with Blackmane's proposal. The only uploading I am seeking is Selena-related articles as I am currently working with another user on one of her singles' article. I know how to place the non-free template for an artwork that is copyrighted. But will be willing to undergo mentorship of any kind. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Atmospheric convection article

An IP address is removing convert templates which show imperial unit equivalents. I've reverted one, but they reverted back. I've left a message on their talk page. Can someone monitor the situation? I don't want this to get to a 3RR situation. Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You misused the rollback tool, didn't inform the IP, don't seem to understand WP:UNITS, or understand for what this page is intended. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't leaving a message on their talk page informing the IP? I threw this item on the edit war page soon after adding it here, so I'm guessing I eventually found the right spot to place it. Since it was just one revert at the time I posted the comment, I didn't think it was appropriate there. While I understand that English/Imperial units are not required wikipedia-wide, the meteorology and tropical cyclone projects require it since many English speakers (not just in the US) are more accustomed to mph and/or knots, with knots being the preferred form used by numerous countries globally for wind speed, particularly the National Hurricane Center, but especially over the world's oceans. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On-going disruptive edits by sockpuppet of user Ana Sušac

For those that follow China-related articles, recently there has been a spate of vandalism that resembles some sort of 'hero worship' to former Chinese president Li Xiannian. The user goes around and inserts random passages praising Li or otherwise inflating his importance, on each and every article of with which Li has even a cursory relationship. It is becoming a serious nuisance because the user continues to resurface in different reincarnations, using different accounts and IP addresses. Perhaps he is just a kid. But whatever the case some sort of serious warning is due. Some of the recent offending IP addresses are: 95.156.174.188 (talk · contribs), 95.156.169.34 (talk · contribs), previously socks of this user are believed to have included Koroknait (talk · contribs), Ana Sušac (talk · contribs), etc. Anyway, the sock investigations can be seen here. Colipon+(Talk) 17:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They fell off my radar for a bit. Thanks for keeping an eye out. These are without a doubt User:Ana Sušac, who is known to operate from this range. I don't think any warning is due, as all the blocks they received should be enough warning. Can an admin please once again block the IP range? They are very disruptive and there is really nothing salvageable in their edits.--Atlan (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This user is now back as 95.156.166.84 (talk · contribs). Colipon+(Talk) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor deliberately confusing his responses at AfD

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

---

User:John_J._Bulten appears to be deliberately obfuscating the arguments and is being disruptive at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton. His edits include pasting large walls of text: (this edit he put inside collapse boxes, apparently as a way to stop other editors commenting) [50] [51] [52]. His large pastes appear to be to try to win discussions by brute force rather than actually arguing a point. Can any admin come and have a look at the AfD? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In this AFD some 60-70 sources have been considered as not sustaining notability. Naturally the inclusion arguments have gotten long; here is the most responsive deletion argument from Dominus Vobisdu, which I regard as fully sincere. Accordingly collapses have been used by (keep) myself and (delete) Yaksar, but not to stop anyone else from editing. I welcome review of my and other editors' actions. JJB 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the collapse performed by Yaksar; it was a collapse of offtopic text (someone wishing for the AfD to be closed) that had no bearing on the AfD. You are continually pasting strawman arguments that have already been dealt with. The 60-70 sources you mention are low quality sources that you have tried to WP:BOMBARD the AfD (and the BLP article) with. He also appears to admit to "revert warring" on the article page. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate the strawman, which is a charge you just started making an hour ago. Demonstrate that the bombardment essay, which is about near-identical sources and coatracking, has any useful application. I admit making 3 different adds today which were each reverted. JJB 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. [53]: *Claim: Eighteen reviews in multiple independent periodicals (Chocolate such as Reader's Digest (4, 11, 22-29), Seventh such as Groves (59-60, 62), and other works (21, 57, 63-65)) are all insignificant and thus the book is insignificant. You've deliberately worded it to look like a weak argument. The specifics of the refernces have already been rebutted in the AfD but you have chosen to ignore this. You have filled with article with the same unreliable sources since the AfD was created (hence bombarded it per definition: Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted.). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did say "please forgive my omitting any" claims. The rebuttals included such oddities as the view that book reviews for generic authors are limited only to scholarly reviews, which argument ceased after I mentioned John Cassidy (author). The primary rebuttal was that all 18 reviews were insignificant, which does not disqualify them from cumulative WP:AUTHOR notability. Please demonstrate any neglected rebuttal. And in context, "Bombardment is good when each source has a lot of information of its own." Thus it refers to repetitive sources, not nonsubstantial sources, which are permitted under WP:BASIC. Disclosure: I did add one sentence to this essay taken from WP:BASIC. JJB 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I grant that I had to draw an inference, in that the synthesis that review insignificance was being used to claim author insignificance may not have appeared exactly in any argument. If so, please demonstrate any neglected rebuttal. I will amend the AFD if appropriate. JJB 19:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the allegation as stated.

• Having reread the entire AfD I believe that User:John_J._Bulten has responded to each concern raised in turn - a logical approach which is at odds with an allegation of disruptive behaviour.
• Looking at the history of this AfD page, a number of the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion have been spurious, or raised spontaneously without a clear chain of thought - leading to a chaotic chain of discussion.
• The comments for delete appear chaotic and repetitive - often based on assertion or opinion rather than evidenced policy argument. This makes clarity difficult to achieve when responding.
• In my view, the use of collapse boxes represent a good faith attempt to refocus the discussion on each occasion - this is at odds with an allegation of obfuscation.isfutile:P (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that has been encouraging JJB to "keep at it" on his user talk page: [54]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A transparent and honest approach is always best. isfutile:P (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity, and the fact that John F. Ashton publishes about anti-aging, you might consider taking the case to WP:AE. JJB is just coming off of a year ban under that case: [55] aprock (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above, this isn't the first time something like this has happened; see here. I'm not sure that AE is the right venue, though, as this really isn't a longevity issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for bringing that up Aprock. If anyone would like to comment on that case more directly than making a link about anti-aging that I hadn't even thought about, the "new me" of course will be happy to discuss it. I also can evidence several of the spurious claims Tonyinman has noted if anyone is interested. Incidentally, I never responded to that late evidence last year, and so consideration of it should wait and see if such a response is necessary. JJB 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As requested …

I've read the whole discussion through.

• I'm not confused, by anyone's discussion contributions. There's nothing to indicate that the fairly normal practice of collapsing sections in discussion is a deliberate anything other than what it actually is: the enabling of people to skip a long detailed list and get on to the next part of a discussion.
• Everyone seems to be sticking, within a small latitude, to how and whether our policies and guidelines apply. This is good. Those who would complain should go to AFD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom, where "I've seen the video and I think it should go viral." is the type of utterly non-policy-based reasoning that one gets. (AfD Patrol is sometimes quite depressing.)
• Yes, the discussion is long. But it's quite clear that people asked for the detail given.
• This is by no means the longest AFD discussion that I've ever seen. You haven't even had to add section breaks, yet. ☺
• Give closing administrators some credit. I know it's hard to believe that administrators can read, to the point that people often think that administrators cannot recognize a comment when they see it unless it has the boldfaced word "Comment" in front of it. But we really can, you know.
• Don't hold the AFD discussion here, IRWolfie-.
• Don't try to escalate this to Arbitration Enforcement. Don't try to "win". Instead, try to simmer down. So you disagree with John J. Bulten. You've got an honest disagreement about the application of policies and guidelines. That's better than you'd get in a lot of places at Wikipedia. Try counting your lucky stars, for a change.
• Oh, and stop talking past one another.
  • Hrafn, John J. Bulten pointed out obliquely (but not very — it was a diff) that he didn't write what you are accusing him repeatedly of writing in the introduction of the article to bolster his argument.
  • John J. Bulten, they're asking for two major sources in part because they want to be shown that there is some sort of single coherent discussion of this subject as a whole Out There in the world, not because they want to play games.

Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle G, you have correctly summarized my position. My continued reason for supporting the deletion was that I had not yet found any "core" of notability. I had hoped that by inviting JJB to form a short-list of the best sources we could quickly get to the heart of the dispute. Unfortunately his shortened list of sources were found not to provide any substantial coverage of the subject. I would still be willing to re-review a new short-list of any sources that JJB selects. I would urge him to try once more to form a simple list (with hyper-links) of the sources he considers to be best. I would also urge JJB to trust that his fellow editor understands Wikipedia policies at least as well as he does. JJB should not feel compelled to form complex arguments since a good source will speak for itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have already explained that Salim has demonstrated enough technical competence (and fellow-editor understanding of WP) to go to the same baseline list of 65 sources in the AFD and take them one bullet point at a time. Rather than copy a bunch of links already in the diff, Salim can simply look up the footnote numbers in that stable diff (albeit I did additionally provide links for the first two major sources and the next two and the next two). Thus I have already presented about a dozen selected "shortlists" that Salim can take up in turn each if the intent was simply to look neutrally for notability sources, and I explained repeatedly both how to do this and why formatting the list otherwise would be inconsistent with my position. After Salim made what appeared like several formatting demands prior to such review (provide me direct links rather than indirect, delete reference to 63 sources so that we are only talking about 2, now that you've provided the 2 direct links split them onto separate lines and copy over the page numbers please) I declined to continue responding to new formatting requests. If still-willingness is expressed but Salim does not follow through, that says something about the willingness.

  The reason the first two reliable, independent, significant, substantial periodical and conference sources were declined was that multipage reviews of a book allegedly do not confer notability on its editor, and are insubstantial for only mentioning the editor's name in passing. I stated this is contrary to WP:AUTHOR, which treats editors identically to authors; not to argue, but it seems to me to be equivalent to the argument that a source is nonnotable because it only talks about the physical position of Ashton's body and thus says nothing whatsoever about Ashton himself. Accordingly, this evidence suggests to me that my time is better spent speaking to third parties about these sources rather than Salim. Input is welcome. JJB 20:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My advice to IRWolfie- applies to the both of you, as well. Don't try to argue the AFD discussion here. What's in the multi-page book review, and whether it actually documents the subject at hand rather than the subject of the book, it a matter for the AFD discussion. Finding, reading, and evaluating sources is very much what such discussions are all about, and the best (safest, most reliable, most likely to be correct in the long run) outcomes at AFD happen when everyone puts in the legwork on those.

John J. Bulten, I think that we all understand your point, now. I know that it's frustrating when one goes to a lot of effort to lay things out for people, and all that one gets are terse counterarguments and superficial content-free responses on the level of "That's bollocks.". I've been in that situation at AFD myself. The jabs about "willingness" won't help, though, especially as it isn't Salimfadhley who has descended to that level. And responding individually to every new participant who joins the discussion now that it's mentioned on this noticeboard is not a wise move.

Salimfadhley, why not try meeting halfway? John J. Bulten cannot see a way to give you the one overarching source that you're looking for, and possibly it doesn't exist. That's not necessarily a deal-killer, depending from how in-depth the sources that do exist are, and to what degree they overlap and act in combination. Again, though, such analysis of the depths and provenances of sources is quite properly the domain of the AFD discussion.

What he has given you is a point-by-point breakdown of which source he thinks satisfies which notability criterion. What you therefore can do, that will make it simpler for the closing administrator, is to go through the same notability criteria and explain why you think the cited sources and the information that they provide do not show the criteria as satisfied. Make a similiar list. There isn't one in the discussion. There are a lot of "I've read all of the sources, and I don't see it." statements, and several if-you-read-every-delete-opiner's-argument-you'll-find-that-in-combination-they-address-everything-here statements, but no-one with your opinion has provided a detailed point-for-point analysis and counterargument in a single place. The former means that the closing administrator has to accept a blanket analysis on faith and — most ironically — read and combine a lot of little points into a single whole; whereas the latter — the AFD equivalent of showing your working and a long-standing wiki idea of summarizing discussion — makes a much stronger and easier to read case that yes, you indeed have read everything, and these are the details of why you think that the bars are not met.

I hope that my suggestions help. As far as this noticeboard goes, my conclusion (speaking for just myself, of course) is that there is no cause here for any use of an administrator tool against any account or on the discussion page and probably a need for more time before AFD discussion closure. All that I think that you all need is a little nudge like this to get you all further along.

Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Yuri Rutman

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

---

Please restore Yuri Rutman. It references the page as autobiographical and this issue was resolved nearly two years ago on wikipedia. All references to this page are in public domain, other press releases, interviews with the subject in prominent news media, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromogul (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You have the wrong page. Try Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Arcandam (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor help

I hope this is the correct place to post (if not, please point me in the right direction). User:Baku Shad-do has been removing sourced content from the article Crosses (band) (diff, diff, diff, diff). There has been a discussion about the genre before here (which I pointed out to the editor) that argues for the inclusion. The editor's argument is that the sources on the genre article prove that sources are wrong because of their description/definition of what the genre is. However, he has failed to provide sources that specifically state that Crosses are not witch house. I have assumed the editor was new (editing since May 6) and pointed out the three core policies of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV), in case he wasn't aware, on my talk page. All I received in reply was a warning and the threat of a report to admin. I tried to make myself clear to him, but it looks like I've failed. Could someone weigh in on this small issue? Would appreciate it. HrZ (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page as they're up to 3 reverts already. You're also up to 3 reverts so please stop reverting each other. I also find it ironic that he pointed out your spelling errors when he made an error himself. He may also have a conflict on interest seeing as he's apparently the owner of a label. Beyond the edit warring, this is really a content dispute and would be better taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blackmane, I was not removing sourced content, I removed a music genre label. The criteria of labeling a genre is not the same as using a source in a description. I have adequately sourced the definition in the genre and have provided an article that accurately traces the origins of the genre. The issue is that a certain beat-form is the defining element of all witch house music. The band has no material that fits the paradigm. I can give you access to more articles if you'd like or access to an entire forum where all the artists from the genre converse. In addition, the user known as HrZ seems not to know that the articles he's using were long ago found to be in error, indicating he has no further knowledge of the genre (beyond the articles he's using as sources). I will gladly give you the means to connect with any number of writers who have covered the genre in depth, the issue is not about a personal conflict, it is about showing respect to a genre and not allowing for the corporate misuse and abuse of a term to promote a mainstream artist who has nothing to do with the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were removing sourced content. You just don't like the source. Also, you did not add any source to support the genre you replaced it with. I also note that you have not participated in the discussion on the Talk page about the genre, so you have no reasonable basis for unilaterally altering the article. You've also been editing the Witch house (music genre) article, even though, just as with the band article, you have a clear conflict of interest (I've placed tags on both articles). The genre article is a mess, although it looks like it was a mess even before you edited it. I don't have time to review either article in depth at the moment, but, if only based on your conflict, I suggest you back off and stick to discussing the content in these articles on their Talk pages rather than directly editing them. You also have edit-warred on the genre article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in an encyclopedic context is a legitimate sourced criticism, not intentional defamation of a genre. You can source defamation, but that does not make it legitimate criticism. You need to learn the difference between the two and yes there is a legal definition. I did provide sources, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to condescend. Although I do have a label that doesn't necessarily make me biased. I'm honest enough to say what my connection is, yes I'm involved in the scene, but odds are both you and the other poster are as well, hence your vehemence that you're right. Your lack of disclosure of your relation to the scene points to the likelihood that you have a biased agenda, whether it be direct or indirect. Let's get an actual administrator involved. Baku Shad-do (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Prequel

I have been repeatedly accused of lying by Barsoomian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Talk:Prequel as you can see here and here, though I would encourage you do read the section Talk:Prequel#Shirey. He and John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who came in from Dispute Resolution wanted to list numerous films as prequels which most of us at WT:FILM agreed were not prequels, as you can see here and at Talk:Prequel. Instead of seeing the consensus and resolving the dispute, JJB took Barsoomian's position and advocated for him, drawing it out further and further in multiple sections on the Talk:Prequel page, then on half a dozen other pages, the last of which involved Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel. But as much as I have a problem with how they overrode the initial consensus (people dropped out after stating their position, not wanting to endlessly debate this) by bringing in refs from writers making imprecise, even sloppy use of the word prequel, that is not why I'm here now. I expect Barsoomian will want to go over all sorts of side issues, but I'm here to focus on one thing: The sequence of events I laid out on the Talk page is accurate. He may disagree on how to interpret those events or what their intention was, but that does not justify false, irresponsible and WP:UNCIVIL charges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know that this will have much use. It appears Gothicfilm wants some affirmation that Barsoomian was incivil. In informal DRN-initiated pseudo-mediation, I was unable to convince Gothicfilm that both editors had merely misunderstood each other and there was no evidence of deliberate incivility. If Gothicfilm can lay out the desired outcome it would help. JJB 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Having reviewed the diffs I realize I didn't see everything. Barsoomian said he "omitted" the refs in edit summary, meaning omitted them from the table but not from the text. Gothicfilm said Barsoomian thus did not "omit" them, and Barsoomian called this a lie twice. Therefore the difference in interpretation is everything here and it appears Barsoomian has spoken a little heatedly while this difference in POV has not yet been appreciated. I also observed that Barsoomian's objection to Gothicfilm's statement was very similar, almost parallel, except that Gothicfilm made a slightly heated statement in two edit summaries. Cooling down applies, as I've already told both editors. JJB 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Here is the remaining relevant discussion. JJB 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What are the normal consequences for this? I made it clear to Barsoomian what he was doing was WP:UNCIVIL, and he continued anyway as you can see here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The normal consequences are we laugh at the parallelism and cool down. But I'm taking a brief wikibreak and will let others chime in. JJB 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that JJB is not a neutral observer. He knows I have issues with how he came in from Dispute Resolution and drew the dispute out instead of recognizing the existing consensus. He became Barsoomian's advocate, and helped him bring in dubious sources and refs. I see in the Editor section above other editors have issues with him as well. I want others to intervene. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Third opinions aren't required to agree with you when you ask for them, you know. They aren't echo chambers. They are real human beings who form their own opinions. That's the point. If someone didn't "respect the existing consensus", which all too often I find translates to "agree with me, as I wanted and expected", that is not in itself any problem with them. (I once asked DGG for a third opinion. I didn't start complaining about "issues" when he came to the discussion as requested and completely disagreed with me. He thought about the point at hand and then gave his honest opinion, as asked.) Trying to piggyback off some other completely unrelated discussion where the third opinion that you didn't find agreeing with you is in disagreement with some other people is also not indicative of a problem with the third opinion.

      As for the level of debate on the article talk page: I suggest that you listen hard for that boomerang whooshing your way, because while you're being told that you're lying about diffs, you're equally busy telling other people that they spout "garbage". Don't try to play the civility card to win an argument, especially an argument where you've descended, entirely of your own volition and doing, from discussing what verifiable facts to put in the article and how to explain them to discussing what edit summary meant what. Get back on track, instead. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

      • I'm not trying to get you to intervene in any argument or give a third opinion. I did not ask for that. I was responding to Barsoomian's false charges. I want them to stop. It doesn't look to me like you read much of the discussion - for which I don't blame you. It goes up and down the page way beyond where it should have ended. But you're assuming things that aren't true. There was consensus, on two different pages, as you can see here at WT:FILM and at Talk:Prequel. But then people didn't want to keep repeating themselves to dispute the "new" approaches Barsoomian and JJB kept bringing in, going against the clear consensus. Only Barsoomian and then JJB wanted to list these additional films as prequels. And I was not equally busy telling other people that they spout "garbage" - only a saint would not have responded with something like that to his endless circular arguments, growing incivility, repeated evasions and refusal to answer valid points. I don't want to repost it all here. The main issue now is I made it clear to Barsoomian what he was doing was WP:UNCIVIL, and he continued anyway as you can see here. There is no equivalent behavior to that from me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being on too many pages at once, I have again asked Barsoomian to cool down, among other parallel things. B is offline right now, so for now the objective of the incident being stopped has been achieved. Yes, it's true that Uncle G added the word "spout" to your twice-used word "garbage"; that's called a characterization, people do it often, and that's why it wasn't in quotes. It is important not to argue the gnat ("spout") and get trod by the camel ("garbage"). 'Nuff said. JJB 03:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I've been charged here, I will respond in brief, and I hope, "coolly". Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• You'll notice how Gothicfilm immediately segues from the supposed "incident" of incivility to rehashing a content dispute he didn't get his way in. His edit comments are often similar, adding comments and disparaging remarks on subjects unrelated to the actual edit. I tried to raise the problem I had with this on his Talk page: here but he just repeated his attacks and then deleted the section. So the argument continued at Talk:Prequel#Shirey. The issue is explained there. I think this comment I made summarises it:

  Your comment was "Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" This 1) implies that it is a "bad source"; that is your opinion only, though as usual you ascribe it to someone else. The opinion at RSN never said that. 2) You imply that I was lying about removing said "bad source". The Shirey ref was removed as a listing citation. That was the context of the opinion we asked for at RSN. I followed through exactly as I said. Now you're repeating this libellous, uncivil and deeply stupid assertion that I lied. Barsoomian (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He continued insisting that I had lied about omitting the sources in question, because I hadn't also deleted them from another part of the article, where some of the same sources were cited in a different context, in text I had not had a part in creating. (I only edited that to repair orphaned references after I deleted the full refs in the list.) The opinion sought at WP:RSN had not considered these unchallenged other uses, only the ones in the list part of the article. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! So (heavy-handed sales close) the incivility is over. We all agree on the current text and we can work out any improvements over there. At my house we like to say sarcastically, "Problem solved! I'm a genius."

More to the point, B's analysis is pretty accurate, no edgier than conditions warrant; albeit it doesn't explicitly admit that "omit" could have had a different impression on Gothic, and thus I infer B might not yet want to admit the possibility that Gothic could have been acting in better faith than B originally believed. That's fine. I do apologize for bringing up the word "libel" offhand to Barsoomian, who echoed it in the above quote, as it seemed to me to be the only appropriate cause by which edit-summary oversight was possible; that was probably a mistake on my part. JJB 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, while at the beginning, yes, Gothicfilm could simply have had a "different impression" of "omit", after it was brought to his attention, on his Talk page, on the Prequel Talk page, and now here, he has no excuse to persist in this accusation that I misrepresented my edit. Edit summaries are more persistent and obvious than Talk page comments, to add slights like this to the permanent record of an article's history is very unpleasant, and I feel, uncivil.Barsoomian (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, my opinion at RSN was *solely* provided on the basis of Shirey being used in reference to the specific "prequel" question that was asked. I offered no opinion on Shirey's RS-ness overall, or in any other aspect. If there are other issues that Shirey may be contentious as a source for, I would be happy to give my opinion on those as well, if you submit those questions to the RSN board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your professionalism here and at RSN. JJB 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

why is wikipedia blue, ugly, and foul at the moment?

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

---

I see a poor horrific looking blue style sheet all over. Who broke what? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a bug in the latest version of Google Chrome that shows a blue background if the browser zoom level is set below 100%. Reset the zoom to 100% with Ctrl+0 or adjust it with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Articles have big blue stars next to them, strange things are bolded...what's going on? --Blake Burba (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop using Google Chrome. I can't remember what caused it, but the latest version of MediaWiki isn't Chrome-friendly. If you go to the help desk, people will be able to point you to a more detailed explanation. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Within Chrome, you can also use the IETab extension, and configure it to use the IE engine to render wikipedia.org instead of Chrome's engine. Note: Chrome is rendering fine for me, at this point. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Users at WP:VPT are currently abusing MediaWiki_talk:Common.css in an attempt to circumvent discussing proposed changes to visual design adequately with the community. Fun css edit wars. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the thread title and was going to answer "What do you mean, it's like that all the time", but then I realized I hadn't noticed the word "blue". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, "blue" is an old-fashioned term for "vulgar or obscene", so your premise still works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm using Safari, both iOS version and Mac version and I'm having the same problem. Its not Chrome.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It is actually a huge mess of a badly implimented user interface change. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. Roger (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome and everything looks fine, except the new bolding and for awhile hideous green stars. Heiro 00:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article names on watch list are bold-face until you go to the article. That's how it already works on Commons. Dunno if that's what they were intending, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I only saw one instance that had the "stars" shown before the article names. That was on my iPhone about an hour and a half ago. Other than that, its only the BIG BLUE BOLD that I have seen since.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome and I saw the watchlist bolding, but other than that no problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears by now that we need an administrator to step in and deal with the problem of failure to abide by consensus around this user-interface change. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I actually agree with this. And can someone stop the Helpful Pixie bot that's on a rampage and lighting up a horribly colored page to a nausea inducing point. Please? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The original poster is an IP and unregistered users don't have watchlists. The IP's description sounds like the Google Chrome bug with blue background (screenshot) when browser zoom level is below 100% in the default Vector skin. See bugzilla:34551 and http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113711. Most of the above replies are about an unrelated issue with the appearance of watchlists for registered users. This issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrator action required against WP:VPT editors over failure to adhere to consensus

As mentioned, and seconded above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What action is needed? Looking at your earlier comment regarding MediaWiki_talk:Common.css, the only user I see posting there, at the time of the comment, was you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPT and other related pages today have had a large storm of user complaint against a MediaWiki implementation change. Nobody has clearly taken responsibility for this change which has inflicted a major User Interface change against the interests of a preponderance of users. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No witchhunt admin action is needed as what was seemingly consensus was followed. An early post to the VPT thread points to the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_83#Enable_.22Show_changes_since_last_visit.22_on_watchlist. The change has been reverted after more input was given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The "stars" change was reverted. The bolding is still in effect (I had modified my common.css file to remove it). Whatever the case, discussion is currently taking place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Might want to keep an eye on and possibly protect this page. He recently fell ill at a conference and there are rumors circulating that he died. I just reverted to cases of vandalism to the page about this. WTF? (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is that away. I've already requested the standard 72 hour semi-protect for BLP death rumors. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive behavior by IP socks of Garnerted

I've had enough of these IPs, and hope others can review the situation. I need to disengage from this user, as they refuse to accept any of my statements - twisting my comments, misrepresenting my actions, etc.

Note: While I was typing this, they created a new username at Superchargedone (talk · contribs). Their two prior named accounts have been indefinitely blocked by other admins, and several of their IPs had been blocked by an assortment of admins (some of the IPs were blocked by me, which is likely related to their calling me out - as a result of which I became involved with attempts at discussion which have been less than productive).

The most recent interactions have been at Talk:World Tomorrow#Name. Despite multiple requests to keep the discussion on the topic of the article, they instead repeatedly attack me and anyone else who they feel opposes them, claiming they are up against some giant sock cabal of assorted other editors and admins (although only two of us have been called out by him, the rest referenced as "et al").

The issue boils down to a dispute between two broadcast programs using near identical names: The World Tomorrow (1934) and World Tomorrow. All edits have been to articles related to these two programs. Past actions have included:

• Garner Ted Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit warring over the insertion of an image (which was a cell phone photo of a copyrighted photo, which they ignored repeated advice to review WP:COPYVIO for guidance on establishing their ownership).
• The World Tomorrow (1934) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they had a dispute over if the show was in continued production. My only edits to that article have been to clarify that it was in fact in production, but their most recent posts to User talk:Barek#The World Tomorrow Television and Radio Broadcast have been to claim that I was "reluctant to concede" that fact. At
• The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they have edit warred over both the mention of the other program, as well as the sequence in which the programs are listed. My only edits there have been to revert their blanking and to apply page protection (done prior to my getting involved with discussions with them).
• World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they have edit warred over unsourced claims - when they finally did provide a source to demonstrate part of their claims (that the program uses an alternate title in the USA), others and myself were quick to use that source to update the article to state that fact. The talk page on this one then degrades rapidly from that point.

related discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs
• Talk:World Tomorrow#Name
• User talk:Barek#The World Tomorrow Television and Radio Broadcast
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garnerted

Can others please look into this? At the least, can a few others add the involved pages to their watchlist? When I started typing this, I was going to ask if some range blocks would be appropriate; but they have claimed with their most recent user account that they are done with Wikipedia. However, after I responded they returned again with an uncivil post to my talk page [56], which I reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: User has been appropriately notified of this ANI discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This morning, I noticed on my watchlist that there was some activity on The World Tomorrow (1934), this time related to images which have been removed by others twice now (once by an admin, and then again by CommonsDelinker) due to copyvio issues - so they are remaining active and still running into the same issues as before. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The accusations and demands for immediate compliance with Superchargedone/Garnerted's desires are getting in their way of any meaningful discussions or logical arguments that they might otherwise make. Too much emotion and not enough professional decorum. At the present, he's shooting himself in the foot. Superchargedone needs to calm down and back off the combative attitude. What was that about flies, honey & vinegar?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from dialogue on my talk page and User talk:Superchargedone, this user just doesn't "get" Wikipedia. He seems to think that we are some corporate entity which are demanding that their business/program is not "legitimate" or something to that effect. I have tried, to no avail, to point the user to the proper channels if they want to officially release the copyrighted photos, but either they don't understand or they don't care. The posts on my wall are especially flummoxing. I don't know how to proceed; blocking seems harsh, as they seem legitimately confused rather than disruptive, but I've often said that competence is a requirement on Wikipedia. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

71.136.240.89

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

---

71.136.240.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for disruptive editing, but it keeps refactoring other people's comments on its talk page. Please revoke its talk page access. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It now 'blanked' its talk page, so revoking its talk page access may not be needed anymore. Mathonius (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Move being attempted for VPT/R discussion

User:Rd232 has made a few attempts to move the discussions on the new watchlist changes from VPR and VPT to Wikipedia talk:Customizing watchlists. I strongly disagree with shuffling this matter off to such an obscure location and reverted these attempts as unwarranted. I see no compelling reason to move the discussion in the first place. I contacted Rd on his talk page (here) but he seems insistent on reattempting this. I also began a discussion at VPT about the move at WP:VPT#Move this discussion?. Would like some input on how this should be handled. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything has been reverted to the state before I foolishly thought I could help here. Let's have discussions in multiple places, overcrowd VPT and VPR, and who needs a specific help page for this anyway? Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgment call as to the new page you created; The discussion is far from fractured, as it's mainly occurring at VPT. VPR is relatively inactive. I don't see any reason to move this to a newly-created page, but my personal feelings aside, let's at least allow such a move to be discussed first. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem out of place and obscure on VPT. I suggest moving the RFC into the WP:RFC space & centralising all the threads there. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's obscure at VPT, plenty of people seem to have known to go there to talk about this change. Nevertheless if a move is warranted, a move by one individual, especially to some obscure newly-created page, seems hasty. If there's consensus to move it somewhere then so be it, though. Just want to make sure that consensus exists first. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy --Errant ^(chat!) 09:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion of such proven interest should be shuffled from the place where most people are likely to try and find it. Questionable technical changes generally end up at VPT. Far from being for bureaucracy's sake, I simply see no reason it should be moved from there, though I'm open to a move if it seems enough other people think it's a good idea. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Equazcion's various comments (especially at VPR) suggest that his response to a pretty straightforward attempt to clean up a discussion mess is based on (i) anger that the configuration change being discussed was done in the first place and (ii) near-hysterical panic that anything less than treating this change as A VERY BIG DEAL WHICH EVERYONE MUST KNOW ABOUT AND COMMENT ON, TO WHICH END IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN AS MANY PLACES AS POSSIBLE (we can now add ANI to VPR and VPT - User talk:Jimbo Wales must be next...) will lead to the downfall of Wikipedia. Incidentally, I created Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists today, and then had it deleted; but there's really no reason why a poor little help page should suffer from this ridiculousness, so maybe someone could undelete it. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, see here, one of the first responses to this matter. Though I think the change was handled poorly, I don't think it's that big a deal. Others seem to though, and I think that should be respected, regardless of your personal stance that they're overdoing it. I came to ANI because I didn't see any other option during your move attempts. You seemed unwilling to put it on hold pending some further opinions other than your own when I contacted you on your talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. I have nothing against your help page, just the move of all discussion there. You requested its deletion, not me. I think you're more irked that your nicely-crafted move was for naught, which I apologize for -- I know how that can be (and it was nicely executed, even if I disagree that it was productive). Nevertheless I think it was in the end a hasty and unwarranted action. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Richard Daft

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Richard Daft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on May 2012. He repeatedly evades his indefinite block by hopping on to IP Addresses, and uses them to make legal threats and persistently hurls uncivil conduct to further a single purpose. He has used 7 accounts to evade this block since 2008. Having said that, this Sockpuppet Archive clearly demonstrates that knowing that adopting new personas will get blocked, and so he uses IP's to avoid scrutiny. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

...and the diffs of the evasion, attacks, etc? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the behavior of the IP's and account's he's used demonstrate the operator's behaviour of Richard Daft, but since you've ask for some diffs, here's some [IP Daft used to personally attack BlackJack], [[57]], [[58]], [[59]], and [[60]]. All evidence of pure trolling and disruption to Lady Wikipedia. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, are you there? Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Patience :) It had only been five minutes. People need to take time to read diffs, think, etc. Not everybody (I hope) is constantly refreshing ANI... Anyway, I'm inclined to support this community ban, but are we certain that this IP hopper is Richard Daft? The context of the diffs isn't completely clear. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Because I am the nominator of this ban. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The laundry list of socks and IPs at SPI is enough to convince me regardless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - Don't ban proposal belong on AN, not ANI --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review for User:NinaHj

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

---

I would like someone to review the indefinite block of User:NinaHj (contribs). She has written a long blog entry in Norwegian titled «When conspiracy theorists are allowed to edit an online encyclopedia» about her experience with trying to correct the bias on the document.no article. The title is based on edits by User:Meco, who's blocked on Norwegian Wikipedia for repeatedly adding conspiracy theory material. From the entry, it's my understanding that she acted in good faith, but did some mistakes from not knowing how Wikipedia works.

For instance she tried to remove the {{Islamophobia}} sidebar from the document.no article (where it clearly doesn't belong), but she did it the wrong way – by blanking the template. So she did a technical mistake, and when reverted, she did it again. Mistake, but people should be given some chances to try and fail, shouldn't they?

Then she did a few other edits to document.no. It's clear that she has a COI here, but her editing appears sober to me (and I'm actually critical to the given website), merely aligning the article to the article on Norwegian Wikipedia. – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

She's blocked for legal threats and vandalism. She's never even asked for an unblock. Posting in a blog the way she did probably reduced her chances. There's no need to review unless she actually comes on Wikipedia, follows WP:NLT and WP:GAB and requests one herself. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the user has not (yet) understood how to apply for an unblock, but why should that matter? I also see absolutely no reason why posting her experiences with editing Wikipeda in a blog entry should "reduce her chances"? With regards to "legal threats", I don't really get it how this can result in an indefinite block. As an admin on Norwegian Wikipedia, I know I would never have blocked anyone for something like that. At most I would have given a warning, together with a reference to the given policy. Newbies can't be expected to follow all kind of policies from the very beginning, can they? – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Newbie editors are still editors. What an experienced editor would get an indef block for, a newbie should also get a block for. It's straight forward how to request an unblock, and the editor in question would just have to read the block notice for instructions how. If there is no signs of wanting to return, why go ahead with the unblock? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 11:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"but will not stand for untrue allegations by an unkown [sic] person - we will take the matter further" Considering the earlier discussions of police and lawyers, this is pretty unequivocal. Legal threats is a bright line policy. Although I typically am lenient due to assuming ignorance of the rules, we cannot with legal threats. Blocks are indeed cheap, but unblocks are even cheaper. Remember that "indefinite" is not "infinite"; it means until the community is convinced it won't recur. WP:NLT expands on that: it cannot be removed until the legal threats are retracted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I would have no problem with unblocking her given that she requested an unblock and removed the legal threat on her talk page. However, I would make sure she's aware of the COI policy and is willing to discuss, not blank, the Islamophobia template before doing so. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

block needed for BLP vandal

I didn't take this to AIV because there were no warnings. However This edit [61] by this user OmicronSquadLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requires a block even absent of warnings. Will notify user promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours (previously clean block log, or would have been for longer.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for Kim, but to expand, after the block a second account, Scientivore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstuted the same edit. I'm not sure if it was coincidence, sleeper socks, or what may be the most likely, that someone has gotten multiple comprimised accounts under their control.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the second one as well. It's odd, both accounts have no previous edits like this in their histories and they don't have much in common except that they have made reltively few edits. The first one has been mainly lego and Dr Who articles, the second a wider range (but this was the first edit in over a year...) I'll be AFK for a while soon, so if others could keep an eye out that would be good. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:99.132.67.105

The user: 99.132.67.105 (talk) is continually disrupting the Witch house (music genre) page with biased criticisms that have nothing to do with the definition of the genre. He has a long history of disruptive editing. Here is his talk page.

needless copy

"October 2011 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from We're New Here. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Lindisfarne / Unluck, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC) December 2011 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Djent. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acabashi (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Axe to Fall Please discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Talk:Axe to Fall. Message added 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Witch House Okay, all of your quotes are coming from blogs, Pitchfork is a blog, what are you doing? You post something biased over and over and apparently (see comments above) have a continual problem with that. If you're from the genre and have an axe to grind message me there. Everyone in the genre knows I'm about preservation of the genre and not bias.If you want to have a real discussion and have nothing to hide then set up a proper user name and don't post from an ip. If you change it again I'll just go to an admin over it and he'll decide. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)"

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance and guidance on the matter. Baku Shad-do (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the copy of the talk page--it's needless and confusing. All those warnings are old anyway, and you, Baku Shad-do, have no right to unblank that talk page. Moreover, Pitchfork Media is probably more reliable than you think, and to conclude from a company website that this odd genre has entered some mainstream is original research based on a non-reliable source. BTW, that article is a mess in both versions; the version you restored reads at least partly like an essay. Finally, you are just as guilty of edit-warring as the IP is. I'm leaving warnings for both of you. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Registered editor with blocked IP requests unblock

Please see User talk:200.55.135.211, specifically [62]. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not very clever, that's the caveat. I've unchecked the "block account creation" box, which should fix the problem. But let's keep an eye on it: there is a suspicion of socking, it's been used for vandalism before (Materialscientist blocks judiciously), and "ichlugner" means "me, liar". Drmies (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement

Could someone take a look at this article for me. An editor, with a very clear COI, keeps on inserting text that is, in my opinion overly-promotional. The editor seems to be under several misconceptions about Wikipedia having made statements like "We manage our brand very carefully and would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement" (see the article talk page for more). There seems to be a clear failure to listen and I think admin action of some sort may now may be appropriate but I'm too involved now. Dpmuk (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is one hot mess. I reverted. Dpmuk, there are three relatively fresh accounts in there: I think maybe you should start an SPI. I've left an "only warning" for the most recent COI editor--they've been aware of this since January yet they persist in guarding their brand, and turning the article into promotion. I agree that a block is in order, but I'd prefer someone else to look at this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've left a friendly, informative message at User talk:Sbell1964co, so at this point I believe the ball is in their court. They cannot claim ignorance of Wikipedia's policies on this any more. Let us see where this goes before taking any action. Hopefully, the message I left will get the point accross, if it doesn't we can only assume a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards. I say wait for the next move, however, before deciding to take further action. --Jayron32 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the discussion on the article's talk page where both Moonriddengirl and I mentioned WP:COI and which they must have seen (as they've replied to it) I don't think they were able to claim ignorance before today's events.
  • As for the WP:SPI idea I'm not sure this would serve a useful purpose as we already know they work for the same organisation and any other links between them could also plausibly be explained by this. Dpmuk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at my place of work individual computers (I think) have individual IPs. That could point at more than just being colleagues. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Could be multiple private IP's sharing a pool of public IP's though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff Delete

Can an administrator please delete this diff? it's a bit crude and I see no good reason for it to stay visible. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Greg L

DuLithgow (talk · contribs) apparently proposed an article started by Greg L (talk · contribs) for deletion. Greg responded to the nomination with rather severe personal attacks at his user talk. Greg has already been warned by Arbcom about his incivility at Wikipedia:ARBDATE#Greg_L_has_been_incivil and has been blocked for incivility and other disruption in the past. Since I've been involved with him in the past, I've brought the matter here for other administrators to handle, if they see the need for action. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support relatively short civility block. 48-72 hours. Unless there is some evidence that he is just having a bad day or something, in which case I'd AGF and give him a warning. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefing of User:Samofi

I'd like to have Samofi's case reviewed by the admins who have been involved in the whole affair, particularly User:Ironholds and User:AGK. But first and foremost I'd like point out that I'm NOT a fan of Samofi (far from it) and don't think that the month-long ban for the violation of his topic ban should be lifted. In fact I'm still convinced that Samofi's pushing his agenda (and luck :P) too much. Yet when reviewing the alleged sockpuppet's (meatpuppet's?) activity it became obvious to me that he can't be Samofi.

The fate of the sockpuppet in question (User:Savneli) is an interesting one indeed. First an SPI has been started against it by Nmate for User:Iaaasi. Unfortunately I've realized early on that Nmate was completely wrong about this account (he seems to have this tendency to see Iaaasi behind every hostile user/sock, while in fact most non-Hungarian editors editing Hungarians-related articles hate him, especially Slovaks, Romanians and Serbs): firstly Iaaasi's a troll, which's becoming more and more apparent (it's particularly evident from his comments on his SPI page) so his edits are mostly made with the intention of trolling (and inserting pro-Romanian content every once in a while). When Iaaasi poses as a Slovak user, this is particularly evident: almost all of his edits show signs of trolling meant to annoy Hungarian editors (especially Nmate of course). Moreover Iaaasi never seems to be able the resist the temptation of editing articles related to Romania too (especially Transylvania, where he has another opportunity of trolling Hungarian editors). Savneli's edits not only don't follow this pattern, but in his last edits completely break it: Savneli's edits consist exclusively of removal of Hungarian content (especially town names) and/or replacing them with their Slovak counterparts, asserting some historical persons' Slovak identity (IDK if Iaaasi ever did that) or adding a "famous Slovak" to an article of a town in Slovakia with predominantly Hungarian population ([63]), which Iaaasi would never do (since he lacks the necessary background information and lingual knowledge for that). So the gist of Savneli's edits point to a Slovak editor. I don't know when did Ironholds' and AGK's attention turn to Samofi, but since both Savneli and IndoEuropean1988 (a fairly blatant sock of Iaaasi) have been banned by Ironholds (and I haven't found any public records of AGK and Ironholds discussing this), I can only assume that Samofi came into the picture only later.

Yesterday I took the time of performing a more thorough investigation regarding Savneli, and that's when I figured out the REAL user who's behind it. There were two clues that led to this: his editing pattern(s) and his last two edits (the rest are reinsertion of his patent nonsense into Nmate's talk page hence they don't count). The first clue was the fact that all of Savneli's edits were either minor edits, replacement of Hungarian town names with their Slovak counterparts or reverts, with no talk page entries at all. This is in great contrast with both Iaaasi and Samofi who have made numerous talk page entries too and their English proficiency is well-known (and obviously on a fairly decent level, especially for Iaaasi). The greatest eye opener though was the text about a certain "Prof. Cavalli", because I knew that I've seen this text before. After a while I've realized that the first time I've seen it it was actually in Slovak. And guess who posted it on my talk page? None other than User:Bizovne himself (the IP account has been revealed to be used by Bizovne at the time)! So then I've taken a closer look at the rant (about Cavalli and Hungarian genes) and realized that it's basically a snippet of the translation I've made of my conversation with him (even with all the mistakes I've left in out of laziness).

So, the "executive summary" of the text above (for ADHD types :P): User:Savneli, which first been suspected to be User:Iaaasi's, then User:Samofi's sock, is in fact User:Bizovne's sock. Hence the indef ban of Samofi issued by AGK should be lifted. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)