Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[1] appears bogus[2] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[3] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[4] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. "[Famous athlete so-and-so] is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Wikipedia that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility.[5] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this seems to have quieted down, which I guess is always good. It will probably get archived soon; please feel free to open a new thread if issues arise again. Some general requests/advice:

• (Mostly to SergeWoodzing): it's not worth getting stressed out (Wikistress) about editing conflicts. Of course it happens to everyone anyway if they edit enough, and it builds up over time. The most effective cure is to quit Wikipedia completely for a while (Wikibreak). I've done that many times. A lesser measure is to switch temporarily to editing a different set of topic areas. But there are various sources of annoyance in Wikipedia that simply never go away; editing healthily is partly a matter of learning to get used to and/or avoid such annoyances, rather than burning out trying to fight them. Also, while you've been around for a while, almost all your editing has been focused in one very narrow area, which makes you in some ways like a new and inexperienced editor. It could help your understanding if you were to branch out into other areas.
• (Mostly to Peter Kuiper): Thank you for being somewhat more diplomatic than before; please keep it up.
• (To both): My suggestion is that the two of you agree to never revert the other in the same article more than once, and any revert should be accompanied by brief discussion on the talk page which should be kept polite. If you don't reach agreement fairly quickly, ask for help from other editors at WT:SWEDEN (I'm presuming this would still be on Swedish-related articles) and accept their consensus. If that doesn't work, try content RFC's.

Let me know if the above sounds helpful. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you sincerely, IP user 67.117.130.143, that I am always interested in learning as long as the working climate is humanely civil.

Thought I was right to contribute mainly in areas (Scandinavian history, entertainment, language) where I mainly know what I an writing/doing?

As far as thanking someone for being "somewhat more diplomatic" now, would you say this hoax accusation fits that bill?

My long and extensive experience of Kuiper is that he never is interested in being "somewhat more diplomatic". If I thought otherwise, why would I have started this discussion?

Why does not any administrator reply here? I thought that was what this page was all about. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resonse to 67.117.130.143: I have not done that many reverts anyway, I mainly limited myself to questioning Woodzing's anglicizations on Talk:Duchies in Sweden and Talk:Carl of Vermillandia. Woodzing's responses have been high on rhetoric. He is still introducing names like "Elsinland", for which he has no evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, the stuff about hoaxes is not nice. As far as I can tell, SW is at worst making some well-intentioned errors. Please, AGF, be civil, etc. Why do you find that so difficult? SW, please be aware of Wikipedia's concept of undue weight. Just because there is some tiny mention of a name or place in some obscure source, doesn't mean it's appropriate to make it the subject of a WP page or of a lot of prominence in an existing page. A passing reference is about the most that can be appropriate. Also: an interaction ban of the type you're asking for would (I believe) require reaching some kind of consensus for it in a discussion. Nobody but me seems to even be responding to this issue.

And both of you: persistent fighting on random talk pages over this type of dispute is completely inappropriate. It's best to seek feedback about the content from other editors (e.g. WP:SWEDEN) but if you feel you have to pursue behavioral complaints, since ANI hasn't done anything, the next step would be a user conduct RFC. If either one of you does file an RFC, I will certify it but I think a second certifier is required. My comments on it (if it opens) will be approx. the same stuff I've said here. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added an unresolved tag to this thread, in the hopes of getting more people to comment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your kind attention to this matter, IP 67.117.130.143, and your good advice!

I am very disappointed that not one administrator has commented here and hope one or more will soon.

I have not started any articles (that I know of) named with lesser known exonyms. Have attempted a few article name changes and failed as per consensus. Have also been supported in other debates. The disambiguations pages' talk pages speak for themselves (already or in future) re: my good faith intentions of making it easy to find people by any and all names used in English literature, where I feel I am free to choose which existing exonymns to cover and leave it to others to cover such exonymns as I choose not to cover. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making up names like "Carl of Vermillandia", and that's a problem of original research or even WP:MADEUP. Please stop editing according to your whims, and start using how English sources refer to things and people. If someone is repeatedly objecting to this kind of thing, that's not wikistalking, that's normal scrutiny of problematic edits. Fences&Windows 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fences and windows: I have not made up anything and am trying to prove it.

More importantly that is not the issue here. The issue reported concerns Kuiper's uncivil behavior, notwithstaning article content or any possible mistakes of mine in that regard. Please address that issue if you are going to comment here! No matter what good faith errors I may have made, Kuiper's habitual cruelty in manner is not justifiable. I reported that here. It is not I who have been reported. Thank you for looking at this anyway! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very very sad about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the template here.. they do not go in section titles.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief summary User:Bender235 was advised in two ANI threads [6] [7] to stop making minor stylistic changes to references, but refuses to desist. Now he is spamming article talk pages about the same stylistic changes (contribs). I have notified the user about this thread on his talk page.

Longer description A recent ANI thread about User:Bender235 closed with this summary (link) :

It is clear that multiple editors have objected to the mass-conversion, either by reverting, or by asking Bender235 to stop. Bender235 is reminded that, even though he may not have broken a specific rule, he did cause a degree of controversy, and is therfor advised stop making changes to {{reflist}} in articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a slightly earlier ANI thread, Bender235 was advised [8]

... For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 talk 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has interpreted this to mean that he can still make the edits if he spams all the talk pages of the articles (talk page edits; search for "reference") He has not stopped making the edits in question, despite the clear language of the ANI threads.

Starting the same conversation on dozens of articles is completely counterproductive. Moreover, Bender235 is aware that his edits go against this Arbcom finding:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." [9]

At this point, it is starting to look like a firm editing restriction, backed up by possible blocks, will be necessary. The pattern of IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think at this point we need to make it an explicit editing restriction: Bender is prohibited from making changes to the style of existing references in any articles. For most editors this would be draconian, but Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this. As a result, he should be forbidden from making any such changes. If he cannot be trusted to make good choices, then we should remove the option. --Jayron32 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm, there is a conflation of issues here: the previous ANI thread was about changing references/ to {{reflist}}. That will soon be moot, since the proposal to change the CSS at Wikipedia:VPR#styling_.3Creferences_.2F.3E_like_Reflist appears likely to be closed (at some point) as consensus for, and then that's moot. That still leaves the column formatting issue, which is also under discussion at VPR, less conclusively. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with posting such column-formatting style suggestions on talk pages, thought it would be preferable to get a style guideline that simply approved it so it could just be done. At any rate, if we want to agree that editors shouldn't make such proposals on lots of talk pages, fine, but for now I don't see he's doing anything wrong with that. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both ANI threads reflect the same underlying problematic behavior, which is making mass stylistic changes to articles. The fact that bender235 makes more than one type of stylistic change only reinforces the pattern. The problem with making the same suggestion on numerous talk pages is that it makes discussion very difficult, by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question. This is the point of the Arbcom finding I quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question"

That is wrong. For example, I asked whether I should implement {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} here. Now if someone would've replied: "no, please don't do that, because on WP:MADONNA we've always used {{Reflist|2}} and would like to continue to do that", I wouldn't have changed anything on this article or any related. But as a matter of fact, I was asked to do the exact opposite. —bender235 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. I was adviced not to change the reference list style w/out testing the local consensus. So I did test the local consensus, and asked if anyone objected the change. In most cases, nobody object, and in some cases people even encouraged me to do the change.
I really don't know what you want me to do. If I act per WP:BRD, it's wrong because I allegedly "impose" my prefered style on articles ignoring the local consensus. Now if I turn BRD around and start the discussion first, I'm "spamming the talk pages". What the hell I'm supposed to do? —bender235 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely clear from the quotes above what you are supposed to do: stop making these stylistic changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion, no one should be allowed to ever make these kind of changes to articles, even when it has been discussed on talk pages a priori? Then your opinion is wrong. —bender235 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "no one", "ever". Jayron32 has explained, above, the problem that this thread is about: "Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this". You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes; that the MOS explicitly discourages them; and two consecutive ANI threads asked you to stop. Continuing to make the same edits under those circumstances is patently inappropriate, and escalating them by also spamming talk pages verges on violating WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this "rule" is only supposed to apply to me? Because of your Wikihounding that led to two ANI, one of which I actually posted?

"You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes"

No, I am not. That was why I was asking on the talk pages in the first place. To find out what is consensus. And people replied, and said: "yes, colwidth looks nice, please change". —bender235 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "I didn't hear that" aspect again. How many people need to tell you there isn't consensus for the changes? Two ANI threads asking you to stop is more than enough. It appears you're just filibustering at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to memore like you've made up your mind about this and aren't sufficiently assuming good faith or listening to Bender trying to figure out how best to handle this. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, it seems like you still haven't gotten the point. The notion that "there is no consensus" may be correct globally. However, I was specificly asking on each article, whether local consensus was pro or con. So your assertion that I was ignoring consensus is just nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume for the sake of argument that I go to every talk page you leave a note on, and point out that I disagree. What then? You know that various editors disagree with the changes, not just me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you told me numerous times here and here that I have no right to decide on the reference style of articles I haven't contributed to before, that "rule" would apply to you here as well. Which means your objection does not count, unless you have contributed to the specific article.

Obviously that "rule" conflicts with everything from WP:OWN to WP:BOLD, but you made it up, and you repeatedly uttered the fact that I have breached that "rule". —bender235 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that anyone can object is a key reason why it's silly to make style changes as you have been. When there are disagreements, our firm rule is to keep the established style, and there is no limitation on who can object. In practice people don't object if an article is changed by its frequent editors in the course of heavy editing, but they do object to widespread changes by editors who have never edited the articles before. This is well known to people who follow the MOS or WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:DRNC? I guess not. —bender235 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that essay about content edits. But random stylistic changes (e.g. ENGVER, reference formatting) are not the same – these should be avoided, and reverted when they are made. We have a longstanding consensus, in the MOS and in arbitration cases, that editors should not change between optional styles in articles, and that making such changes is, in general, disruptive rather than productive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with the essay on content edits? WP:DRNC doesn't even apply to those edits, because how can there be an a priori consensus about a content change or addition? That would be absurd. —bender235 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a prior posting on the talk page, with some reasonable time allowed for possible responses and consensus respected, I really don't see the problem. The whole tenor of the previous discussions was not forcing style changes, by fait accompli editing, and if Bender has stopped doing that (I haven't checked), then there's no real problem, is there? It might reasonably be decided that we should change policy (or possibly interpret existing policy) to declare that proposing this on lots of talk pages should be prohibited, but it seems a perfectly good faith action, and mentioning WP:POINT in this context is really not appropriate. Now if someone wants to point to a policy basis for disallowing this, or to propose creating one (and request Bender to stop pending the outcome of that discussion), fine, otherwise, this thread doesn't really seem to have anywhere to go. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's silly to require people to go around dozens of talk pages making the same comment: "I object, and therefore per WP:MOS the policy is that we keep the established style". This is what the arbcom case is getting at: it's not appropriate to go around making so many edits in a way that exhausts the ability of those you know disagree with the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I only see one solution for this dispute: WP:CITE has to have a clear recommendation on whether columns are allowed, or disallowed. Because if there's a recommendation to have them, everyone should be allowed to implement them. And if there's no recommendation, no one should be allowed to, and the feature as a whole might be deleted. Which brings us to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Final proposal. —bender235 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how hard this is to understand. Stop making any changes to reflist formats until the VPPR proposal concludes with consensus in your favor. It's not rocket science. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I understood it. I thought I was urged to not make "mass changes" w/out finding out the local consensus. So I tried to find out the local consensus. But okay, I'll stop doing it until WP:VPR has come to a conclusion, on way or the other. —bender235 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Columns are allowed" or even "Columns are recommended" is not the same as "Columns are required". Something that is allowed, but not required, is called "optional". Per CBM, MOS, wiki practice, and numerous arb precedents are that if something optional is done a particular way in some article, leave it alone unless there is consensus to change it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the main point that needs to be explained to Bender235 is that, through the discussion that was undertaken at Village Pump:Proposals, the coding for both types of referencing is going to be changed so that they are identical. Therefore, no changes between the two styles should ever be made again anywhere on Wikipedia unless Reflist is needed to add specific dimensions (which is a fairly rare occurrence). Therefore, Bender needs to stop changing these referencing styles permanently, since they will be the same exact thing. Silverseren^C 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (semi-trolling) But think of his edit counter! How dare one make a single change to CSS that denies a dedicated editor the unique opportunity to make tens of thousands if not millions of edits?! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: This was never about replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}}, therefore it is not affected by this proposal.

All I did was inquiring the local consensus on several talk pages, which CBM called "spamming". —bender235 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the 14th, Bender asked me what other gnomic work he can do if he can't do this.[10] I didn't answer, as I was not sure how to answer. Anyone here have suggestions? To me, the most obvious thing would be to look for spelling and grammar mistakes in articles, which affect wikipedia's credibility to the reading public, far more than any technical stuff about column widths. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions could include WP:WIKIFY, which involves adding wikilinks and section headers, CAT:UNCAT, which besides being a bit of an oxymoron, is involved in categorizing articles, indeed, anything at {{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} could use some help. --Jayron32 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:CVU, he could write his own articles...he could improve existing articles...he could look through images for false claims of ownership or fair use...really, there's so much more than moving references around (and for that matter, he could format internal citations to add paramaters missing, like author and page title). I hear there are still several thousand WP:BLP's that need references... Seriously Bender, use the left mouse button instead of your keyboard for a while and click around, you'll find something. I think you're genuinely trying to help here, you're just doing something that isn't particularly helpful. Look around, you'll find all sorts of gnomish work that needs to be done. N419BH 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did all that and more over the past 6½ years. Besides creating and expanding articles from time to time, I've been fixing typos, adding/fixing infoboxes, fixing broken citations, implementing citation templates, and restructuring appendices. And as a minor part of it, in about 1% of the articles I edited, I replaced {{Reflist|2}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} where I considered it useful. And just because someone didn't like {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, he reverted it everywhere saying there was "no consensus" to use it. And after all, this is the third ANI regarding this dispute.

Actually I didn't ask Baseball Bugs what to do, but how to do it. Because if Wikipedia rules where actually like User:CBM claims, which was that I have no rights to modify the style of an article I haven't contributed significant content to, I couldn't do anything of the things mentioned above (except for typofixing, maybe). Because restructuring the appendix inevitably changes the style. Fixing an infobox inevitably changes the style. Implementing citation templates inevitably changes the style. If Wikipedia rules were actually prohibiting me from doing these kind of edits, then there is nothing left. —bender235 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you asked me was:

"So, what gnomic work can I do from now on w/out risking a block? Obviously ref style changes are a no-no, and so are citation cleanups. How can I do those minor improvement from now on?"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "how can I do those" if I'm supposed to (a) establish a status of "major contributor" (to a specific article) before making minor edits, and (b) discuss every minor edit on the article's talk page before actually implementing it. I always thought that (a) no one, no matter how much he contributed, owns an article or has the final say, and (b) consensus is established by bold moves. Like WP:CONSENSUS puts it: "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit; If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." But now, for some reason, this policy has been turned up-side-down. —bender235 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is different for style changes, that's all. So for example, yes, if a page has an established reference style that's reasonable, you shouldn't change it to citation templates. In effect, if you want to look at it that way, there is a partial exception to WP:OWN in that the first person to establish a citation style (or a variation of English, come to that) gets to WP:OWN that aspect of the article, barring a strong reason to change those style aspects. And also, "consensus is established by bold moves"? No, consensus is established in various ways; for some things, boldness is not appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, there's the problem. Changing from "colour" to "color" might be merely a style change, but implementing a citation template is more, because it also produces meta tags and a "Z3988" context object in HTML. Likewise, implementing {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is more, because it makes Wikipedia articles accessible platform independent. —bender235 (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the question you're really asking is, "What can I do on Wikipedia without ever risking a warning/block?" And the answer is "nothing." Because there's always opportunity for misunderstandings, misinterpretations and outright mistakes. The key is to listen when multiple folks say "You're doing it wrong," and try to establish a consensus before moving forward. WP:BOLD is fine, but remember that it's Bold-Revert-Discuss. People have been upset because your technique has been "Bold-Revert-'Keep Making The Same Changes on Multiple Articles Anyway". Just keep gnoming, but be willing to step back a bit when your changes are questioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always acted on WP:BRD. And in some cases, there were discussions after my edit was reverted. But in most cases, nobody reverted, and nobody disagreed with my edit. —bender235 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for, y'know, the majority of people in the ANI threads about you. That counts too. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion and refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so. He finds older images I uploaded that don't have the newest template, and instead of adding a template himself, or asking me to do so, he tags them for deletion and I notice them when I see the red link in the article or my watchlist. I end up just reuploding the fair-use image and adding the newest template. In a fraction of the time to go through this, he could have added the newer template, or notified me to add it or suplement the existing rationale. Instead we end up with a ritual that wastes everyone's time. Previously I had almost every image I loaded nominated for deletion by a user that I had opposed in an AFD debate. They spend hours adding a deletion tag to almost every image I added, including images of my own face on my userpage. Image deletion shouldn't be used as a punative measure or retaliation. Any comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What individual user are you talking about? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is User:Jsayre64.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be lovely! Please do, Richard. You know that fair use requirements are a bit more extensive than what you've been accustomed to putting on images, and tagging for deletion is the way these are handled. I had asked just a few weeks ago at WT:NFC about creating a template to request improvement to rationale precisely because of your CCI, but I was told that a template of that sort was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_15#Template:Short-Rationale). As per that conversation, "It is the case that the person who places a non-free image should be the one to ensure that the fair use rationale is adequate, and if a rationale does not pass muster, the non-free content needs to be corrected soon or go." The "disputed fair use" deletion tag allows seven days for this correction to take place. As to notifications, as you know, I requested that your talk page not be spammed with notices in courtesy to you. I asked you previously to let me know if you would prefer individual notices, but I did not hear back from you. If you would like individual notices, I can certainly log that request at the CCI page, so that those who are taking the time to help make sure that your remaining images are compliant with policies will know that you would appreciate them after all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the mess, Treasury Tag did by nominating what appears to be almost every image I loaded, over 400 were tagged before he gave up, including the images of my own face on my userpage, so please don't blame the victim. Remember the standard FUR template wasn't born with Wikipedia, it came along later, much later than most of the images I uploaded. Out of what is by my count over 400 images nominated for deletion I now count 8 redlinks, mostly for New York Times articles that were listed at "pre-1965 public domain without renewal" that had their copyright reapplied for, and the official notice was found. And even they could have been switched to Fairuse. There are a few that I can't figure out what they were because they were deleted before I could respond. I am still not sure why Treasury Tag's actions weren't labeled as harassment. I think I could challenge an equal number from anyone's uploads and get the same percentage deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all responsible for making sure that our content meets requirements. You are not a victim in this matter, regardless of what may or may not have happened with User:TreasuryTag. There were legitimate concerns with copyright and with fair use practices regarding your images, and a good many people have dedicated and are dedicating time to helping make sure that the many valid and usable images you have uploaded are properly identified and defined, while images that may not meet our policies are addressed. This is tedious but necessary work, and your proactive assistance with it would certainly be worthwhile. (By the way, I've dropped a note to User:TreasuryTag, as he is now a subject of this discussion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know why I've been name-dropped in this discussion other than Richard attempting to claim that since his poor copyright labelling was once reviewed and he didn't like it, he should henceforth gain complete immunity in this regard. Nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this same Issue a while back and it cycles back around from time to time thats why I stopped uplodading images. We have templates that when used arent any good, in most cases the image gets deleted before I have a chance to find the information, when I argue the point knowone seems to care other than CCI seems to be allowed to do pretty much as they want with only minimal concensus in the name of CCI. the following are suggestion I have for fixing this:

1. ) The uploader must be notified of the deletion, even if that is a group request or a link to the deletion discussion page. This is already the policy, if its not being followed then your breaking policy
2. ) The uploader must be given adequate time with the possibility of extension if needed to get the source information, with the exception of an extension this is already policy, I believe the rule is 7 days
3. ) If the templates people are using aren't good enough then we need to get rid of them and make new ones.
4. ) We need to document better what is needed. If the same mistakes are repeated from one uploader to the next then the problem lies as much with the policy written as with the uploader who doesn't know or understand it.

If we do these 4 things it will not only stop wasting peoples time (the uploader and the reviewer) we will make the image repository in WP a much better and cleaner place. --Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRT Moongirls comments I would also say that we are all volunteers and knowone likes thier time wasted whether because thier edits get reverted or because their images get deleted. Running bots like VMbot a while back and deleting images without notifying the user are just bad practice and lazy no matter what the justification. CCI has an important role to play however they need to follow the rules like the rest of us. The attitude of CCI trumps all and we can do what we want needs to stop. You are not only causing unneeded problems with articles and drama with editors, more importantly, you are giving the CCI process a bad reputation and it is casting the whole CCI project and processes in a negative light, thereby turning off users who might take the time to help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I remember you. Since you've not been the subject of a CCI, I was confused as to to who was deleting your images before you had the chance to find the information "in the name of CCI". I gather you're not talking about images or you at all, but rather about your request to change copyright violation policy at Village Pump. This is not the place to change policy. If you would like to propose further changes to our policies related to copyright, you may wish to open a new discussion at Village Pump.

As to the specifics of this case, the contributor has been notified of the need to watch the WP:CCI page. Every image tagged should be noted at that page; I believe they have been. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notification, but so far has not indicated that this is his desire. No image has been presumptively deleted in this case, as this is not an indefinitely blocked contributor returning under sock puppet. Every one has been duly tagged and, where necessary, listed for review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Im the guy that told you your bot was screwing up articles and got the brush off. Thats a nice attempt to change the subject and redirect fire though. That policy request was based on the fact that I have had several images recently (and more over the past several months) tagged for deletion or deleted out right and I didn't find out until I saw it was missing to an article. Ot the fact that the bot went tearing through a couple hundred articles on my watchlist causing me to revert all but 2 (and Im not even sure about those but I let them go) changes. And since your bot recently caused me and several other editors several hours of work reverting bad edits (the majority of the edits made by the bot I might add) because it wasn't programmed correctly. Back to the point of the matter though. Telling someone to watch for their name on a page isn't the policy unless you chaneged it. You need to notify them on their talk page so that they can respond unless they tell you otherwise by exception. I admit that much of what CCI does pertains to contributors we don't want or need, but that doesn't appear to be the case here and that doesn't mean CCI is exempt from policy. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't run a bot. Please don't confuse individuals. There may be few of us who work in the CCI area, but we're not one person. :) That you have had images deleted (not via CCI) or that you disagree with the application of policy to one CCI has no bearing whatsoever on this case. (I don't believe you got any kind of a brush off in your earlier query, but that has even less relevance to this conversation. You probably know where WP:WQA is, if you feel differently and would like to request uninvolved feedback at an appropriate forum.)

This contributor is still actively editing and is capable of voicing his own desires. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notifications. Had he at any point indicated that he would, he would have received individual notifications. No individual notifications were supplied as a courtesy to him because of his prior concerns of harassment. That said, he still has only to request individual notification to receive it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the bot aside continuing to dodge the issue of why CCI tags violates policy by tagging articles and images for deletion without notifying the user is the issue here. And providing the Excuse that they can watch the CCI paeg isn't an acceptable response. Your right this editor is capable and did say something and then was told "Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess". This is what I am talking about. Comment like that coming from members of the CCI project. The ongoing pattern of "we are CCI and have free reign to do what we think is right and if you don't like it then help out" mentality. You are bullying users and using Gustapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project. It amazes me that more editors aren't complaining. I realize that at times it may not seem like it but I am trying to be civil here but the comments and etiquette coming from the CCI members is making it difficult. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, CCI is not a project; it's a process board. That said, I have to wonder why you think User:Quantpole speaks for CCI. This is the administrators noticeboard, and anybody is welcome to contribute here. I'm looking back at his or contribs and I see no edits whatsoever to CCI or any individual CCI...not one, ever. And that said, he'd be more than welcome to start. Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. You may be trying to be civil, but you are falling somewhat short: "You are bullying users and using Gestapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project." Maybe I'm the one who needs to go to WQA. :/ I have never done any such thing. As to the rest, I don't plan to argue with you. If Richard, who has known since the CCI opened that he would not receive individual notifications, would like to receive notification, he need only speak up. Your speaking up does not replace his doing so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to interrupt this dialog, but I'm getting lost so let me chime in with a quick question. Can someone explain why notifying the uploader isn't being done in these cases? It seems at the least like a reasonable request but I assume there are good reasons for not doing so? Hobit (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notices are not routinely provided for items tagged during a CCI because these investigations can deal with hundreds or (as in this case) even thousands of specific items. The presumption is that contributors generally do not intentionally violate policies, and there is an effort made at discretion (which sometimes fails but, fortunately, not that often). Every item tagged at CCI is logged on the CCI page, so the contributor does not need to be watching every image or every article; they only need to watch that page if they want to know what is being done with a particular image or article. Since discretion totally failed in this one already (for obvious and very good reasons), let's take Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo for example. This involves 13,542 articles. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 1 begins the listing of each, which is marked when cleared or addressed. It is a courtesy to active contributors at CCI that we don't hit them with dozens or more templates. (Indef blocked ones, it would also be pointless.) (Eta Oh, and it certainly is a reasonable request; it may be lost, as this has gotten long, but it would have been honored if he had ever made it. I asked him here if he would prefer individual notices, but he never responded.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good to know about it being a process board, I thought it was just a Project. I admit I don't know what the difference is but it seems like a board would have more authority. I honestly don't know who the members are since I usually see the same 3 people responding. So your saying that knowone from the CCI team has ever said something like "Feel free to volunteer to work on CCIs (we have 46 open - plenty to choose from!) and other copyright cleanup and encourage others to do so and no such drastic measures [as running a bot] would ever need to be considered" such as here and here when numorous editors stepped forward about the actions of VMbot? Which BTW didn't go through BRFA as far as I can tell but was supported by a couple of CCI editors on the CCI page that hardly anyone watches. These are just 2 examples from 1 editor but I have seen several others recently that paint the same picture. I do apologize if I seem like I am centering this towards you sepcifically as this deals with CCI's practices in general and not you as an individual. I confess that I find myself vecoming frustrated by the "its not my fault its the editor" fingerpointing and the ongoing rhetorical comments. It may not have been you as you say but it was folks from teh CCI team and the general tone is we have the power to this and you can't tell us otherwise. Back to the point of this discussion...again, is that niether I nor the user above should need to step up and say hay I want to be notified. The policy is that the user be notified. Exclusion should be by exception (or if the user is known to be gone or in large numbers such as the Darius Dhlomo incident), not by default as appears to be current practice. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you're going to complain about lack of notification perhaps you should have bothered mentioning this thread to me since you keep bringing me back up in it, even though I'm not working on the CCI which is nominally in question here. Second, there are no "members" of CCI anymore than there are "members" of ANI. Third, just so I have a reference: could you point me to the exact policies that state users must be notified when their images are tagged for deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any such policy. I think that the existance of the CCI subpage is a lot like notifying the uploader, as long as the editor is watching the page. With the Darius Dhlomo CCI, you didn't have to notify Darius Dhlomo. The subpage served that purpose. Why not the same with this CCI? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can clarify things here. The process board does have authority. It's in action now. This user is the subject of a CCI; he has violated our copyright policy on a number of occasions...most recently just a few days ago, although this was a text matter (about which he has also been previously notified). There are literally a thousand + (somewhere between 1780 and 1800, to be exact) of images involved here; I regard this as a "large number". I have personally reviewed and happily marked clear most of the images this user has added; many of them are excellent. A number have been deleted. What remains are largely non-free images, many of which have insufficient rationales.

Richard has known from the beginning of the CCI that he would not receive notification. He was told here: "To avoid spamming people, we do not do individual notices for issues located, but they are annotated there." That was reinforced to him here: "I've asked people not to tag your talk page to avoid cluttering it, since you know to watch the CCI." I've several times already linked to the interim edit where I asked him to let me know if he would rather his case be handled differently. His complaint against this contributor includes the allegation that he "refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so". Are there diffs to substantiate that he has requested of Jsayre that he be notified and ignored? If so, viewing them would certainly help. I see this note at the individual's talk page, where he mentions notification. It was left today at 02:10. AJsayre has not tagged any images since then, and, in fact, before this ANI report was even filed offered here to help supply FUR for these images.

In past CCIs, the notification procedure has apparently worked just fine. If Richard wants his handled differently, I see no reason to object to that, but he does need to make that clear.

(In terms of the bot, which again has nothing to do with this, it was discussed at an WP:ANI subpage, here, and its BRFA listing is here. Contributors can read for themselves whether the response you received was quite the way you recall it. I see some signs of frustration there, but certainly nothing like a Nazi comparison; Godwin's law remained uninvoked until today. ;)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Your still not getting my point and I don't have the desire or the stamina to continue to debate this. Were so far off topic most readers of this discussion probably don't even know what were talking about by this point. I am confident we could continue to argue this in perpituity and still not agree or come to any meaningful resolution so its time for me to go back to what I was doing. At this point it just seems like I am being argumentative and thats not what was trying to convey. VM your absolutely right and I had actually gone to let you know a few minutes later but Moonriddengirl beat me to it.

Here is a link for 1 place where it says that you should notify the contributor Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Its a slightly different venue I grant you but the concept is the same. Here is 1 more just for good measure Wikipedia:Deletion policy--Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has answered as to why the people tagging for deletion cannot spend the same amount of time adding the newer tags. Whatever tag your demanding today to replace the earlier text version will be obsolete in the future. If it takes the same amount of time, why not do the right thing for the sake of the readers. All I hear are weak excuses and people saying it is the responsibility of the uploader.{{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=To illustrate person at peak of career |Replaceability=Non replaceable, person is dead |other_information= }} --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could spend the time and add tags / legitimate reasons, but they would have to know if it is in fact the peak of the subject's career and if the person is dead, etc. and so it doesn't take the same time. Just like at PUF where many of the files could just be retagged as copyrighted and given a FUR they are generally deleted when neither the uploader nor another interested editor takes the time to do so. The fact that someone else can go out of their way to fix your problems instead of just telling you about them doesn't mean they have to what with it being a volunteer project and all. You don't have to use newfangled tags, but a FUR does need to be complete; that rule has been around since before you started editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They'd also have to actually agree it is a valid fair use case. In particular issues of replacability NFC#1 (being dead doesn't mean there isn't a free image available), significance - does the image truely increase understanding as required by NFC#8, and to a lesser degree perhaps NFC#2 respect for commercial opportunities. Not everyone sees those the same way, so some will believe there is no valid rationale to tag it with. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if User:Moonriddengirl and User:Jsayre64 aren't willing to take a few extra seconds of their time to notify people of deletion, or to take a few extra seconds of their time to add the update FUR template when it is missing, or evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid, I would rather have other people doing the investigation. If they can't evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid to add, then they probably should not be volunteering for the job of going through my punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag. We should be measuring our success by how much we have fixed and preserved, not by how much we delete. I also think the "punitive audit" should be banned as a form of harassment. Moonriddengirl and Treasury Tag had already tagged my userpage image of my face for deletion. Treasury Tag as a form of harassment and Moonriddengirl for her own reasons. This doesn't instill confidence in me, and I am sure other editors are equally concerned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, that's is demonstrably untrue. Anyone can look at the edit history of your userpage image and see that I have never touched it: File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG. Please make sure that you accurately report your concerns at ANI. Speaking of which: do you have diffs to support your claim that you asked Jsayre for notification on multiple occasions and were ignored? Or are you perhaps not recalling that correctly as well?

You were told what to do if you desired notification. As to taking a few extra seconds, I assure you it took more than a few seconds to explain to you on the 18th that you still cannot copy text from previously published sources. Leaving you a pregenerated notice, that takes considerably less time. Since it is evidently your desire, I will make sure to give you the pregenerated notices in any future instances of copyright violation.

There is nothing whatsoever "punitive" about this audit. You for whatever reason have violated our copyright policies with images and, as I know now, text on multiple occasions. It is necessary to review your content to make sure that everything we still have is as it shoudl be. You have been treated with courtesy throughout the review and have done little to demonstrate your good faith in cleaning up issues that you have caused.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only time Richard has ever gone to my talk page was the recently opened section here, and as you can see I did not ignore him. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first time he asked me to notify him of problems with his images, and I haven't been working on the CCI since then, because of this discussion, obviously, and Richard being upset. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a tedious job, a valuable service to the project. Your volunteering your time has been appreciated, greatly. If and when you do decide to resume, please keep in mind that Richard has now said he would like the templates. I'll make a note of this change at the CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel that the investigation is a "punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag" when I'm the editor that placed the CCI request. AS MRG said above, please make sure the concerns you voice here are accurate. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some images listed on the CCI that had a rationale with enough information, but just no template. In those cases, I can just merge that information into a rationale template... no problem. But "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead" is not quite adequate enough and, as I've told Richard before and as VernoWhitney pointed out, the uploader, and only the uploader, is the one who knows exactly how the rationale should look in the template. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument still stands, if you don't have the energy or skill to add the newer template you are demanding, we should find someone else who has those skills and who has the extra little bit of energy to add the template and make a quick evaluation. I always assume good faith, but I don't think you are the right person for this job. It gives the appearance you are measuring your success by how many you delete and not how many you preserve for future readers. If I can make the needed changes on an image of a dead person I have no personal knowledge of; and you lack that ability or the time to complete it, as you have repeated multiple times above, we need to find someone with both the skill and the time to replace you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That brings us back to the original reply, where Quantpole recommended that you go through yourself and make sure the licenses are correct. This is a good suggestion. No more images would need to be tagged with "disputed fair use" because of incomplete information; any disputes would be substantive. At that point, all that anybody else would have to do is note that there are no problems and move the images to join the many which have already been cleared. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Tag added about 400 tags to my images before he gave up, after we argued at an AFD. You can go back to the ANI I filed to get him to stop to read more. That is what started this punitive audit. So what I am asking is that we find someone more skilled, and more interested in preservation than Jsayre64 to finish the audit. Jsayre64 has just tagged for deletion File:Norton-ThomasPatrick 1891-1968 1918 draft.jpg, a document from 1918 clearly in the public domain. Treasury Tag as part of his initial harassment tagged File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG, my userpage image and another reviewer in the audit "Elen of the Roads" tagged it a second time. In his initial harassment Treasury Tag even nominated images that I had cropped that other people had loaded, just because my name was attached to them for reuploading. I admire TrasuryTag for thinking of such an ingenious way to harass me. Remember, anyone can be given a punitive audit like this, and I think everyone would agree that you want a fair and skilled person making the decision to keep, or fix, or delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I untagged File:Norton-ThomasPatrick 1891-1968 1918 draft.jpg, documents in the public domain don't need permission. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where could I see a list of the tagged images, or find them in some way? I would like to take a look at them and see if there is salvageable stuff. Or tell which user did the tagging so I'll just look at his/her contributions list. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All current CCIs are linked at WP:CCI; Richard's in particular is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. The vast majority of them have been collapsed into "clear" sections as obviously within policy. Some have been tagged as "Reviewed, believed clear" and some remain "Additional review needed (NF or free)". Every image that has been tagged should be noted in the section "Tagged for further action" with a standard sig to note who tagged it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few images. I'll just mention that stuff like File:Trade_Cards.JPG or File:Creams.jpg need more detailed information, like date of publication of trade card. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What started this audit was your out of policy uploads of images. Treasury Tag's nominations are not considerations in reviewing these images; each has been evaluated afresh. User:Elen of the Roads did tag your userpage image a second time; she also retracted the tag with apologies ([11], [12]) when she realized her error. I imagine you will have noticed by now that these tags draw review of other admins who make the decision to keep, fix or delete. If you think that the various administrators on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons who have responded to these tags are not "fair and skilled", that's a much bigger problem than can easily be resolved here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • To deny the role of Treasury Tag in starting the audit as harassment by nomination of over 400 images, including my userpage image, and any image of other users I had cropped and reuploaded, is just silly. That the two were just a coincidence in the same week, defies statistics. Of the about 400 initially tagged, and the 1,000 now in the audit, I count 6 or 8 deleted, most because of the newer "No agency photo rule" and the ones where the NYT notice to renew copyright was found (and they could have been switched to fair use). I am sure I can go though anyone's image upload queue and delete a greater percentage if that was my goal. Adding a tag to delete is easy, fixing is a little more time consuming by a few seconds, but Wikipedia is better for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake on that public domain image, and thanks for catching the mistake, Enric Naval. Richard: if you are catching every image I tag for deletion almost immediately, you must be a very active Wikipedian. And that said, you probably have the stamina to help review images from your own investigation, as I assume you have read about basic Wikipedia image copyright by now. And frankly, I'm hurt by your saying that I'm "not the right person for this job," as I have worked very hard on the CCI and you haven't. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Whether Treasury Tag's actions were or were not appropriate (I had no part of that; it was over by the time I heard of you), this CCI was started because you demonstrably had uploaded images out of policy. Your count may be a bit off. There are 32 redlinked images at your CCI. Some of them may be coincidentally redlinked, but more than 6 or 8 are not. More of them may be redlinked by the time review is finished; some of those that are not redlinked are not because issues were repaired (as with those for which OTRS permission could be provided). I have no idea how many of the 400 you assert were initially tagged may have been deleted; the image listing I used was not generated until after the CCI was opened. It is your responsibility to bring your images in line with policy; again, it would be lovely if you went through the remaining and expanded those with incomplete rationales before somebody tags them. That, too, would be the better for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has for several months now engaged in a personal campaign to rename several Byzantine articles into a latinized form, performing such moves while consistently ignoring WP:RM guidelines and counter-arguments. In Wikipedia, for several years, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium form has become a de facto standard in names (essentially this boils down to using a transliterated form of the Greek surnames and the less common first names, for instance Andronikos Komnenos instead of the latinized Andronicus Comnenus, but John Doukas instead of John Ducas or Ioannes Doukas). Most if not all articles on Byzantine people were moved to conform to this standard following the here and here in 2006. Although the discussion did not really produce a clear result, since then the ODB forms have become the de facto standard. I note that during that vote I voted to keep the latinized form as the title, while Pmanderson was wholly against using the ODB form.

Pmanderson is on record repeatedly (see the talk pages) below for finding the ODB standard to be "weird" or "bastardized", and less preferable to the traditional latinized form. However, when he went about moving Constantine Doukas to Constantine Ducas, he initially based this on the argument that the ODB was "a half-forgotten reference work", then, I challenged that claim, that usage was limited to Oxford University Press publications. When I disproved that, he again moved his line of attack to "it never become standard with professional Byzantinists" or that it was declining in usage (see relevant talk page, although this discussion spilled over to Pmanderson's talk page and my own). These claims were made without providing any evidence, except citing "personal experience". This is complete nonsense: after the ODB's publication in 1989, its system is increasingly used, gradually replacing the older latinized forms, and the ODB remains very much the standard reference work in the field. Case in point, when Pmanderson named a few major Byzantinist authors who according to him still used the old system, even there I found that in their more recent publications, they had converted to the ODB form.

From his own passionate comments, it is clear that on Pmanderson's part, this represents an issue he holds dear. Fair enough. The issue at hand however is not what the merits of the latinized or the ODB systems are, since this is a largely subjective issue and one that does not fall within WP's purview to decide, but the manner in which he unilaterally moves around pages in an obvious (and practically self-declared) effort to "rebel" against de facto consensus, without even bothering with a WP:RM procedure. This is especially disruptive when moves like that at Constantine Doukas would necessitate moving a few dozen other related articles as well for consistency. The breach of move guidelines and of common courtesy is even more flagrant when he moved Nikephoros Gregoras to Nicephorus Gregoras even while the discussion on John Doukas was ongoing, and when I reverted, he moved it again (page history). Later he moved Maximos Planoudes to Maximus Planudes, prompting another short discussion here and here. This time, as Wareh (talk · contribs) demonstrated the latinized form to be more usual by far in published sources, I let it go. A similar and still ongoing issue at the talk page of the Komnenos dynasty also saw Pmanderson trying to promote the latinized form (Talk:Komnenoi#Propose move). So far at least, he used Google searches to back up his position, and indeed, since older bibliography almost exclusively uses the latinized forms, he has a point.

The latest incident however, at Michael Attaleiates, is a perfect example of Pmanderson making this an issue of personal taste without regard for actual usage: Pmanderson moved the page to Michael Attaliates with the comment that "Observe that none of the sources use this spelling". However, when I pointed out that the previous title is overwhelmingly used among both older and more recent publications, Pmanderson did not even bother to refute that (and still has not acknowledged that fact in the subsequent discussion even once). Instead, he changed his approach and claimed that "Attaleiates" was somehow considerably less intelligible than "Attaliates" (all because of this one "e"), even though, of course, according to him, "Attaliates" is immediately recognizable as "from Attalia" even if you don't know Greek (and even if, like 95% of the world's population, you have probably never even heard of "Attalia"). He also based his move on the WP:GREEK guideline, which he wrote. When I provided counter-arguments, even citing his own WP:GREEK guideline as allowing the use of the "ei" cluster as an alternative, he stopped even providing any arguments beyond what boils down to "I know best, it's my opinion that Attaleiates is incomprehensible and therefore my form is correct" and began ad hominem accusations: "you then began a war - on this obscure article which you have never edited before last month. Either you watchlist contains all Byzantine articles, or you are trailing me; if the first is true, a less comprehensive watchlist would dispell the implication that you seek to own all Byzantium." Aside from the fact that I had edited the article all the way back in May 2009, and naturally had it on my watchlist, this accusation comes from a person who never ever edited any of the articles in question except for moving them to his preferred title and making the relevant cosmetic changes. Apart from these moves, his contributions to other Byzantine-related articles (at least in the recent past) are also non-existent. After a non-involved user and admin (Aldux (talk · contribs)) moved the page back to "Attaleiates", Pmanderson suggested that in any future WP:RM, I be automatically excluded as "essentially unreasonable". Further arguments were again ignored/brushed off by Pmanderson as "a mishmash of misquotations". And after all that, still without a single time contradicting the evidence on usage, after the discussion had - thankfully - ebbed off, he moved it back to his own form after a few days without bothering with WP:RM formalities.

I used to respect Pmanderson, his contributions and his opinions. I hesitated long and discussed even longer to avoid coming here, but the last incident has clearly demonstrated that this issue is a personal obsession (which was more or less clear from the beginning, to judge by this), regardless of any evidence of scholarly usage or argumentation, since he simply refuses to acknowledge facts contrary to his view and constantly resorts to rhetorical fireworks to avoid an argument-for-argument discussion. I have repeatedly pointed out to him that the proper procedure for potentially contentious issues, as he knows full well, is to initiate a move discussion, and that if he wants the de facto ODB consensus overthrown, the correct thing would be to start an RfC and bring some evidence against it based on actual usage. He has ignored that and continued in the same manner, trying to overthrow established norms one article at a time. It is pure and simple WP:TRUTH-crusading, coupled with a blatant "I don't like it" attitude, and a perfect case of tendentious and disruptive editing, and it has to stop. At the very least, I would expect him to abide by WP:RM rules in the future, i.e. discuss first, move after. Constantine ✍ 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another content dispute, dressed up as an ANI complaint. I have discussed until I was blue in the face; Cplakidas abandoned the discussion a week ago, and nobody else cares.

His content argument is fallacious (but irrelevant here); but if he can convince anybody else, he can do as I suggested and put the matter up for RM; I hope more briefly than he has done here. I promise here, as I promised on talk, not to oppose - but to put the case for the spelling I prefer. I will willingly yield to consensus; but so far this "consensus" consists of Cplakidas and Cplakidas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pmanderson cares a lot about the naming of articles. I am beginning to doubt that it has much to do with any certain types of articles, he just seems to find himself embroiled in naming disputes over and over and over. It has nothing to do, near as I can tell, with any particular interest in Byzantium, given the alarming frequency with which his name gets associated with these sorts of conflicts. Its becoming something of a pattern. The behaviors you note, in every detail, match his standard modus operandi in these sorts of cases. He does this all the time. --Jayron32 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Jayron in that this is not new from him. A week and a half ago he and I got into an edit war over the wording of WP:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) which eventually led to him tagging the entire page as an essay and then going to WT:MOS to ask whether or not the other guideline even had consensus because he deemed it an essay. And this was because MOS-JA suggests to use the English language spelling utilized by the subject of the article in a personal or professional manner, rather than deferring to more common and inaccurate spellings. It frankly doesn't matter what the topic is. If he thinks the general practice is wrong, he'll come in and say that the practice is violating some unbendable rule that all articles have to obey.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I prefer English usage; I have also disagreed with Jayron's Jayen's strong preference that Ganges be moved to Ganga, and to Ryulong's insistence that there is something special about Japanese names, so that they shouldn't be spelled (in English) as anglophones spell them. The Ganga move request is now closed - and not moved; WP:MOSJAP no longer reflects Ryulong's isolated views. I am pleased, however, to see him support Honshu - and agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, Pmanderson:What are you talking about? I have never, not even once, commented on any move discussion regarding the Ganges. (or indeed, to my knowledge, ever even looked at the article in question) You know what's a good idea: Don't just make something up to make yourself sound better. You have a habit of getting involved in rediculous move wars, or at the least in taking discussions over naming of articles well beyond the beaten-dead-horse phase. This is a pattern. And this is not because of any conflict we have recently had. I have not been substantly been involved in ANY move discussion, not the least of which involving the Ganges. So please, if you are going to find some reason to be dismissive of my concerns, at least find something truthful. --Jayron32 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was User:Jayen32 or 46 or some such, who also uses a colored sig. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not my stance on the names of modern people. My stance is that if they give us a way to spell the name, we should use that, rather than some other form that has only arisen out of self published sources due to ignorance of there being the subject's preferred form. And my views are not isolated as the style guideline that you had an issue over was put in place long before this dispute occurred. And the only reason you claim it "no longer reflects [my] views" is because the page has been protected for three weeks because you saw the need to unnecessarily enforce your non-consensus views on the subject despite a standing consensus with those who actually edit articles regarding Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion about the merits of this request, but this sort of issue is better suited for a WP:RFC/User. I, too, have noticed that Pmanderson is often intensely involved in rather odd naming disputes, so there may well be other people who may have similar concerns.  Sandstein  23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The problem is that during this latest bout of move-warring he also changed the redirect by adding a category so that the reverse move could not happen. As it is, PMAnderson's move-warring coming so closely after a recent 48 hour block is really concerning. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't Dr. K,. a party to the late FYROM dispute? If he can find consensus for his position, RM will do what he wants; if it is not consensus, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein (also without reference to the merits of the requset) that an RFC/U would be useful to address ongoing conduct concerns. It seems to me that an undertaking to put all moves through WP:RM would help matters here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not voluntary, a formal edit restriction would seem to be necessary. He does seem to get himself involved in a lot of these battles. Fences&Windows 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My only hesitation is that it would be quite easy for opponents to game the restriction, by moving articles away from PManderson's desired location in an attempt to shift the status quo, requiring PMAnderson to open an RM and achieve a consensus to move to get it back. But I would expect any admin closing such an RM would be alive to the gaming - WP:RMCI cautions admins to take care assuming that the present title of an article is indeed the stable status quo. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much time is wasted on Wikipedia debating stuff that is of no importance to the reading public, and the specific names of articles is at the top of that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Having spent some time over the last couple of days trying to clear the RM backlog, it amazes me the fights that happen over titles of articles that are often completely rubbish. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 For those who commented about an RFC/U, please see also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson long-term behavior issues are something we need to look at here are his ANI threads needless to say its a disturbing number.[13] [14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] His Block Log is a nightmare to examine. The RFC/U last July was closed with the summary “Pmanderson is frequently incivil towards other users. Many note that he does make quality contributions, but that his insults and WP:CIVIL violations are self-defeating” and “Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others.”

I hate to say it but maybe its time to think about his net benefit to the project. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is proposing a move of an article two months after that article went through a WP:RM discussion disruptive? If so, that's what User:Pmanderson just did here (previous move discussion). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Born2Cycle. For those of you who don't know the sistuation, that was this move request, which Born2Cycle, a non-admin, closed prematurely, calling !votes of 7 to 5 to 1, the 1 being a suggestion of a third alternative, "consensus" for a view he strongly advocates. I thisk the third suggestion preferable; so do several other people here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ ::How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • B2C's move certainly simplified the article title; it may be expected, however, to produce a naming conflict with Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden in the foreseeable future. Moving the article again avoids this; it also makes the article consistent with Her Late Majesty's ancestors John, King of England and Henry IV of England (for why that can't be shorter, compare Henry IV. Is this worth doing? Let consensus decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "B2C's move certainly simplified the article title". On behalf of the entire community and our readers, thank you. As to the rest... oops, I just dropped my crystal ball. Seriously, what are the odds that the Swedish princess will not only become the ceremonial queen, but the primary use of "Queen Victoria"? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement. My contributions include one and a half FAs; they also include much discussion of our naming policy, including phrasing much of it in ways which are actually quoted. I have generally preferred to have our article titles be English and useful to the reader; as a result, I have been called anti-Greek, anti-Turkish, anti-Polish, and anti-German; I see that I am now being called anti-Indian and anti-Japanese. Recently, the voices for this or that POV have discovered that they can get their way by dressing up content disputes as civility disputes; If ANI chooses to reward this tactic, you will see more of it (and since the various causes here are inveterately opposed to each other, the drama wiil not be ended by submitting to the complaints).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see an example where renaming an article has had anything to do with it becoming a Featured Article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not renaming an article has been one of the factors involved in keeping an article from being featured. (For the general principle, would you feature Kim Jong-il under the title Beloved Leader?) This actually came up about Kraków; I'm sure there are other examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common name for Queen Victoria is "Queen Victoria". Not that the rename was a big deal. It just doesn't accomplish anything useful for the reading public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most renames make the reader's time here a little simpler or a little more difficult; that's worth considering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And moving an article from the clean, simple and natural Queen Victoria to the unnatural and cumbersome (not to mention not nearly as well supported in reliable sources) Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom makes the reader's time here a little simpler, or a little more difficult? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • • • • Simpler, as explained up this thread; but that belons at the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, you're not being called anti-anything. You're just being called unecessarily combative when it comes to article titling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to hear it; it can be difficult to tell through the profanity. Certainly Ryulong (who as others besides me observe, is attempting to impose a guideline with which nobody else agrees) has reason to prefer that nobody combatted him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I see that I am merely accused of failing to understand the special treatment that the Japanese require. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In order of diffs: What profanity in the first link? Jpatokal is the only other person who bothered to intervene in our dispute. And it is just as it seems you are when it comes to Byzantine articles in this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link repaired. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, so one f-bomb makes it difficult to tell how I feel concerning your editing practices?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • More than that; it makes it generally clear what sort of editors are most likely to complain about me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. While this ANI about PMA being unnecessarily combative in disputes is active, he rewords the section heading that another editor (me) created, in violation of WP:REFACTOR, and, just above, flings an insult at anyone who is "likely to complain about him". The audacity is unbelievable, and, of course, unnecessarily combative. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believable. I would have refactored that section heading too. That was a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" section heading. Hesperian 02:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement. Perhaps it's not the best title, but it makes the point I'm trying to make, and violates no policy or guideline. I would be open to a suggestion to reword it, and that might even be good advice, but would you really edit it yourself? I've never seen you do anything like that. Remember, this is not article space but talk space and my signature, not yours or PMAs, falls under it, so the wording is my responsibility, not anyone elses. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough, you're right, I wouldn't really have edited it myself. I would have seen that as not on. Instead I would have raged impotently against it. But I don't recommend that course to others.... Hesperian 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So "Should WP:NCROY conform better with WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME? " which begs the question we've been discussing for months, was a purposeful use of a debating tactic fully worthy of a high-school team to gain attention for the author. Was I right to frustrate his vanity? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, behold this wording: "Was I right to frustrate his vanity?" So, the purpose of PMA's actions was, he openly admits, specifically to frustrate (not to mention that blatant get-under-his-skin jab with "vanity"). That's unnecessarily combative, pure and simple. That's the problem in a nutshell. This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:frustrate: "2. To hinder." Hesperian 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have disagreed with PMA many times on naming issues, but I have never had any problems with his mode of disagreement, because, frankly, I would rather disagree with someone who knows exactly what they think and argues for their position with honesty, rigor and incisiveness, than disagree with someone who has only a vague gut feeling and no rationale to support it, and therefore has to resort to various muddleheaded and fallacious arguments in order to get what they want. From what I can tell, PMA's tolerance for this kind of bullshit is even lower than mine. If you're going to argue with him, expect to be held to standards. If you trot out a load of fallacious garbage, he'll smash you down. But if you put forward a position of merit in an intellectually honest manner, you'll receive an intellectually honest critique in return. I don't see that as 'combative'. Hesperian 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above is a good example of what I'm saying. PMA is called combative because he refactors a section heading that begs the question under discussion. As I said, PMA's tolerance for that kind of intellectual dishonesty/laziness is very low. He argues with rigor, and demands rigor from others. I don't see that as a bad thing, and I don't see it as 'combative'. (Permit me also to clarify that my comments about about 'muddleheaded and fallacious arguments' were not addressed at B2c or anyone in particular.) Hesperian 02:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I raised the topic at WT:NCROY. It was not under discussion until I raised it, and I chose to frame as I did. I suggest the person raising the topic gets to frame it... no? If it's improperly/unfairly framed, that can be part of the discussion. I'm not the only one who holds the position that names like "Queen Victoria" comform to WP:AT better than following the prescribed convention at WP:NCROY. This was persuasively argued by User:DrKiernan at Talk:Queen Anne; an excerpt[25]:

My choices are "Queen Victoria" first (most common name, meets 3 WP:AT criteria), "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" second (second most common name, meets 2 WP:AT criteria), and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" third (least common name, meets 1 WP:AT criterium). DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, as near as I can tell, PMA is often way too quick to assume the other's argument is "this kind of bullshit", often when it isn't. And as soon as that occurs, he gets combative. You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion. It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you. It probably doesn't hurt that you're an admin.

I too have had my disagreements with him, but never felt the need to file an ANI. I do see his behavior with others and sometimes with me (including in this refactoring incident) as being problematic, and I've tried to help him understand how to improve in these areas. That's the only reason I participate in the ANI discussions when others file them.

Above, I wrote that "I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement". By it I was clearly referring to the title that we were discussing, but PMA chose to take that statement out of context and interpret it as if I was saying I created that to grab attention for myself. He did it above ("...to gain attention for the author") and he did it at WT:NCROY in a section he named "Vanity edit": "The above effort to gain attention..." [26]. Now, what point is there to any of that other than to be combative? I don't know if he honestly misunderstood or he intentionally misrepresented what I said, but either way it's clearly combative and uncivil behavior, which makes it unacceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm intrigued by this comment: You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion. It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you. (Having skimmed Hesperian's comments, I seem to agree with her/him in general.) So what we're saying is, we need to make WP a "safe place" for people who don't have an intellectual leg to stand on? As a former teacher, I try to be supportive of enthusiastic editors who lack skills, but I have no patience for POV-pushers and crusaders and don't see why I should, despite my recent efforts at decorous hypocrisy. It's painfully obvious that those who have content disputes with PMA look over his history and realize that decorum tribunals are a good tactic against him. Therefore, he looks as if he's worse than he is, because he gets called in for behaviors that would pass unnoticed from other editors. (I could point to diffs, but that would be unfair to the editors who made the remarks. It's also perplexing but beside the point that PMA is willing to shed a martyr's amount of blood over whether it's Marseille or Marseilles.) Rules are rules: but PMA should not in fact be held to higher standards than anyone else, as was implied here. That's unjust and unduly controlling. So here's my question: what has PMA ever done that damages the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Are we here to produce a useful and reliable encyclopedia, or to create a virtual monastic order where our behind-the-scenes behavior matters more than what ends up in articles? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, and question for PMA. Here is a recent quote of Jimbo Wales: [27]

I suppose what we all agree upon is pretty simple: editors shouldn't make snarky comments to other editors, and shouldn't use links to essays to be snarky.

Pmanderson... do you agree with Jimbo that editors shouldn't make snarky -- snide and sarcastic; usually out of irritation -- comments to (or, presumably, about) other editors? Why or why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one certainly do agree, if I may say so here too, and am asking on my knees now for help here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something I'm missing here? What admin action is being requested? It seems that most of the commentary here either belongs on article talk pages or an RfC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin action requested here is some sort of admonition to use the damn WP:RM procedure instead of performing the moves first and then challenging the editors to come up with reasons (which are always ignored by PMA) to move back. And that if he continues in this manner on an issue where he has been for some time aware that a significant opposing opinion exists, he faces some sanction. Constantine ✍ 08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas' remedy lies in his own hands; if he goes to RM himself, I promise not to block with a bold oppose, but to state my reasons as a comment. If he has consensus, fine; I'll abide by it.

Cplakidas washed his hands of the article in question a week and more ago; this offer has been standing since his objection, over a day ago. He declines to go to RM, but demands admin intervention. Does this mean that he doesn't think he has consensus? If so, why intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely did not wash his hands from the article. He put forward compelling arguments in favour of the ODB spelling which you completely ignored and he told you so on the talkpage of the Michael Attaleiates article. Your response was to move the article title to your preferred version and you disabled the redirect by making an additional edit at the ODB version so that only an admin could move it back. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The larger issue is PMA's continued use of snarkiness and incivility when referring to others and their opinions. He often does it in totally unprovoked situations, as he did again today, and was called on it by another user. [28]. He also indicates here how he sees nothing wrong with talking about his fellow editors in such an opprobrious language. He's been blocked for incivility in the past, yet he continues. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I get it that Pmanderson's rough manners have created some resentment here we should try to remember why this ANI section was opened. This was for a series of problems concerning Byzantine-related articles and what in my very modest opinion seems a blatant violation of WP:MOVE; also an uncompromising attitude, that I feel makes discussion often difficult. Pmanderson is an amazing editor that I respect and admire greatly, but I feel his behaviour in this circumstance (Michael Attaliates) has been pretty frustrating, and it does seem to come in a sort of pattern; frankly, I tend to agree with Constantine that he should respect WP:RM, as this would permit a much more serene interaction.Aldux (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum this unjustified page move should be reversed but the Michael Attaleiates redirect needs to be deleted first to make the move back possible. To leave it at the present title would be equivalent to rewarding move-warring on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis and would serve to encourage more behaviour of this type in the future. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unjustified page moves by Pmanderson that should be reversed, he just did another one today[29], though at least in this case it was reversed[30]. It should be noted that PMA is involved in an ongoing proposal discussion about the U.S. city guideline which indicates so far that the current guideline lacks consensus support. Further, he found out about this article being where it is from this discussion, and he knew perfectly well that such a move would be controversial (and therefore should go through WP:RM). Yet despite all this, and this open ANI about him moving articles inappropriately, he moved it anyway! Just how blatant does his behavior have to be to get blocked? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, just about that blatant. I blocked him for 72 hours, as the previous block was 48.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion 72 hours is very light considering this is such a blatant display of contempt for this process, developing consensus, etc., but at least it's something. I was beginning to think he had to make a formal request to get blocked.

Can you please also correct the article in question, because he actually went and reverted the correction of his initial controversial move [31]. That is, the article should be moved back to Carmel-by-the-Sea and the proposal needs to be adjusted accordingly (to indicate Carmel-by-the-Sea -> Carmel, California rather than [Carmel-by-the-Sea, California]] -> Carmel, California). Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem, though - Viriditas keeps arguing that ", California" is not needed, based on the alleged "fame" of that small city; but the manual of style says that you always use the state name on U.S. cities except for a short list of top-population-tier cities, a list which Carmel is certainly not on. Anderson had moved it to "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California", which was the correct way to name the article, and Viriditas moved it back to just-plain "Carmel-by-the-Sea", which is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs is right here. I acknowledge that the name is probably uniquely used for this one area, particularly with the hyphens included, but the city is not itself one which would seem to meet MOS regarding smaller cities of this kind. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on which way it should be, but I'd suggest leaving it where it is until the RM discussion finishes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I moved it as I suggested above before I saw this. It should be noted that the guideline/convention to predisambiguate most U.S. cities is in dispute, is currently being discussed, and so far discussion indicates there is no consensus support for this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not as a result of Born2cycle randomly picking Carmel as an example in this discussion 3 days ago [32] that the page moves started? This all seems eerily familiar to me ... Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's dispute about the "AP style" or whatever, it's recent, since that was stable for awhile. And if they want to start stripping away the state name from every "unique" city, then they will end up creating a bunch of busy-work that's of absolutely no value to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pmanderson had no precise purpose in mind. He was just disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the dispute/discussion about the "AP style" is recent, but PMA has been part of it, and he learned about this article (Carmel-by-the-Sea) being an example of a U.S. city article that was not in compliance with the disputed guideline from that discussion. So he clearly was aware of the dispute, that there was no current consensus for the guideline, that it would be controversial to move that article, and yet he chose to the move the article without going through WP:RM none-the-less. I agree with Mathsci. Again, the 72 hours seems very light considering the blatancy of this behavior, and the utter contempt expressed for the fundamental rules of editor behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. However thus far the Michael Attaleiates article title remains in the no-consensus version. Unlike Carmel-by-the Sea, the redirect cannot be used because it was disabled by PMA. No admin seems willing to reverse the effects of this move-warring. It is unfortunate that move-warring is de-facto rewarded this way. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This problem in general, with a proposed solution, is being discussed at WT:RM#Reversing_unilateral_moves. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all started at this Afd. User:Kuguar03 nominated this article for deletion. User:Piast93 voted to keep it, and added a little advice to Kuguar03 about maybe not nominating articles for deletion so quickly, as it may discourage new users. Kuguar03 immediately accused Piast93 of personal attackshere. When User:Netalarm tried to calm the situation, Kuguar03 accused Netalarm here of joining in a smearing campaign against Kuguar03. That’s when I tried to defuse the situation, but then Kuguar03 began demanding here what he did wrong. User:ZooPro and I tried to explain that there were no attacks made, and no one thought any less of Kuguar because of his Afd, but he kept asking what he did wrong, and ended up demanding “a huge apology” for wasting his time. Netalarm, Piast93, ZooPro, and I all tried to calm him down, but it seems Kuguar03 won’t stop accusing people of attacking him. The Arbiter^Talk 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If that's an "attack" or a "smear" then I've been executed and drenched in mud many times over; any thicker skin for sale somewhere? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. First it's unbelievable that you'd rather go to ANI than admit you were wrong, but then you misrepresent what happened in such a ridiculous way? Here I thought you were just foolishly joining in the pile on without really trying to understand the issue, but it seems you have some deeper issue that I'm unaware of.

All I've ever wanted is to know what I did wrong, or acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Is that so much to ask? Kuguar03 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really see any personal attacks at that AfD either. Kuguar, it may very well be better even for your own sake to not let little stuff like that insult you so easily. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, as I've pointed out many, many times the only issue here is what "mistake" I made by nominating this article for deletion, as stated here, here, here, and here. That's not trying to "defuse the situation", it's escalating it. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. If I didn't, then I didn't. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I gave an in-depth explanation of my reasons for nominating the article here. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can all see, he just refuses to let it go. The Arbiter^Talk 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can all see, he refuses to answer a simple question. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting. The other editor may have been just giving his own opinion. It does not look like he was trying to put you down. At this point, I would say just move on. You will waste a lot more time trying to get a result to your satisfaction out of an other user making that comment, than you would just moving on and improving the encyclopedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x 2)Kuguar03, I don't recall that I've interacted with anyone of the editors with whom you're upset, and I don't think I've ever run across you, so I'm completely uninvolved. I read every word of the AfD and the subsequent conversations you initiated, and I have to tell you that you were not personally attacked. I can show you lots of actual personal attacks, against me and against every admin here, but this is not one of them. Piast93's comment was a constructive criticism - people seek criticism of their contributions every day at Wikipedia:Editor review. Nobody has said anything personal about you - it was a simple suggestion to keep in the back of your mind as you edit. You have to calm down about criticism of your editing or you're not going to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia at all. - KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Is that even relevant to the discussion? I'd have walked away from this ages ago if it weren't for the constant accusations that I did something wrong. That's the only issue as far as I can tell. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing something wrong right now, that's for sure; this dog is dead. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who, me? The Arbiter is the one who brought this to ANI. If anything he should be censured for wasting everyone's time. If he won't acknowledge he was wrong there's not much to talk about here. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my second comment above (the one with the blue edit conflict tag)? That should have gone somewhere in telling you what you may or may not have done wrong. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this. Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Kuguar, in your third message on Piast93's talk page, in the section you yourself titled Try to avoid personal attacks, you said, "Criticizing me for constructively participating in the building of wikipedia is a personal attack". We're trying to tell you, no, it is not. He did not personally attack you. If you are going to take things like that so personally, if you don't want your work criticized - including your AfD nominations, comments, uploads, or any other aspect of your contributions - don't edit here. Let these people alone now. KrakatoaKatie 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KrakatoaKatie, No personal attack was committed and I feel it seemed to go from something very very simple to ending up on ANI, like I said to you before Kuguar03 I did not consider anything you or anyone else did wrong I do think there may have been some miscommunication that has somewhat been resolved here. No one holds any ill towards you and will treat you like any other editor. I welcome your contributions to the project and hope that this mis-understanding has not blackened your view. Please try to remember we are humans just like you who are sitting in front of a computer trying to make the world a better place by building a free encyclopedia. ZooPro 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor. I don't think User:Kuguar03 really did anything wrong in nominating the article, but I also don't think User:Piast93 was guilty of bad faith or made any personal attack in offering some advice. User:Kuguar03's pursuit of this has gone way too far into dead horse territory -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging that I did nothing wrong, ZooPro. I'm curious what caused you to reverse you previous position, but I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. I did nothing wrong by nominating an article for deletion after careful consideration, and repeatedly criticizing me for doing so is an attack and not constructive. Some editors disagree with that, fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here. The only issue is, and has always been, whether or not it's a mistake to nominate an article for deletion. I don't believe it is, and as I understand it, wikipedia policy is on my side. I don't know why Arbiter would rather escalate (and totally misrepresent) issues than admitting to being wrong, but if he hasn't done so by now he probably never will. I don't know what outcome he expected, but he now owes lots of other people apologies for wasting their time. But as long as none of the editors involved come after me again I don't see any point in pursuing this matter further. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is it going to have to be repeated to you? Criticism is not a personal attack. It is not their 'opinion' as you state above, it is defined that way in policy. As katie said, if you can't handle critique, you would probably have better luck elsewhere than wikipedia.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, talk about beating dead horses! Let me say once more before finally walking away: The only issue here is whether it's wrong to nominate an article for deletion or not. That's it. That's all. There is no other issue here. Constantly talking about personal attacks is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting what I said is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting the issue is adding nothing to the discussion. Yours, KrakatoaKatie's, and other editors' comments are completely irrelevant to the issue here. If you think they are, you need to go back and look at what actually happened, because they are not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Arbiter, Piast93, and Netalarm repeatedly told me I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion. I disagree. I was hoping to get some explanation of their view to try and understand better where they were coming from, but none is forthcoming. That's all that's going on here. That's it. There is nothing else. If you don't have anything to add to that discussion you're adding nothing to the discussion.

Now if anyone wants to have a constructive discussion, you know where to find me: Diligently working with other editors to build an encyclopedia. It's baffling to me why so many people would oppose that. Kuguar03 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about I repeat most of my second post in this thread, where I try to answer that?: "I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting."

And, in addition to that repeat: There is nothing wrong with nominating an article for deletion, as long as it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (such as it not being notable enough).

Does that answer your question? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say something, doesn't make it automatically true.. also, you don't get to decide whose comments are relevant to this discussion; firstly to my above point, the rightness/wrongness of the AfD is not the only issue here, the other issue is your misunderstanding of wp's WP:NPA policy. You can't go claiming someone is attacking you every time you're criticized as it's disruptive editing and draws away from improving the encyclopedia.

Secondly, there is nothing our comments are misrepresenting about yours; you clearly think you were attacked because someone disagreed with your nomination; you say that exact thing in several posts above. It may be the case that you think you were attacked; that isn't what's up for dispute in this issue, what is up for dispute is under policy, those are not attacks, and continuing to claim such is in itself an attack, because it is baseless accusation. Calling you stupid would be an attack, saying you were wrong for noming an article.. no.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to remind you, this thread was not about whether you were right to nominate the article for deletion, but about your unjustified allegations of personal attacks after you had been given constructive suggestion. If you re-read the thread you'll see that no contributor to the thread felt that you had been subjected to personal attacks. So the situation is simple: You were justified in raising the AfD, and you weren't subjected to personal attacks. End of thread? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks, I suggest we all just back away from the man with the stick now - let him have the last word if he wants -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about last words; this is about an ongoing behavioral issue that needs to be corrected, continuously claiming others have been issuing insults is nothing but disruptive when they in reality have done no such thing.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he says he's stopped now, and I personally see no benefit in continuing this - so that's the last from me on the subject too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pursue administrative action, but I don't know what else to do about User:Daedalus969's continued actions WRT this discussion. Apparently not satisfied with my responses here, he's made comments on my talk page here, here, here, and here, all but the first coming after the discussion here was closed, if I'm reading the time stamps correctly. Both myself and another editor have told him to drop the stick but he just won't let up. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stand by while you accuse me of harassment on my very first message to you, and then subsequently tell me to start a disruptive request for policy change because you have a misinterpretation of WP's policy on personal attacks; further, I sent my first message to you before the discussion above was closed, but you decided to instigate again with a baseless accusation of harassment.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true at all. But then, none of the accusations here are true. I've never been hostile to constructive criticism. The issue of the attacks (or "attacks" if it makes you feel better) was dead and I had dropped it long before Arbiter brought this to ANI, just as the AfD discussion was dead and I had withdrawn it long before Piast93 started this whole thing. I've never been the one holding the stick. Others have, currently you are. Just drop it. Please. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe it should be that everyone just go seperate ways and drop the stick. I can not seem to make sense out of this issue, so maybe it would just be better if we just stop and leave this issue behind us. Where are we going with this anyway? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all? Are you telling me then, that you never told me my first message to you was harassment and subsequently told me to start a policy discussion because of your interpretations of policy? Talk about a bold-faced lie.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your failures at reading comprehension are not relevant here. There is a stick in your hand. Drop it. End of discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus969, what we have here is a user who was reported here by mistake. They don't seem to want to press any previous claims about personal attacks, so it would be courteous to allow them to drop it. This means you need to drop it, too. It's over, walk away. Dylan Flaherty 04:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR User warned to talk more and revert less, kept reverting first and talking after.

---

I'll try to present this in an objective manner:

• There has been some contentious editting on Political prisoner (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• My involvement commences at Talk:Political_prisoner#Recent_contentious_editing
• Several very new editors were making good-faith attempts to add new material, providing sources, etc.
• There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, with both sides choosing mostly to revert.
• I warned two users not to revert the addition of sourced material without first using the talk page, and not to re-revert.

  Bidgee (talk · contribs): warning, warning removed, more explicit warning.

  Stepopen (talk · contribs): warning.

As (in my opinion) there was a stark contrast between the standards being set for the new user's edits and the existing standard on the page, I then opened discussion on the other material on that page. See Talk:Political_prisoner#Other_entries_in_the_list.

• Cecilex (talk · contribs) attempts to use the talk page, while also re-adding the material.
• User:Bidgee twice reverts, and does not first use the talk page as warned was a requirement:

  00:32, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403621844 by Cecilex (talk) Per the reasons set out on the talk page about the sources also new sources a opinion pieces and blog)

  00:52, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Other entries in the list)

  00:46, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Political prisoner. (TW))

  00:43, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403623305 by Cecilex (talk) Per prev reason, see talk page. Also do not readd.)

  00:39, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria)

Once I've posted this, I'll be blocking User:Bidgee for twenty-four hours to prevent further disruption to the page. I would have preferred a more gentle approach, but he's proven remarkably resistant to clam feedback. I'm not fussy about having my adminstrative actions reversed so anyone with the bit is welcome undo this block, with the caveat that I'd prefer they comment in this thread and wait a few minutes for comments/consensus first. But even if they don't, I'm not going to get my knickers in too much of a twist.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the block yet, I haven't gone through everything in fine detail. But given that no-one else was trying to edit the article in other aspects, would full protection not have been an alternative option? If the aim is to get people on both sides off the article and onto the talk page, full protection could be a more calibrated solution than a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree with the way this was handled. I don't understand why this admin opposed the request to protect the page with the rather odd argument that as it was a content dispute we shouldn't protect the page,(what else is full protection for?) [33] and instead chose to block but one edit warrior. Both users edit warred, they should both be blocked, or neither of them should be. Using the talk page at the same time as one is edit warring does not excuse it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My thoughts: the ideal behaviour would have been for Bidgee to revert once, but not again. But a block isn't necessarily warranted for failing to adhere to ideal behaviour. There are other important factors to bear in mind. First, Bidgee was unquestionably correct: the sources don't support Manning's description as a political prisoner. In fact, Quigley is right to remove many more entries than Manning. Being correct isn't an excuse to edit-war, but it should be a factor in whether a block is an appropriate solution. Secondly, it was the other side that broke the BRD cycle, by insisting on re-inserting contentious material after it had been reverted and while a discussion was taking place. Third, there were better options: full protection would have stopped the edit war and forced everyone onto the talk page. Here, full protection is a viable option because this dispute is the only editing activity happening on the page. Blocking one party means that party can't even continue to engage in discussion on the talk page. Fourth, he hasn't broken 3RR (of course, that's not determinative - edit warring can happen regardless of 3RR - but he hasn't even come close). Accordingly, I'd suggest a lift of the block and a lockdown of the article for about a week. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BRD applies. The change proposer must get a consensus for his/her change. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblocking. I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour and the block has been opposed by up to three editors (I take Beeblebrox and, perhaps, GoodDay to be opposed to the one-way block) and supported by none; (b) it's a short block so only a short discussion period for the purposes of unblocking is warranted; and (c) the blocking admin kindly indicated it would be ok for any admin to unblock after a short period for comments. I'll also full-protect the article for a week with the caveat that the unblock is not an endorsement of Bidgee's actions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that everyone. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aaron, you seem to have involved yourself in the content on talk beginning December 17, so that would preclude you from using the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw Aaron's involvement on the talk page as weighing in, in an administrative capacity, to stop edit-warring, rather than getting involved in the content dispute (although it is fine line and Aaron went further than I would have). That's something admins should be encouraged to do. I've found a few times that a few stern messages on a talk page from an admin who reserves the right to use their tools in the dispute can cool things down before the need to dish out blocks arises.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the involvement was clearly editorial. Aaron hasn't been an active admin for some time, so no one had reason to believe he was there as an admin and not as an editor, always a fine line in the best of cases. Arguing on RfPP against page protection during a content dispute, then blocking the regular editor who requested the protection, but not blocking the occasional editor causing the trouble—while being involved in expressing an opinion about content on talk—these are all the kinds of things best avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brenneman actions as an Administrator are questionable. He is clearly an involved editor, even if he never edited the article, as they are heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Aaron Brenneman also seems to have little understanding of the policies and guidelines in place, as an Administrator they should be able to understand them (doesn't have to know it off by heart).

Aaron Brenneman as an involved editor should not threaten to misuse their tools, I also question the amount of time it took them to block me which was just over one hour and twenty minutes after the undo when it was clear I wasn't going to do another revert (infact I had limited myself to those two undo/reverts) not yet breached the 3RR which is another reason why I had asked for protection. It has me confused as to why he has refused the protection of the article while there is a dispute in progress. He's latest comment on the talk page is also questionable and clearly has failed to assume good faith towards me.

I would have thought that past history he as to deal with would have given him an idea when to block editors. I'm sadly considering at taking this to WP:RFC/ADMIN since he has failed to apologise for the unwarranted block and has continued to act in bad faith (see above link about ABF). I also believe that block should be annotated since no once will ever look at the diff link and will be yet another block that people will try and use against me (and they have in the past). Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brenneman has followed the wrong path. It's good to tell regular editors to not BITE newcomers, but such advice should be tempered when the newcomer is an WP:SPA making a political point by adding Bradley Manning as a political prisoner while citing two sources which merely describe the person as a prisoner (Manning's circumstances are disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs). See this discussion where Courcelles said "For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable." That was four days before the block under discussion here. Bidgee's first revert ('sources do not state that he is a "political prisoner"') was precisely correct, and Bidgee did not violate WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The court system will decide what laws, if any, this Manning guy broke; wikipedia won't decide it, but only report it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the block was an error; the unilateral block and the refusal to use page protection are at the least out of keeping with current practice. I think, however, this should not be perceived as a threat to misuse his tools...since I highly doubt that he considered it might be misuse, what with his complete opennness about the situation and his recommendation that Bidgee seek feedback from other administrators if he disagreed. (cf. here.) "threat to misuse" carries connotations of intent to knowingly take improper action. The level of involvement here is borderline; the input at the talk page of the article does not seem strictly editorial to me, but it would have been a good idea to make clear that he was speaking in his capacity as an administrator. I've recently discovered that when people don't understand that you're wearing your admin hat, they can view your behavior in quite a different light than it is intended. I don't think there's any abuse of tools, but I'd encourage Aaron to immerse himself a bit more in the current culture of Wikipedia to make sure that his tool use is in line with current policy and practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it is not the way I perceived it, they should have sought an opinion as their warning was out of line for an Admin who is involved in the dispute. Why block an hour after I undid the edit on the article when it was clear that I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia or the article and had not reached the 3RR (and just to clarify that I wouldn't had done any further reverts which is why I took the step of requesting protection)? As an Admin on Commons I would have, if involved, gotten a third party Admin and also protect the article as well as warn those involved (if not involved in the dispute) that they will be blocked if they continue after the protection has ended. Being heavy handed like Aaron Brenneman was, is completely out of line. I'll also quote he's comment on the political prisoner talk page "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."", disruption? how was I disrupting the article at that time (when I was well away from a computer), I'm sorry but I don't feel it was in error with a comment such as that which was well an truly after I was unblocked.

Now I have a block log in which I shouldn't have. It was ok in the early days of Wiki but now it effects anything I do. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add further to my comment, if any one still thinks that the block wasn't misuse of the tools then see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools (RE: Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute). Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, since more or less every block in your log was lifted or otherwise noted as not having bearing, I don't think it's much of a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the first block used against me, even though it was noted in the block log, on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A short block like that, which happened almost three years ago, means very little today. That's donkeys' years on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't had the block used against me in the past year (partly due to not being as active on Wiki) but the point is the last one will be, especially those who don't bother to look at the link or plainly just want to use anything such a blocks [of any length (an editor showed me a recent example)]. People also use the block logs in RfA even though you really don't have anything to answer for. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bidgee is quite correct and you are wrong Gwen; many editors just look at the length of a block log, nothing else. Do you recall blocking me for using the word "sycophantic" for instance? That was two entries, one for your stupid block and another for your reluctant unblock. Yet your own record of making similarly poor blocks remains unblemished. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we both know, Malleus, I didn't block you for using the word "sycophantic." I blocked you for a long and wearisome pattern of incivility. If you would like to talk about your block log further, please start another thread somewhere, or you're welcome to bring it up on my talk page. That said, I do agree with both of you that there sometimes is carelessness in reading block logs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you and the truth are such strangers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it. Drop the stick and back away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you back away? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to our friendly neighborhood administrators, I think this topic and the one from yesterday really invite us to revisit discussions over whether admins who are absent from the project for extended periods should really retain their admin privileges. Wikipedia changes quickly, and if someone is gone from here for nearly 2 years things like this happen. It's not about "punishing" admins, but about competency. I don't think someone who was absent for so long should be exercising their admin tools like this until they've become familiar with current policies and guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a non-admin intrigued to see the behaviour - I am convinced that Burpelson AFB has something there which should be built into policy - absence - specially when it comes to the way things change - even within 6 months - should either require update as to currency of some issues, or even a refresher on some of the intriguing shifts in the procedures and policies that can occur that even regulars seem to miss or misinterpret even. The fact that the rfa process has block logs as a stumbling block (forgive the pun) that in turn falls back on careless admins reflects badly all round SatuSuro 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why Commons has that type of policy yet Wikipedia lacks it, see: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Normally Commons lacks the policies which Wikipedia already has but not in this case. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) De-adminship has been proposed here a number of times but it always ends up as a huge dramafest/shouting match with no consensus because many people characterize it as unfairly punishing admins (which is really a red herring, but I digress). I suspect it's unpopular with some folks the same way term limits are unpopular with some politicians. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to Motion of no confidence, which can be used as a political tool to tie up important decisions while other things are going on. That's where most of the resistance comes from, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what's being referred to here isn't a general de-adminning policy or procedure, but something to deal with a specific situation: when an admin doesn't edit for X amount of time, they lose the bit. That part of it could be semi-automatic, and there obviously wouldn't be any ongoing conflict at the time, because the admin isn't editing. The question of regaining the bit is a little trickier, but not much. Requiring another RfA seems unnecessary and unfair, something on the order of getting the bit back after Y amount of edits over Z amount of time might be sufficient to ensure that the editor is aware of any changes in Wikiculture in the meantime. It could all be cut-and-dried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Commons policy is nothing at all like a motion of no confidence. The criteria are entirely objective. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Commons policy, it seems very fair for all while still expecting admins to retain a certain level of current experience. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the Commons policy put in use and it works well nor is it strict. A small number of Admins do return after being emailed that they are have a few weeks to do more then five sysop actions and do become regulars again, the others that have their sysops removed never return or when they do have no issues getting the sysops back. Aaron Brenneman's lack of comments or apology is leaving me with no other opinion but to list a RfC, as any other Admin I've dealt with has always kept commenting with the AN/I discussion. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, it seems to me that if an administrator is unsure enough about whether to block that he or she decides to open an ANI thread discussing the block, then unless the situation is an emergency, the discussion should usually come before the block rather than afterwards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thoughts as well (as an Commons Admin) and I have seen a lots of discussions before on AN/I blocks are put in place but I have also seen a small amount of blocks put in place before the discussion (like in this case), though I do have to give those Admin's credit as they admitted fault, apologised and dealt with the consequences, however in this case none of that has happened. Bidgee (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, that's a lot of responses.

• @Newyorkbrad - That's quite a high bar you're proposing. General discussion on ANI does not require that I'm "unsure" but simply that I recognise that there is a possibility of tenable debate. The blocked editor had also already brought the matter to this page, but it had not recieved much attention. I was being courteous.
• @Bidgee
  1. Your suggestion that a request for comment based upon me not "ke[eping] commenting" is histrionic. I commented here last on 22 December 2010 at 05:54 and within half an hour I was done editting for the evening.
  2. I'm open to recall. I see that (since the category move) it's not obvious from the history, but I created recall.
  3. I'm a bit confused why you've linked my block log while at the same time you decry the use of someone's block history against them?
• @Moonriddengirl
  1. The use of the phrase "unilateral block" is an unfortunate obloquy. What percentage of blocks are anything other than unilateral?
  2. I'm not sure how I "refused" to use page protection. No one asked me to protect the page, and while my input into the request for page protection was marred by not being explicit in that the requesting editor was involved in the content dispute, the current wording at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes says "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed with blocks or bans, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."
• @Johnuniq
  1. I have not even suggested anyone violated the three revert rule.
  2. The very new editors' sourcing was much better than almost anything else on the page. On at least one occasion the sources they provided did explicitly say there was a claim he was a political prisoner.
• @SlimVirgin - I am simply stunned to see it suggested that I'm involved. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."

I've looked again over each of the edits, and other than failing to say "I'm an admin" I'm still quite confortable with each step I took:

• My initial comments where I ask for editors to improve their editting
  1. are consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries in that "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits"
  2. and is also consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations in that "Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate."
• My second set of edits where I explicitly state that the edit warring must stop
  1. is consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit wars/three-revert rule in that "In cases of edit-warring, revert limitations are applied in which reverting is restricted and violators can be blocked for specified periods,"
  2. as is my third set of edits where I issue a general editting restriction.

Penultimately

• Given the state of the other references on the page and the generally poor level of discourse that was occuring, how were the newer editors expected to learn community norms?
• They were making serious attempts to comply, and as far as they could tell edit warring was what you do.

Finally, and with respect to the block itself

• I had issued a warning that was consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Civility.2Fdisruption.2Freasonableness in that "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement."
• Without substantive discussion with me regarding this warning, the warned editor violated both of the editting restrictions he had been placed under.

While I've certainly taken on board the feedback presented in this section, forgive me if I state that several of the positions expressed are inconsistant; poorly informed; and at odds with the facts of this event as well as policies and guidelines as they exist.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I do not use the term unilateral in the sense of done by one person, but in the sense that it affected only one party in the content dispute. I'm quite taken aback that you regard that as abusive. So far as I know, it's not an uncommon definition. In terms of your refusal to use protection, is that not what you meant to do when you wrote there, "This is a content dispute, and there is no requirement for full protection."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all Admin's keep tabs with a discussion in which they have been involved in and you have been on elsewhere but not here.

Also you have failed to explain your bad faith comment towards me.

Also you can not place what ever restrictions you want on others who you don't agree with and the fact that you were already heavily involved.

I wasn't using the block log against you just pointing out that in the past you also had unfair blocks but mealy pointing out that I thought that you would have taken into account past experiences. Fact is I'm rather appalled with your handling of this whole fiasco and the fact your not even sorry for it, I feel that you should recall yourself considering the feeling from other Admins here have been the same. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl - Thank you for that clarification with respect to "unilateral." And with respect to the protection, I argued against the protection (poorly, it has been noted and I've acknowledged) but I didn't refuse to do it. The use of the active tense seems to place greater onus on me than I believe is warrented. If I'm drawing more out of that than you intended, I apologise.

@Bidgee - Thank you for clarifying that. I simply didn't understand for what purpose you were bringing up the log. And I was keeping tabs, but I was mostly asleep or at work while this was going on. And² in case it's not utterly pellucid: I'm not at all sorry. I want polite collegial editting of the page;I want consistant, robust sourcing. I tried on several occasions to engage you in polite discussion, and I failed in that. And³ adminstrators can place editting restrictions as they see fit. Have you read any of the numerous links to Arbitration principles that I have provided?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to see you abuse of tools and are not sorry for your incorrect blocking, then I feel that you are no longer fit to be an Admin. Fact is no Admin who is involved in a dispute should ever place restrictions considering they were bias to one side (Your block is proof of that), Admins who are not part of the dispute can place restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9 has the habit of writing long, unencyclopedic essays, compiled from outdated research literature, which has led to long, infertile debates in the past. Recently it has been discovered that much of his writing consists just of copying or superficially reformulating entire paragraphs. He has been warned several times about copyright violations, but he continues as before. For more information, please see my recent note Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Logger9 -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you creating an LTA page is constructive at this point, those are usually only created for the most egregious of disruptive editors who are also blocked/banned. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I feel increasingly lost in WP's ever increasing bureaucracy. Anyway, I am sure this user will be banned soon. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a case for WP:CCI which can set up a systematic review of all of their contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed the LTA page and opened a CCI request. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues are confirmed, and the CCI is open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Logger9 is continuing the edit war at physics of glass. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot review the entirety of the PDF, but a few glimpses in Google convinces me that the content he added back to the article is still a violation of our copyright policy.

Some of this is paraphrased; some is verbatim. As per his comments at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9, he may not understand what is required by paraphrasing. See that page (in background) for a few examples of content he seems to have copied. If he continues placing content onto Wikipedia copied or minimally paraphrased from external sources, I believe he will need to be indefinitely blocked until we have some assurance that he both understands the degree of rewriting required and is prepared to meet it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}}

This account looks like an obvious sock of somebody who's been banned from that article. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says one of the very admins who abuses their power on a daily basis. How do you lot sleep at night??? 89.168.109.117 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite well, thank you. Daily exercise seems to help, as does refraining from caffeine. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can have caffeine and still sleep at night ya know. Just don't drink caffeine 3 hours before bedtime, doctors say. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfricaTruth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

---

I insist that someone look into the administrators at Sarah Palin. They are working with pro-Palin people to shut out and ban all the neutral editors who want to tell the truth. Then they whitewash the article and talk page. AfricaTruth (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. A user with just three edits (counting the one above) is already an expert on wikipedia. Who says our education system is failing? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Quack? N419BH 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a name like "AfricaTruth" there is no way this account has an agenda. Just no way... Doc talk 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the agenda account page, I think it should be merged with the single-purpose-account page. In fact, I will fight to the death over this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ... On second thought, I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Strict doctor's orders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfricaTruth seems to be an obvious sock of someone. HeyMid (contribs) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk · contribs), maybe?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Based on the standing off that the user has made (they actually opened a discussion after they were warned to talk it out). I'll notify the user as you did mention them. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry I missed the notification. I'm striking the comment, because there's a more-obvious candidate if I had been paying attention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the africa discussion from a week or two ago. Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_63#Africa_.28part_I.29--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked- shocked, I say- that there are Wikipedia administrators who are actually preventing Sarah Palin from making it clear what an awful, awful person Palin is (i.e., the Truth). Whatever happened to Wikipedia's well-known liberal bias? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really simple, Haliburton bought out half our administrators... Sheesh you didn't know you could get paid for blocking liberals? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be getting my check tomorrow, just in time for last-minute Christmas shopping. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-administrative note: You worded your assertion quite carefully so as to get around the notification requirements. Please provide proof that administrators are abusing their power. Enforcing the currently standing community consensus does not take administrative powers nor is it an abuse. Coming to this page and yelling "Abuse" without providing evidence is a very quick ticket to having your actions scrutinized and preventative actions enforced on you. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think we should give some credit for getting the heading correct, even if the rest of the posting has serious flaws.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot conclude anything via CU. The SPA is on a BlackBerry, and I haven't found any other abusive users on that range. AFAIK, it could be anybody. –MuZemike 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sockpuppet/single-purpose bad faith account. I'd rather not quack my way to blocking the person I think is the puppetmaster, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And living in the same city as a banned user does not make me a sock."[34] What city and what banned user? This guy knows more than he's letting on... Doc talk 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shucky-darn, you beat me to pointing that out, thanks to a side debate about Carmel-by-the-Sea, of all things. That's one of the more interesting comments I've seen a sock make. There needs to be a corollary or subsection in WP:BOOMERANG titled "Dead Giveaway". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel-by-the-sea, eh? After they are discovered they could be flung into the "dead pool", maybe. Doc talk 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I've blocked User:AfricanTruth, who also popped up. Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty, who I topic banned from Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a joe job. Good call on the block, however. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be at all surprised. There's been what seems to my eyes to be a growing problem with impostoring users to try to get them into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would think, there is no way DF should be blocked without a CU. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the account earlier, and agree with User:Horologium that it looks quite clearly like someone was trying to appear as though they were a sock of User:Dylan Flaherty. Based on the style and tone, though, I sincerely doubt that's the case. The question remains: who is doing this, and why? Merely trolling? jæs (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan is certainly no dummy: and this would be a very dumb thing for him to do (and really makes it clear that's it's a troll). I agree with the above. Doc talk 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not even trying to look like my sock, and you should be ashamed of piling on to accuse me, especially Gwen who has wronged me enough times in the last few days alone. It's very obviously someone trying to look like a sock of User:Uncensored Kiwi. Of course, we don't know if it actually is because there's no real evidence; they were blocked without the courtesy of a CheckUser. The side-effect of this blatant breach of due process is that I wind up being falsely accused of socking again. Well, I'm really sick of it. Gwen, you owe me a retraction, an apology and an unban. Do it immediately or your reputation will take another blow. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does Gwen's current accusation (mistaken or not) all of a sudden nullify your topic ban? –MuZemike 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's her second strike: two mistakes in a row. This is her chance to fix them. Dylan Flaherty 01:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, Dylan, I said it could be you but that there should be no block without a CU. Sockpuppetry sometimes isn't easy to track at first. As for the Africas, are you saying they're not socks? If so, how do you know this? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said AfricaTruth never even tried to look like a sock of me; rather, they look like an Uncensored Kiwi sock. Whether they are is another matter, and not one that any of us is qualified to rule on. Then again, we don't even know whether Uncensored Kiwi was an actual sock in the first place, only that they got censored based on a rather underwhelming "likely match". Given the distribution of population in New Zealand, this is particularly unconvincing. And now AfricaTruth was blocked on no match at all. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block Uncensored Kiwi. Are you in the same city then? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncensored Kiwi and BlueRobe are both in Auckland, along with almost a third of the total population of NZ, which is why I find the CU suspect. From the fact that I don't use Commonwealth English, it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a kiwi, but you already accused me of being a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, so I guess that what I consider obvious might not be to everyone else. The funny thing is that AfricaTruth was right; not necessarily about intentional admin abuse of power, but certainly about the Palin article being locked down by pro-Palin WP:OWNers, effectively with support from admins such as yourself. All the Palin fans have to do is insult and generally abuse anyone who suggests edits they dislike, and they can count of that person being blamed for not going along with the "consensus" (read: mob rule). Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken yet again, I never even hinted, much less thought, that you were a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, given I don't recall ever hearing of that account until about 15 minutes ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said that AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth was me. Now you're asking if I'm in the same city as Uncensored Kiwi, which - even with lots of good faith assumed -- would qualify as hinting that I'm a sock. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the Africas were you. As for the city, I didn't know you were talking about Auckland or Uncensored Kiwi, rather, you had only said something about NZ. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) She did not say that it was you. Let me quote her post above (emphasis added): "Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty". "Could" does not equal "is". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retro, you apparently live in a kinder, gentler Wikipedia. In the one I live in, Uncensored Kiwi was blocked on a "could". Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He sure was. :-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So if I lived in Auckland, an SPI accusing me of being Uncensored Kiwi would have yielded a false positive in the form of a "likely match". Dylan Flaherty 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban was upheld by the community: it's not for her to reverse at this point. Doc talk 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. She's free to undo her own block topic ban at any time. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken again, Dylan, I didn't block you. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she can't, because the discussion showed overwhelming support for a two-week (or longer) topic ban; in fact, only one person supported you in your effort to get the topic ban overturned. A substantially greater number of editors (most of whom were totally uninvolved) supported the topic ban. At this point, Gwen would need to bring this back for another discussion, and it's likely that the original consensus would still stand. This is, of course, assuming she were willing to do so, and other than casting aspersions, you've provided no reason for her to accede to your demand. Horologium (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you go tell her what she can and can't do. I'll wait here. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [35] Horologium (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive. If only it had some effect. Dylan Flaherty 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While blocks can be overturned by the decision of a single admin, that is not the case with bans. Bans are a group decision that can only be overturned by a group decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invoked the ban under the Palin arbcom sanction (and logged it), which an admin can do on their own. However, it's true that after Dylan appealed it here, the outcome being an overwhelming consensus to uphold, that made it much tougher to undo. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in hearing about this. You were very wrong to have banned me in the first place. Dylan Flaherty 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she's obeying an arbcom sanction, how is it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me. Dylan Flaherty 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were in violation of an arbcom decision, then she would be obligated to issue a ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me."--Citation needed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that the burden of proof is on you here. I can't cite every diff to show that none of them include Arbcom telling her to do it. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I wasn't "obeying" an arbcom sanction, nor am I ever obligated to take an admin action. I invoked a topic ban through the Palin arbcom sanction and as you know, Dylan, the consensus here upheld that. As you also know, even after that happened, I was quite open minded, on my talk page, about finding a way for you to at least get started on an RfC if you wanted to, but you said no to talking further about that, which you can indeed do. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This authorizes (though does not obligate) an admin to issue a ban as deemed necessary. And it's only 2 weeks. Dylan would be best off to just let the clock expire and leave it alone otherwise. If he lets it be, he'll be un-banned before New Year's Eve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are people in the world who still care about the principle called justice. Dylan Flaherty 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The square root of 4 is both 2 and -2. See, I can match your non sequitur with my own. Dylan Flaherty 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about "justice" are the non sequitur. I say again, you have no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It's a private website, not subject to anything pertaining to the Bill of Rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be Dylan for a minute, too, until I remembered that Dylan did not appear to be an idiot the last time I saw him here. That doesn't seem to be a reason for lifting Dylan's topic ban, and I don't have any problem with blocking Africa, who's clearly a sock of someone, and I don't care that much who anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a problem with blocking the whole country of Africa? Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the whole "country" of Africa, just the stockings. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor "country", they probably have wholes in their stockings. Kelly ^hi! 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. A lot of them do not even have shoes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the stockings they do have tend to be red. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) L.O.L. X-D By "Africa" she meant User:AfricaTruth (and probably the other one, User:AfricanTruth as well). See the earlier parts of this discussion. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good fundraising idea. Bandwidth=$$$.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dylan has been repeatedly disinvited from posting on my user talk page - but repeatedly posts again and again. [36] where I iterated the disinvitation. [37] where he posts again (making twice after specific disinvitation). And [38] marking his third post after being told not to. Might someone note this behaviour on his part? Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Added [39] - this consistent posting on my user talk page is getting a teensy bit bothersome. Collect (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan needs to remove his little "no-fly zone" from his talk page, since he doesn't respect requests from others to do the same. I haven't commented there because I respect his wishes: why can't he? Doc talk 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone (including Dylan) needs to stop pissing on their talk pages so as to somehow mark their territory. It's a collaborative project, and that requires our talk pages to be open to other editors -- some we may not even like. If someone is hounding you on your talk page, an administrator will deal with it. Otherwise, talk pages belong to the project, not to individual editors. You can delete (almost) anything you'd like from your talk page, but "banning" other editors just looks childish. jæs (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfricaTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AfricanTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yes. Both of them obviously socks of each other, and trying to impostor Dylan, but it didn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. They're obviously not trying to impostor me. The comments about being in the same city as a banned user are straight from User:Uncensored Kiwi. Dylan Flaherty 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter who they're socks of. They had to hit the road. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly matters to me, as I was falsely accused of being the foot. Dylan Flaherty 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the Africa Truther socks (sorry, couldn't resist) may not be alone. jæs (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That possibility had been raised near the top of this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Africa Truthers. Just wait, soon we'll have an article like this one about believe who believe Palin said Africa is a country. Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such bloody ignorance I keep seeing. Everyone knows Africa is not a country; it's a song, by Toto. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought it was by Perpetuum Jazzile! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Outstanding. I'm guessing you've seen this by now:[40] but it's in season anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but thanks for the reminder. :-) How about these guys? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And like this umpteenth thread concerning this editor: "It's gonna take a lot to drag me away from you..." Doc talk 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that this thread has nothing to do with my actions. I didn't file this report, I'm not related to the AfricaTruthers, and I don't want to be here. I got involved because of yet another false sock accusation. I realize that it's something of a tradition in the "community", but please try not to blame the victim, ok? Dylan Flaherty 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really "muti-tasking" between this thread and the one at the bottom. Did you know someone gets assaulted in this country every 90 seconds? Why does it have to be the same unlucky guy? Doc talk 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher
• User:Pablo X/spa (list of previous SPA accounts)

The above ANI subthread from September this year details the issues at the article Murder of Meredith Kercher which were mainly defined as a large number of SPA accounts, mostly created at the same time, causing disruption at the article and its talkpage through virulent POV pushing, incivility and other issues. The discussion ended with the most problematic of the editors, User:PhanuelB, being blocked indefinitely. Recently, two userspace drafts by the user have been sent to MfD.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

User:PhanuelB was notified on his talkpage, where he has been active. However now, many of the other SPA accounts, having been inactive since Phanuel's block, have resurfaced to comment on the MfDs.

Although this looks like obvious sockpuppetry, I suspect that it is not that simple, as there is evidence that for some of the accounts, similar named usernames have been active on other forums regarding Knox and Kercher. However, this obviously is meatpuppetry, and it is definitely votestacking. However, the effects are the same, and per WP:SOCK my initial thoughts are to strike the SPA !votes on the MfDs and block them all indefinitely. Input would be useful. I will be notifying all the accounts after I have posted this. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a point of view and arguing a point is not a crime. Perk10 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

No, it isn't. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, it's an encyclopedia - see WP:SOAPBOX. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block all socks-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am interested in Wikipedia. I have only edited mainly on one topic so far. What is the problem with that? Is that against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

If one is a sock of a blocked editor, that's a problem. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. Having a point of view, as an individual, is not a crime... And, is editing so far on only one article on WP against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

Is there a way to prove one is not a "sock puppet"? Perk10 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

If there is, please let me know. I think a secondary concern is that admins who disagree with people who agree with each other might call them sock puppets rather than arguing for or against points. Perk10 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

Open an WP:SPI, if you suspect anybody of socking. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, I don't think you (or the others) are sock puppets. You are, however, as shown through your editing patterns, meatpuppets. None of these accounts are here to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; they are only here to push a point of view on one single article (or in this case, to votestack a deletion discussion concerning that article). They all disappeared for three months after PhanuelB was blocked, only to resurface now - just as PhanuelB starts editing again. I don't see any reason why the usual sanctions shouldn't apply. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle applies. I am an individual with a point of view on how to improve the accuracy of an article and I am learning what Wikipedia is about as well. Perk10 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

Answer me two simple questions then. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (a) Why did you suddenly stop editing the Kercher article in September, around the same time as all the other accounts named above?
• (b) How did you know about the MfD that you suddenly appeared to vote on today?

Because I am an individual who cares about the accuracy of the article. As do you do, too, I think. EDIT: The admins seem to care about the specific content of the article. Perk10 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

I very much care about the rules of WP and I care about admins following those rules, as well as editors, and authors. Perk10 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

Your timeing stinks, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Perk10 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

You dissapeared when the others dissappeard. You reappeard when the others reappeared. It's looking like a case of Meatpuppetry 'atleast', to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I care about an article, I will follow what is going on. I think something against the rules is afoot with that particular article. Perk10 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10[reply]

I don't see the need for this purge unless it is the policy of Wikipedia to remove editors who take certain views on the MoMK article --Footwarrior (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't. It is, however, Wikipedia policy to remove sockpuppets (and per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are effectively the same thing). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the MoMK article was fully protected back in September. It became almost impossible to make changes to the article, so it's understandable why a lot of participants stopped trying. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it. There are only two reasons why this group of editors should suddenly re-appear after a 3 month absence to votestack the MfD. They are - (a) they're all the same person, or (b) they're being off-wiki canvassed to vote there. Either way, it's sock/meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The amount of hostile meta-discussion and unfounded-accusation-hurling that has resulted from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article has, in the past, been epic - as if to rival the dramatic value of a Greek tragedy, with the perpetrators a collection of almost indistinguishable SPAs hell-bent on baseless criticism of Wikipedia editing policies. I would argue that there are firm grounds for an SPI - although I doubt that there is one particular person operating all these accounts (and we know which ones we're talking about), equally I am not convinced that each SPA belongs to a different individual. An investigation could certainly put an end to much of this confusion. SuperMarioMan 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't think an SPI is necessary (quite apart from the fact that behaviourally these are probably separate people). Their editing patterns mean that they are indistinguishable from sockpuppets anyway. The only thing an SPI might be useful for is to ascertain some IP ranges in case there are further issues in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between voting and "votestacking"? Perk10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perk10 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The different claims laid forth here don't add up. Perk10 (talk · contribs) states he only cares for the article, but the MfDs are for userspace drafts. He further asserts interest in the subject matter of the article - yet in the three months since he vanished along with the other SPAs, there have been significant events influencing the article's content, one as recently as last Saturday. Enough reason for someone asserting interest to come back and edit, or at least discuss on the talk page. But they all only come back to votestack on MfDs for two stale userspace drafts. Footwarrior claims that the article was fully protected and that deterred editing from that whole group (Footwarrior himself isn't part of the group BTW) - fair enough, yet the article has been back to semi protection for two and a half months, and none of these SPAs have shown any interest up to the very moment the MfDs were created. Offsite canvassing is the only reasonable explanation. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or people who care about the accuracy of this topic. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is not against the rules of WP. Perk10 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Perk10[reply]

Really? So where were you when one of the convicted had his final appeal rejected? Where were you when the appeals for the other two began? Where were you after last Saturday, when evidence from the first trials were sent for re-testing? The topic is exposed on the article, not the userspace draft, as you very well know. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon,

User:Someone65 was called out by several users for performing mass page moves without discussion in the Islam portal last week. User was then banned for a week for sockpuppetry. User returned a couple of days ago and began a campaign to get articles deleted on the Islam portal. When I opposed user S65, we got into a skirmish on the subject, after which S65 went through my edit history and picked out an article I added content to over the weekend.

S65 reverted my changes, claiming they were "unreferenced". As you can see, the change he reverted consists primarily of sourced content, and a photo gallery.

This user is exhibiting a pattern of destructive behavior. The reversion cited above is an act of vandalism committed solely in retribution for our disagreement on a different issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done to curb the destructive behavior of this user? User is currently requesting rollback authority, citing his efforts to fight vandalism, which sounds frightening.

Thanks

Aquib (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI report is absolutely absurd.

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [41] for evidence)

Secondly, I reverted this edit [42] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits. Someone65 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S65's responses are a total distortion, as can be proved by the timestamps on the conversations and the diff on the revert I am complaining about in this ANI. Further, it is part of a growing pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

------

To respond to Someone65s first point:

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [82] for evidence)

• The link Someone65 has provided here is to a discussion that I initiated after the page moves had been executed, and after my initial discussion discussion asking him why he had executed the moves, not before. The initial conversation I had with him was here where I asked him why he had moved the pages. As you can see, S65's response is that the move was done under the umbrella of the Jagged85 RFC. It is only when I went to the Jagged85 RFC page to follow up on S65's claim this conversation S65 claims is a pre-move discussion occurs, I learn S65 is not involved in the Jagged85, and is misrepresenting the page moves as being part of the RFC. In fact, as evidenced by the discussions, other editors are upset about the moves as they have occurred without discussion. So S65's first point is an obvious distortion, as was the misrepresentation of the reason for the move. Frankly I am surprised at these claims, as anyone can look through S65's edit history and see the page moves began before my first contact.

To respond to Someone65s second point:

Secondly, I reverted this edit [43] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

• An examination of the diff I have provided shows in fact S65 has reverted the information I have inserted about the gardens at Azhar park, and included a reference to D. Fairchild Ruggles' book on Islamic Gardening. I may have also cleaned up some uncited text, but my new section on the gardens is what was removed along with its citation. So S65's second point is another obvious distortion, as was the first, the claims about the move etc.
• In fact, the diff shows the citation was mine, and S65 deleted it. Point-blank Distortion.
• S65 considered the addition of a few photos a violation of policy? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Consistent, perhaps?

Rather than S65s account of the "move incident" which I have demonstrated as a misrepresentation, and the supposed reasons for his the reversion of my al-Azhar edits from this weekend, which I have refuted, I can offer a much simpler, obvious truth. As evidenced from the timing of the al-Azhar park edit on 12/22/2010, I was involved with him in a dispute (which he is continuing to pursue as I type) regarding the notability of biblical figures in Islam. When I began to revert some of the edits S65 was making against another editor's work, he swung around and attacked the al-Azhar article I worked on over the weekend, then tried to explain it by claiming it was I who damaged the article.

To respond to S65s third assertion

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

• The references to biblical figures in Islam is neither a small matter nor a new one. S65's objections to them are simply part of a pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations, much as the defense of S65s actions have been misrepresented here.

On S65's last remark

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits.

• If I am not supposed to be concerned when I come across an editor who behaves the way S65 is behaving, I am open to suggestions as to what I should do.

To recap

Virtually every point S65 made in response to this ANI is a distortion or a misrepresentation. It is almost as if S65 thinks no one will bother to check the statements for truth. This is the same pattern S65 exhibits in editing articles: Misrepresentations, distortions and a tendency to suppress information. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

Aquib (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-----

Almost forgot to recap the main point: S65 clearly retaliated against me by reverting sourced changes to an article I edited over the weekend. This was done in response to an ongoing, totally unrelated dispute we are currently engaged in. Deliberate vandalism.

Aquib (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the project would be improved by the indefinite removal of Someone65 for the following reasons:

1. Previous abusive sockpuppetry noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive.
2. Reverting an edit for the supposed reason that it "Did not provide references" [44], while actually removing the reliable source {{Cite book|last=Ruggles|first=D. Fairchild|title=Islamic Gardens and Landscapes|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|date=2008|page=168|isbn=0812240251}} is blatantly malicious activity, suggestive of sneaky vandalism. Someone65's repetition of his lies about this edit here [45], pretending that he restored the reference which he actually removed, provides further evidence of Someone65's mendacious conduct.

There's probably more evidence of duplicity by Someone65, but I really shouldn't have to look. When an editor has been caught betraying the community's default assumption of good faith by abusing multiple accounts, lying in edit summaries to damage articles, then brazenly lying again to justify their vandalism, thus requiring good-faith contributors to review all of their edits for potential sneaky vandalism or misrepresentation, the only appropriate response is to eject the malicious editor from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [46] [47][48] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[49] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[50] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [51]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked 192.148.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

• 192.148.117.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 192.148.117.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's 192.148.117.64/27, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. 192.148.117.64/27 given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[52] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall that User:Dylan Flaherty came to WP:ANI with a frivolous accusation of "drive-by tagging" demanding that I be sanctioned for reverting his removal of a tag. The unanimous consensus at ANI was that the tag was appropriately placed and that his removal of the tag was disruptive, bordering on vandalism, and that Dylan should disengage. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism.

Instead, he has canvassed other editors to remove the tag, and is back to edit-warring to remove the tag, despite the fact that he has refused to engage with me on the talk-page about multiple editors' multiple complaints about NPOV problems with the article. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags. Given the very clear warnings at ANI that DF has disregarded and his continued disruptive behavior, I hope administrators can intervene. DF has been topic-banned at Sarah Palin for similar WP:IDHT violations. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#User:Dylan_Flaherty_and_Sarah_Palin. More severe sanctions are apparently necessary, given that previous ones are not having the desired preventative effect against his disruption. THF (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that THF keeps inserting the tags as badges of shame, going against consensus. He has been consistently unwilling to explain what in specific motivates his tags, so they keep getting removed by whoever's paying attention at the moment. The rest of this complaint is simply frivolous. Dylan Flaherty 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags shows why this claim of DF is entirely false. I've repeatedly explained why I've added the tags. I get WP:IDHT in response without any engagement of my legitimate concerns. THF (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, you need to present your argument better. I clicked on the first link and saw that Dylan Flaherty removed a template. TFD (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan complained to ANI that I added a template. He was told that I was right to add the template, and that he shouldn't remove the template. He kept complaining to ANI, and was told he would be blocked if he didn't drop the matter. He didn't drop the matter, and is edit-warring to remove the tag--to the point that the page is now protected with Dylan's removal of the tag. THF (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained below, this is not at all an accurate summary. I recommend that people read my response and also see for themselves. THF is not a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 04:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any doubt that the consensus is for removal of the tags, please read the article talk page.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any doubt that there isn't consensus for removal of the tags, see [61], [62], [63], and [64] and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism where DF's argument was previously rejected. Why do I have to relitigate this several times a week when Dylan was explicitly warned to disengage and drop the matter? THF (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the AN/I report did recognize that you were uncivil, but they were not willing to get involved in a content issue. I was warned to drop the AN/I report, not to drop my participation on the article. Dylan Flaherty 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus is to remove the tags, basically because multiple editors agree that there are no current NPOV problems. The title of this post is in error as well, since Dylan is only one of several editors removing the tags. He did not canvass as far as I know- I came to the article entirely on my own. The basic problem is that THF is unwilling to give us a rundown on any problems he sees with the current article, but rather points to multiple threads on a long talk page, which other editors either see as resolved, or can't make heads or tails of in terms of current complaints. Since THF is the one saying there are problems with the article, he should clearly and concisely explain why he thinks so. Editors have asked him to do this multiple times, but he refuses. Meanwhile, he maintains a slow edit war over the tags on the article. So what you have here is THF edit warring and refusing to discuss. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Becritical's summary. Dylan Flaherty 03:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I'm not defending the actions of the editors involved re the incivility on the talk page or edit warring. I'm only saying that THF needs to constructively engage on the talk page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors -- THF, Collect, ArthurRubin, MBMAdmirer -- say there are current NPOV problems. An NPOV tag indicates there is an NPOV dispute, and there plainly is one. I've repeatedly concisely explained what's wrong with the article. Dylan then adds twenty talk-page comments with personal attacks against me so that the talk-page is unreadable and then uses that as an excuse to remove the tags because I didn't respond while I was out of town for two days. Again: ANI has already weighed in on this. Dylan explicitly ignored repeated warnings about this. It's harassment that I have to keep relitigating this meta-conversation. THF (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of them is willing to state what the problems are. In fact, as I pointed out last time, MBMadmirer asked you to list your complaints twice and you refused. Dylan Flaherty 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie, Dylan, since I've listed my complaints several times, as has Collect and Arthur Rubin. I've refused to relist them because you play WP:IDHT and repeat your request after I've relisted my complaints several times. THF (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to express disagreement, even to the point of saying that my statements are false. However, accusing me of lying is uncivil. Apologize. Dylan Flaherty 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-question should be protected, until the dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected; unfortunately, DF's edit-warring has been rewarded because the tag is absent -- which is especially problematic, because this is a BLP that violates NPOV. THF (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that would only prevent productive editing. There is a clear consensus to remove the tags. Dylan Flaherty 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that THF wasn't entirely candid about those supporting links. The first[65] is from an editor who then admitted that there are no current POV issues[66] The second[67] is from an editor who cited a long-deleted passage[68] as evidence of current POV issues and then argued for inclusion of tags based solely on WP:NPOVD not being binding. The third[69] is just you. The fourth[70] is an editor who immediately self-reverted[71] and is not a participant on the talk page. Dylan Flaherty 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes THF has a point that some editors do think there are NPOV problems, or at least say they want the tags. Unfortunately, they refuse to give a summary of extant complaints. And that's the problem. I came in with the intention of helping out, but was given absolutely no help in understanding what people are currently concerned about, but rather was told by longtime editors there that they couldn't figure it out either. And the refusal to engage continues. The consensus I spoke of may not be current but we did recently seem to have general consensus on the talk page before recent events. Still no idea why the tags should be there though. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying to another editor, "Please don't lie" is extremely insulting. Also, listing User:Collect and User:Arthur Rubin to support your case inspires no confidence. TFD (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Flaherty is not really the problem here, but neither is THF. THF simply needs to restate his concerns in one spot so others can address them. I suggest this AN/I be closed. I suggest THF follow the advice discussed on Becritical's Talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this should be closed, but I do think that the fact that THF filed this report is a problem, as is his incivility. Dylan Flaherty 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF is repeating his incivility elsewhere.[72] Dylan Flaherty 04:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I retract what I said about Protection. Apparently, that's what it took to get THF to provide some objections. I'll save my comments about the merit of these objections for the talk page, though.

I believe we can close this report now. Dylan Flaherty 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]