Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706

Oh dear...

Resolved

Note: The link is pretty graphic, so I should advise not to click on it if you are at work or might be offended. I don't want to "shock" anyone.

Proxima_Centauri Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism. I'll see what I can find. 28bytes (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. {{Cite arxiv}} was vandalized. I've reverted, protected, and blocked the vandal. Thanks for reporting this. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is the second unprotected template redirect that has been vandalized today, the other was Template:Infobox_Organization&redirect=no posted above at #Transport for Greater Manchester - urgent attention needed. Admins might want to keep an eye out for unprotected template redirects and maybe start protecting them preemptively. --64.85.216.174 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's behavior

User:Pmanderson and I are currently participants in an RfC submitted by another user to gauge how the community feels about our romanization of Russian guideline. The guideline in question was proposed by me in 2007 and adopted by a universal consensus between a dozen editors after being open for discussion for over a month. The person who submitted the RfC believes the consensus no longer holds in relation to a specific part of that guideline, namely the one prescribing the way to deal with establishing a conventional name for a place in Russia. While I disagree there is a problem, I readily admit it is a reasonable request which deserves wider community attention.

Here is how the events unfolded:

• The RfC was opened on June 9, and Pmanderson added his oppose on the same day.
• I added my support soon after, and commented on Pmanderson's opposition, citing a specific example from Britannica (an acceptable reliable source per WP:NCGN).
• In a different section, Pmanderson states that he is going to change his vote and will "remove the disputed text". The latter part is the the beginning of the trouble—we have two people opposing something (including Pmanderson), one person supporting it (me), and the discussion which is going on but is nowhere near completion, yet Pmanderson sees nothing wrong with unilaterally deciding the part is question "is plainly not consensus" and removing it himself. For now, however, we can write it off as the "bold" part of the BRD cycle.
• Pmanderson changes his vote as promised and declares that we should not use Britannica because it uses "pidgin English" (I'm not kidding) and because WP:NCGN needs to be amended anyway.
• Next he compiles a list of the grievances he has with the entire section of the guideline. Not a part of the original RfC, but OK—all editors have a right to identify potential problems, and adding this to an already ongoing RfC makes sense.
• His next steps are editing the guideline as promised, classifying the parts he censored out as "strongly disputed" and "dubious". Now, at the time of this edit, the only person who "strongly" disputes these is he himself; most of the parts he took out have no comments from any other editor (even me). This is the first time he does this, so, let's put it into the "B in BRD is for 'bold'" bucket.
• I reverted the changes when I saw them the next day, pointing out that such sweeping changes should not be made while the discussion is still young. Welcome to the "R in BRD is for 'revert'" part.
• The next step in BRD is, of course, D (discussion). Not according to Pmanderson. Note the threat in the edit summary.
• I decide to try restoring the last stable version (the one being discussed) once again. The ANI remark is more of a representation of how flabbergasted I am, not something I intended to do at that time.
• In response, Pmanderson reverts once again, accusing me of treating the page as my "pet project". In practice, we now have one concerned editors who finds it perfectly OK to demote a standing guideline to an "essay" status merely because he disagrees with it.
• This is supported by a comment previously made on the talk page, where Pmanderson is "genuinely shocked" with the wording of the whole guideline and declares "most of it" to be "contrary to usage and policy". A certain passage he describes as text which "contends ethnic nationalism" (the final parts of this diff). These are opinions he is entitled to, but not shared by anyone else on the page. My feelings are summed up by the last paragraph in this diff.
• Not to bore the reviewers with unnecessary details, the situation only goes downhill from here. In the course of few days, Pmanderson:
  • decides that the guideline does not even deserve an "essay" status and marks it as "historic";
  • describes my request to respect previous consensus and to follow procedure as "the demand of our more unscrupulous bullies" and assumes (indirectly) that I cannot be a "reputable editor" (apparently, because no "reputable editor" would ever support something Pmanderson is against). Later he described the request to honor process as "power gaming" and stonewalling.
  • further describes my request to respect procedure as a "bad-faith revert war" and the whole guideline as a "private opinion of a Russian editor" and parts of it as a "nationalist diatribe";
  • produced this opinion of Britannica as a source, with a thinly veiled characterization of me as someone among "non-anglophone nationalists like those which inflict themselves on Wikipedia" who "should be banned". At this point even the person who submitted the RfC asked Pmanderson to chill and to respect the process;
  • started to present my two reverts as "interminable", pretending not to understand the reason behind them (something already explained to Pmanderson by two people), and trying to turn the tables around (either discuss what other people want, or acknowledge that this is your private project), wondering at the same time how can one disagree with his opinion "without being a Russian nationalist";
  • recognized his earlier remark about my two "interminable" reverts as a factual mistake and corrected it to "revert-warring to the unspeakable". By this time, Pmanderson is still the only person who thinks of the guideline as "unspeakable", yet instead of a discussion all we have is a steady flow of attacks in my direction;
  • has been asked by the RfC submitter to stop calling me a "Russian nationalist";
  • called to ban me flat out (as "the author of this" and "POV pusher");
  • decided he had enough of my opposition and made the final recommendation;
  • voiced an interesting opinion on how changes to our guidelines should be done (by observing that it has changed in response to ongoing discussion), which is in direct contradiction with the procedures outlined in WP:HISTORICAL;
  • speculated that the 2007 consensus was due to me gathering "my handful of friends" and described his unilateral decision to change the text and status of the guidelines as "specific proposals"
  • promised to make an edit to prove a point and proceeded with it. Whether the glaring mistake he made in that edit is intentional, is anyone's guess;
• continued and continued with his insistence to pass his own opinion, unsupported by any other single person, as something "the discussion has established".

And all this in relation to a standing guideline with the discussion ongoing. To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected).

This is how I see things. This (and this) is how Pmanderson sees them. Comments from uninvolved parties would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

TL;DR. Can you summarise please? What specific incident requires administrator intervention here? Have you notified Pmanderson of this? I know his obdurate refusal to maintain his talkpage in a manner which allows people to actually edit it without waiting five minutes for it to load makes it difficult, but you are required. → ROUX ₪ 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, too long indeed. My apologies. The middle part is just a list of diffs to refer to; the first paragraph provides a background, and the last two summarize the problem. If any of my accusations in the last two paragraphs raise an eyebrow, a diff to support them can be found in the mid-portion. The user has been notified. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:26 (UTC)

From my point of view what happened is much simpler:

• This guideline has sat undiscussed since 2007. User:Mlm42 filed an RfC questioning one part of it; that part has received no support but Ezhiki's. It seems to me to have other quite serious flaws. I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only, and he would revert any effort to change it or indicate that it was the product of a very dated and local discussion. I so tagged it, hoping that this would inspire actual proposals to meet the complaints of several of us.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed, and I did a draft, expecting that novel language would provide an opportunity to converge. Instead, he objected on purely procedural grounds, insisting that he alone could formulate proposals, and that they must have a formal vote. I agreed, skeptically, to wait a couple days for these propoeals.
• Instead of formulating them, he has come here.

In short, this is a classic case of dressing up a content dispute in which Ezhiki is the minority (and a WP:OWN claim) as a conduct dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how discussing my behavior helps your position any. If my behavior needs to be discussed, you are welcome to submit a separate ANI report. Here, let's stick with yours.

To the points:

• A guideline sitting undiscussed since 2007 is not a problem—it's more of an indication that it works, if anything. However, once a discussion is open, editors are expected to discuss, not, as Pmanderson did, to jump to conclusions and hastily tailor the guideline according to their own vision.
• The reverts I have made were to ensure that proper procedures are being followed (and there is nothing wrong with "insisting on procedural grounds"). Pmanderson is welcome to make suggestions for amending the guideline, as is anyone else, but it is unacceptable to insist that changes must be made immediately when the RfC was up for discussion for only one day (!) and no other opinions supporting most of Pmanderson's views have been voiced, and that Pmanderson has a right to make changes, while another editor doesn't even have a right to disagree with them.
• I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted. True, and this conforms to the B and R of the BRD cycle. What Pmanderson omits is that instead of discussion (D, step 3 in BRD), he re-reverted and kept insisting on his version. See the evidence section above for specific diffs.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only.... It may have become clear to Pmanderson, but no one else shared this sweeping assessment, which Pmanderson continued to pass for "consensus". This is actually a perfect example of Pmanderson's overall attitude—make a statement, and then keep referring to that statement as if it were true forever and is universally supported.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed. I would appreciate if my agreement were not referred to in such terms.
• As for the proposals, I discussed the possibility of submitting them with the RfC submitter, and mentioned that I will collect and post them after a few days once other potentially interested parties had a chance to join the discussion. I did not come here instead of making proposals (a suggestion itself showing the lack of AGF), I came here because I saw a larger problem. Besides, the "couple days" to which Pmanderson "skeptically agreed" have not even passed! Another example of unexplainable hastiness exhibited by this editor.
• The WP:OWN accusation I'm not even going to comment on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 20:50 (UTC)

• • Still no proposals from Ezhiki...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I started the RfC which kicked all this off. I thought we were starting to make progress towards improving the guideline, but the incivility levels between Ezhiki and Pmanderson have been steadily rising.. in my opinion the incivility has mostly been fueled by Pmanderson, who appears to be upset about the (perceived) inconsistencies between the guideline WP:RUS (maintained mostly by Ezhiki) and the more widely accepted guideline WP:NCGN (maintained mostly by Pmanderson). I'm hopeful this can be sorted out, to the satisfaction of both of them, by making better wording choices in WP:RUS. Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if it could be settled by such means; although WP:RUS much more seriously conflicts with core policies which I rarely edit. As for WP:NCGN, I have undertaken from time to time to summarize a discussion, or react to an instance of actual consensus in Wikipedia space; but I have attempted to do so only when nobody else had done so; certainly I have not prevented others from doing so. I doubt Ezhiki is entitled to say the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• AS for Ezhiki's particular comments: the word "percieved as racist" was anglophone, by an editor who plainly has no notion what it means.
• Similarly, if If you must, then was not intended as grudging, then I must regret Ezhiki's use of an idiomatic expression outside the sense it customarily bears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  How can the presence of an open RfC on the guideline's talk page not clue you in that "attempts to do so" (i.e., to reach actual consensus) are being made? Why such hastiness? And what "instance of actual consensus" did you have in mind while making this edit (note the impeccable grammar)? Or this edit? Or this edit? There's certainly nothing on the talk page (beyond your own comments, that is), to indicate a "consensus" of any sort to substantiate any of those edits.

  On the ...who plainly has no notion... bit, here we again have Pmanderson making an assumption, formatting it as an obvious truth, and expecting others to take this blatant lack of good faith to heart. A perfect illustration of the problem, that one is. And misspelling a common word in a sentence which accuses another editor of poor grasp of the language? Oh, the irony.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

  Sigh. It's not my opinion that the remark in question was not racist; that the opinion of several uninvolved editors, here. But a spurious cry of incivility is almost as useful as spurious cry of racism. 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Information here may be relevent to this discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. --Jayron32 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: Generally, whenever Anderson is involved in a discussion, we're going to have problems with civility. That's reflected in his blocks. It's a shame he hasn't learned from them, but he often succeeds in getting other editors riled up (as he has with me), so perhaps he feels the rewards of attacking rather than cooperating are worth the occasional block. His modus operandi is that whichever POV he supports is 'consensus' (even if he made it up just then), that others defending established consensus is 'ownership', that his wording is 'English' (despite the fact he has yet to master English grammar[1]—that just happens to be the edit I saw before coming here), while any competing wording is 'not English', unprovoked personal attacks, 'I didn't hear that' when evidence contradicts him, etc. Sometimes he may even have a valid point, but it tends to get lost in all the bombast. BTW, I've heard the 'doesn't know what anglophone means' dispute before, with the same complaint that it was covert racism. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, kwami has just summed it all up—I'd agree this is exactly what's going on on the WP:RUS RfC. Looking at pretty much any discussion Mr. Anderson had participated in, if there is a disagreement of any sort, the same pattern of behavior can be expected again and again and again all over. How can one have have six blocks in the past twelve months alone (all for personal attacks, harassment, revert warring, move warring, and a 3RR violation), be a subject of several ANI reports and a conduct RfC, and yet still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance? How many times will incidents like this one have to repeat before sanctions are imposed? Blocks clearly don't work; on two occasions he had been unblocked for "seeing errors in his ways", but the consequent blocks and ANI reports indicate very much otherwise. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong but I won't do it again" just isn't good enough any more. How long will this kind of behavior be allowed to go on?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of the above, for the most part. The one thing that I have slight trouble with is the "still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance?" comment. Policy pages are pretty unimportant. Myself and probably 90% of all editors simply ignore the text there, while upholding the ideas that they embody. What users such as Pmanderson (and yourself, I'm guessing, based on this comment and the WP:RUS page) fail to realize is that it doesn't really matter what policy pages actually say.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By and large it doesn't matter; but Wikipedia space is, all too often, used to insist on damage in mainspace. Some sentence which has sat unread for four years since two or three editors "made a consensus" five years ago, becomes "Consensus Policy before which all must tremble" in the hands of some editors. It is preferable to have guidelines which don't say stupid things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That I agree with, but what you say and what you do are clearly two different things. Which tends to create threads such as this. I think that you and I actually hold very similar opinions in this area, but... I'd like to see you spend time elsewhere, because I think that your "battlefield" approach does more harm then good. Where there are issues with people using Wikipedia policy as "the Truth" out there in the mainspace, that should be dealt with by talking to the people involved and convincing them that they're taking the wrong approach. It is preferable that our policy and guidelines don't say "stupid things", but it's not that big of a deal that they sometimes do.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert (yet) on the behavior of this editor, but I do find it difficult to understand what is constructive and substantive about misquotes and twisted comments here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this now?

ANI discussions are not supposed to be laundry lists of unrelated grievances. Serge Woodzing is objecting to edits of Throne of a Thousand Years - the article he wrote, and which used to read like a publisher's blurb (the talk page suggests that this is because he represents the publisher). I'm glad to see it has been cleaned up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson's got a point—this should be closed soon. Here's what we've gathered so far.

As of today, five editors (including me) have voiced an opinion that Pmanderson's behavior is problematic. ANI, of course, is not a place to assess the overall conduct; it is a place to report and act on specific incidents. With that in mind, I would appreciate the following three issues addressed before this thread is archived:

1. With regards to the ongoing RfC on the romanization of Russian guideline, Pmanderson is in general a very vocal opposer of the current of the guideline, while I am in general a very vocal supporter. With that in mind, I believe neither of us should be trusted with assessing what the standing consensus is or with amending the wording of the guideline; either after the discussion closes or (especially) while it is ongoing. Is it a reasonable request to restore the guideline to its pre-RfC state and amend it only after the RfC closes and specific recommendations become clear? I would trust any uninvolved established user with this task; I am also confident the job can be done by the RfC submitter (User:Mlm42). I do not trust Pmanderson's ability to accomplish this task.
2. The support for this ANI thread demonstrates that Pmanderson's behavior is often problematic. The RfC on this user's conduct filed about a year ago was closed with the statement that the sheer number of endorsements asserting Pmanderson's behavior "indicate[s] that Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others", and while no sanctions appeared to be called for at that time, it was nevertheless clear that "there is a problem that needs correcting". Since that RfC, Pmanderson piled up six more blocks for all the same reasons, and was a subject of several similar ANI threads. The problems does not seem to have been corrected; it seems to only have gotten worse. With that in mind, would another RFC/U be appropriate to discuss not just this incident, but the overall behavioral pattern since the last RFC/U?
3. Are any disciplinary measures warranted in relation to this specific incident?

I appreciate time and effort others have put into their comments in this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:58 (UTC)

Hm. I see a number of editors who would like to drag in their grievances, real or invented, against me. ANI is indeed not a place to consider overall conduct, especially from volunteer plaintiffs like these.

Ezhiki's first request is to make a page say many things which are plainly not consensus. The comments on the clause originally at issue in the RFC are overwhelmingly negative; the discussion has produced negative comments by other editors on much of the rest of it, including a suggestion that most of it be replaced by a cross-reference to other more established guidelines, which say different things; even Ezhiki's most recent edit claims he has no objection to this change (which is not yet done). One substantive change I have made (to recommend -y instead of -iy as the Romanization of the Russian ending) is supported by every comment on it, including Ezhiki's.

Changing a guideline to a state which is demonstrably not consensus is oppposed to WP:POLICY. This is taking proceduralism well beyond excess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's one solution: both of you ignore this and go back to Wikipedia_talk:Romanization of Russian and simply talk to each other. If you're both willing to see each other's point of view (without battling over the tags on the front of the document), then I'm confident that a mutually agreeable solution will arise.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. There are three suggestions, two of of them rather drastic, awaiting comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello!

I think this may require administrator's attention. Instead of solve the dispute, below listed user went to the talk page with the lone intention to frighten and intimidate the other user. Written in a completely degrading stlye, even the (possible) living place was revealed and a promise of physical harm/sexual abuse was made. It is a clear harassment in my point of view, with a potential real life outgrowth that should not be understated. – Thehoboclown (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I've RevDeleted the abusive comments (there was earlier abuse in Romanian too), and have issued a warning to Cyperuspapyrus - a block should be the next step if that kind of attack is repeated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out.

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. ignoring the fact that you've spammed this to a bunch of talk pages, I've blocked the editor for 3 days for socking, and have protected a bunch of the articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:KieranKiwiNinja

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

While new-page patrolling earlier, I CSDed Drigers and Boss (Person), as the subjects appeared far from notable. These pages were soon deleted. I then noticed that User:KieranKiwiNinja had apparently created the "Drigers" pages various times before, and it looks like (s)he was blocked for this on 11 June 2011. So I warned the user not to create such pages again, and I was met with a very uncivil comment on my talk page. (Note that I am not, as the comment suggests, an admin.)

Does this user need another block? User has been notified of this report.

—Tommyjb (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours because of the personal attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Walmartfan

User:Walmartfan is making a lot of questionable edits, including one using an image they uploaded to Commons to vandalize Fox News, and edit warring at File:Robloxgame.jpg, where their edit summaries have included "WHO CARES ABOUT WIKIPEDIAS DUMB RULES" and "I WILL KEEP REVERTING IT". I assume something should be done and I'm not sure what; I didn't think reporting them at WP:AIV would be appropriate so I posted this here. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a strict message on their talk page. Should the reverting continue then a block is necessary. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:LessHeard vanU went ahead and blocked him/her! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

After comparing the warnings on the user talkpage and their edit history, I considered that allowing them to edit was simply a timesink. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and is there any way to get File:Faux-News-poster.png, which they uploaded today, deleted? My apologies as I don't have much experience working with files. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already been nominated for speedy deletion at Commons. An admin there will delete it shortly. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he or she has uploaded some copyright violations to Commons as well. I nominated these for deletion too. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonicsgate

Single-purpose accounts have basically turned an article about an obscure documentary into a platform for a local cause. Is it worth it to even try to trim this article back into something reasonable? Chicken Wing (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As a recent example, user:Sunserj comes by and adds a ton of information to the article. The user has three career edits to Wikipedia, and all of them are very elaborate edits to the Sonicsgate article. The user makes no use of edit summaries. I checked some of the sources the editor used, and some of them are a bit questionable. I revert the article back to a point when it didn't look so much like a platform for a local political cause. That prompts user:71.247.216.62, making only his fourth career edit, to revert my edit. Despite never having used edit summaries previously, the IP address editor uses a long edit summary to seemingly impartially berate me for poor editing practices.

I deal with this on this article all the time. Without administrator help, I'll probably just give up on the article because it's not worth my time. Plus, as I get more fatigued with dealing with these problem editors, I'm likely to start getting sloppier correcting the page, which will only give them ammunition. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an admin will do something about this first; but have you tried asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP? That would keep most of the riff-raff away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this would likely be the best course of action. N^oformation ^Talk 02:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The last time the Discussion page for the article was used was almost a year ago. How about instead of fronting the problems alone, start a thread on the Discussion page explaining what you perceive the problems to be. That way other editors will have a reference point to work with, and maybe the SPAs will even be prompted to engage in actual dialog.—Biosketch (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions -- I really do -- and I admit that coming to WP:AIN seems like a drastic step, but call this death from a thousand paper cuts. I've been dealing with the same handful of editors for years on several Seattle-to-OKC related articles. I didn't think I'd be able to justify a semi-protect because of the slow nature of the trouble-making, and I haven't used the discussion page recently because years of dealing with this group of editors has shown it to be a waste of time. The last edits to the article's discussion page a year ago included senseless attacks on my editing history. You can look at the talk pages to articles like Clayton Bennett and Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City to see that for about three years or more I've just been beaten down by a small group of fringe editors. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Right on cue, the IP address displays that it is much more interested in mockery than serious discussion.[2] I really don't mean to seem short-tempered, but I've dealt with these editors for years, some of whom have threatened me and my family with physical violence. I try to assume good-faith, but it becomes obvious fairly quickly when it's just another round of abusive editing. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to try, at least that way you can point at the discussion and essentially say "Use the talk page (constructively) if you want the information kept, otherwise I'll use WP:RFPP, and you'll be locked out of editing, I don't want to do that, but Wikipedia is about discussion, not edit warring...etc, etc." That way if they don't want to discuss the content (not the editors), it'll make it that much easier to semi-protect the page. - SudoGhost™ 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(As a note though, it's now on my watchpage, and I'm sure it's on a few more now as well, so that alone should help) - SudoGhost™ 04:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalked forever

I continue to be stalked (for years now) by an editor who for all intents and purposes only has one agenda, i.e. to stalk me, and whose contributions are not valuable but border on disruptive as unnecessarily time-consuming. Can anything be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please inform the other person next time (using {{ANI-notice}}). I've informed Pieter Kuiper. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:HA:Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles...The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Reichsfürst (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not hounding if the other editor is clearing up genuine problems. (I'd be the first to admit that if I see a pattern of problematic changes made by one person, I'll look closely at their other contribs). Is this edit summary accurate? bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the likes of this, I'd suggest it's not unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this is the fourth "I'm being stalked" complaint regarding Pieter Kuiper by SergeWoodzing here on ANI. Rather than accept the outcome of those ANI complaints, Serge just repeats the same complaint over and over. How many times does he need to be told this is not stalking?--Atlan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that Pieter has never been blocked. Is this "original synthesis", i.e. synthesizing of names (or "making them up"), a recurring issue where Serge is concerned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It has happened before. I've had one previous encounter with SW but I can't remember where it was (it came from a 3O, or medcab, or somewhere like that) and the issue was basically one of an anachronistically-translated/interpolated name for some historic Scandinavian subject; the name didn't actually appear in any sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pieter has intimated that Serge is involved in some way with Throne of a Thousand Years, a book whose main selling point appears to be that it contains newly-coined exonyms for ancient Swedish royal names. And yes, it's definitely a recurring issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So the OP here is essentially spamming? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

More like failing to understand that our policy on the inclusion of neologisms strongly suggests that we shouldn't add exonyms that were recently invented (especially if it is indeed the case that he's associated with the book in question) to random articles. And that Pieter is in fact perfectly right to use Serge's contributions list to monitor such problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Defaced page: Art of Living Foundation

About an hour ago I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Living_Foundation defaced to have a pornographic background image (shot: http://bayimg.com/GAiBGaaDl, nsfw). A few minutes later it was corrected. It didn't seem to be a normal edit, but instead perhaps css was injected somewhere, somehow. I became curious about how it was done. Anybody? (Sorry if this is the wrong place, I couldn't find any better in this labyrinth...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quite (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article contain dozens of templates...if someone messed with one of those, it could cause the issue you discussed. If you still need more info, try WP:VPP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The template {{Infobox Organization}}, which is used on that page, was vandalized with pornography and quickly reverted, but that was two days ago. If there is some technical issue that is causing Wikipedia to continue to show an outdated version of template (at least occasionally), then it is probably worth having someone with the appropriate technical know-how investigate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience notifications

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:KillerChihuahua recently became a bit more active again and caused some misunderstandings by notifying several editors of WP:ARBPS without any recent reason. I received such a notification for being reminded by QuackGuru of an edit from 3 months ago that played a role in an Arbcom case in which QuackGuru was involved but refused to participate. Naturally, I was a bit pissed, but then took KillerChihuahua's explanation (that he had arrived at the list of people to notify simply by wikistalking QG) at face value. Apparently I made a strong personal enemy in the process. At least I am not used to openly unconstructive reactions from admins such as this one, and it certainly undermines KillerChihuahua's explanation. This leaves me no choice but to take the underlying problem at Talk:Homeopathy here so that it can be nipped in the bud. For convenience, this was my request to KillerChihuahua: As you have been trying to ensure that all editors active in the pseudoscience area are notified of WP:ARBPS, may I suggest that you also notify HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs). My request is prompted by this edit, which either isn't constructive at all, or displays a breathtaking level of ignorance concerning both the topic of the article and the content of the article itself. I have seen a lot of nonsense on that talk page from both pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy POV pushers, but the claim that the bible of homeopaths (5 editions during Hahnemann's lifetime, a sixth edition based on his manuscripts appeared 76 years after his death, countless reeditions and translations) was self-published and cannot be used as a source on homeopathy because "nothing demonstrates that his work was important at all" is the worst so far. You might also consider notifying JzG who chose to [reward and ignore this behaviour instead of helping to reign it in. But since he himself logged an earlier notification on the same page, I guess it would be technically redundant. Hans Adler 08:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Hans Adler 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) In case it's not clear: I am not asking for extended drama, but just a quick, non-judgemental, official notification of HandThatFeeds about WP:ARBPS. Hans Adler 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I have done this and explicitly noted to HTF that the notification is not intended to be judgmental in any way. In the interests of preventing drama, I am also going to collapse this thread. NW (Talk) 14:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I tried to close it as well when I saw your notification, but got into an edit conflict. Hans Adler 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MarioPool and constant creation of fake television channel articles

MarioPool (talk · contribs)

Best way to explain what is happening is with the following chronology (some of the items might be out of order since I cannot access deleted content):

1. Copypastes Boomerang (TV channel), and tweaks it slightly to Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted under A10.
2. Recreates Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted again under A10.
3. Copypastes Filmnet into Tv Filmnet. Redirected to original article, and user cautioned: [3].
4. Copypastes BBC Prime, and tweaks it slightly to Tv Prime. Deleted under A10.
5. Copypastes BBC World Service Television, and tweaks it slightly to Tv World Service Television. At this point, I realize that he is trying to say it is a different network. Therefore, instead of tagging it for A10, I PROD the article as there are not reliable sources that this other network exists.
6. Same as above between Al Jazeera Urdu and Tv World in Urdu.
7. I warn the user to stop doing the above: [4]
8. After the above warning, does the same between S4C and TV Russia.
9. Level 4 warning given: [5]
10. PRODS removed from TV Russia and Tv World in Urdu. Nominated for AfDs and deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv Russia
11. Continues pattern with Nederland 3 and Channel 3 (Asia).

In all cases, the new articles are 90-99% copypastes of the original articles. The references are changed to websites that do not exist. This user has been warned over and over again. Rather than respond, he continues the pattern. I believe a block is warranted at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update. The user appears to also by copypasting files, and tweaking them with photoshop. See File:Nederland3clock1999.png (especially this version and File:Ned3 generic id 2003a.jpg (and using the same caption for the two related articles). Singularity42 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone revdel the unused images at File:Nederland3clock1999.png please? It's excessive. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact that whole image needs deletion as it has no fair use rationale and is used purely for decoration. Yoenit (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that all User:Ischa3 has done is upload 100s of non-free logos without fair use rationale for use in galeries and decoration. Going through and tagging them now. Yoenit (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd caution against carpet bombing Ischa's uploads. There might be some worth saving. If there aren't, well then just fire at will. Still, my point is to look first. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe unrelated and more likely, not particularly relevant, but there was a rash of very similar article creations back in 2007, which I remember for the rather idiosyncratic names given to the made-up channels. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Radio Survey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC China were the AFDs for two of the articles. The pattern of article creation is very similar and I remember that the creator of those articles was also editing cartoon articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I second Flowerpotmans suspicions about this. The pattern of creating false articles and adding false TV info to other articles, especially ones about cartoons has occurred before. I think that this has happened since '07 but I have forgotten the usernames that were used. Of course this may be someone new following the old pattern but I am posting this in case anyone else may have a longer memory about this than I do. In any event this editor will need to be watched when the block expires. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Community Ban violation by SuperblySpiffingPerson

Resolved

 – Quack, choke. Favonian (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:noclador has identified Special:124.149.66.11 as being SSP, who some will remember recieved a community ban for sockpuppetry. Judging by his edits, including [6], I think we have an enormous quacker here. Could someone check this and then maybe drop the hammer? Thanks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WDTN, Delta, "Decorative" and Deletionism

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

---

I've copied this from an archived section above:

Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AKMask, could you please provide policy citations: 1) defining "decorative"; 2) stating that readers' comprehension of a topic must be severely limited for an item not to be considered "decorative"; 3) requiring that historic logos must be notable in their own right and may not be used strictly for identification, like the current logo; and 4) requiring sourced citations that concern solely the nature of the logo itself? I'm somewhat of a noob, especially on non-free/fair use issues, and I haven't been able to find anything yet that supports your claims. Could you please direct me to the appropriate policies? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC. Specifically Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding., Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. and from WP:Logos Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What essay? In any case, there is no requirement for essays to be kept up to date since they are just that, essays. You are free to up date an essay if you desire within the normal bounds of editing and working with others.

I don't really understand your numbers point but there is no hard limit on the number of NFCC images allowed in an article. It depends solely on what is needed which depends on things like the article and subject matter. In some cases, no NFCC images. E.g. many articles on living species or on natural disasters fall in to here. For an article on a copyrighted painting the number would usually be one, i.e. the painting itself. For video games, the number is usually two one of the box, and one in game shot. You can take at Wikipedia:Featured articles to get an idea as these are our best content so will generally have what is considered best. Several examples I saw did appear to have 2. Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy has 3 probably partially since it came out for multiple fairly distinct platforms and for some of those the game was widely criticised. One more example I noticed and specifically chose to check is Donkey Kong (video game). As I expected it has quite a few.

Finally why is this on ANI? What administrative action are you asking for?

Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Again? .. Really? <sigh> — Ched :  ?  22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Heyitsme24 avoiding blocks

Heyitsme24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is avoiding blocks. He edited my user page[7] to remove comment about blocked User:Username1234567891011. His username is similar to also blocked User:Heyitsme22 who claims to be Username1234567891011 at [8]. Glrx (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Notice given. Glrx (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Possible new sock detected: Lg221 (talk · contribs), he left a note on User talk:Tnxman307#Please read this. Time to WP:RBI? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also looks like User:Maggieblackstorm86 is a sock. See Operation Aqueduct edit above and Maggie's edit naming Username1234567891011. Also sockmaster User:123alleyezonme. Glrx (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, more of the same. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats at Amina Arraf

Background: A popular Syrian activist blog of a pro-democracy lesbian turned out to be written by a straight, white guy named Tom MacMaster

• IPs: User:85.105.159.200, User:88.233.127.238, User:195.175.230.155
• Talk threads: Talk:Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari#I_am_the_hoaxer, Talk:Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari#Just_so_you_know...

Now a series of IPs claiming to be Tom MacMaster are threatening legal action if certain sourced claims are not removed. The IPs geolocate to Istanbul, Turkey and east towards Ankara where it was publicly reported MacMaster was taking his vacation. User:Orangemike blocked one of the IPs for making legal threats, but new ones keep coming up and the threat is persistent, as is the claim to be MacMaster. Can I have another eye on this, please? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd request page protection or, preferably, a rangeblock or two, and link all these IPs to WP:NLT for them to read. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The blocks probably shouldn't be indefinite, especially since the user in question is hopping to new IPs... Bobby Tables (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Farsiwan

I am sorry, but this is just not tolerable. It is full of PA and racist slogans. Only because the user lacks qualification in that field (i.e. he does not even know the basic WP:RS), he is claiming that there is some kind of an "Iranian" and "Shia" conspiracy, of course "headed" by Clifford Edmund Bosworth and David Neil MacKenzie (c. this). The talkpage to Ghurid dynasty has become a playground for users like him. And it prevents (and chases away) actual experts (for example User:Tekisch). Some admin-help is needed. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly issues with this editor, but perhaps owing to lack of familiarity of WP practices and policies. I make no comment regarding whether the representation of Pashtun history is biased either by the references available or the use of same, but it appears to me that this might be considered a content dispute couched in terminology that violates WP:NPA - but I do not believe that concentrating on the apparent slurs against some editors should be a reason for ignoring what may be legitimate concerns over the possible bias against a people. I feel that there is not enough evidence presented here of attempting to resolve any of these issues for there to be admin intervention. I suggest some attempts at dispute resolution and possibly an RfC in regard to (various) editors participation in these areas may be considered.

I would note that I have very recently been involved in suppressing alleged personal information being presented about this editor, so I am aware that there is not only one party to this issue that is apparently not complying with WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that there is no bias, even though this is hard to accept/believe for users who are "blinded" by national sentiments, overexaggerated patriotism, or even stubborn ethnocentricism (that's the case with Farsiwan, User:Tofaan, that one IP on the talkpage, etc.). The article Ghurid dynasty is in a very bad shape and needs improvement. But the origins section is well sourced. In fact, it uses the most authoritative sources of oriental studies.What this user does is blindly attacking and insulting these sources (and that actually proves that he cannot be an expert on the issue and that he lacks even the most basic knowledge of the subject) and the authors. There is no such dispute in the academic world. There is not a single reliable and respected scholar who would claim what Farsiwan is claiming. If the most trusted and most authoritative sources of a certain field (in this case Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, even Encyclopaedia Americana and Encyclopaedia Britannica) make a clear statement (i.e. that the Ghurids were NOT Pashtuns) and a few users make contrary statements (i.e. that the Ghurids were Pashtuns, meaning of their own ethnic background, without being able to present a single reliable source), then the users are wrong and their misleading edits need to be reverted - aggressively and without any compromises. This is not just a question of simple Wikipedia rules. It is also about the general agenda of these users who are stubbornly trying to force modern national identities on long-forgotten royal families of the middle ages ... --Lysozym (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming, with a pinch of good faith, that Farsiwan is as new as s/he says then it would be preferable to link him/her to the various policies regarding, WP:RS, WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA, WP:OR etc etc. That being said, I read through the "Ignorants(sic) of Wikipedia and her users" thread started by User:Tofaan. The torrent of racial and personal slanging that ensued did nothing to improve the article. Lysozym, at the start of that thread I can see you tried quite hard to keep the discussion on track about the sources but you allowed yourself to get baited into a fight with Farsiwan leading you into drawing a line in the sand and daring them to cross which they did. User:84.59.186.208 didn't help things with his/her tirade. What we basically have here is a content discussion that has gone out of control. Everyone involved has pretty much violated WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP, except for Kansasbear and Ketabtoon who seem to have given up on trying to keep that discussion on track. A warning for Farsiwan would be appropriate in this case given the lack of warnings on their talk page. Tofaan however is heading for a topic ban. Lysozym, you however should stop treating any rebuttal as some sort of insult that has to be responded to with a beating of the chest and a clashing of the horns. Your tone in the discussion is generally very argumentative and defensive, which even if you didn't start it, definitely doesn't help things, much as Ketabtoon observed. --Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. By the way: 88.69.27.205 (talk · contribs) is flooding Talk:Ghurid Dynasty with profanity and insults. He is no better than his counterparts. --Lysozym (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghurid dynasty

(moved here as it is an extension of the same ongoing problem --Blackmane (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to report 94.219.108.194 (talk · contribs) and Tofaan (talk · contribs) because of extensive POV-pushing, editwar, and insults. I've tried to clean up the article by sorting the tabs, adding a gallery, etc. - but it was immediately reverted by these two users (who, btw, have totally contrary points of view).

I am tired of this nonsense and I will follow User:Tekisch's advice: I won't edit this article anymore as long as these users (along with Farsiwan (talk · contribs)) continue to flood it with unacademic nonsense, nationalistic POV, ethnocentric and racist insults, etc. There seems to be no interest in improving the article - neither the mentioned users are interested (they just want to force their nationalistic views on it and do not care about actual academic literature) nor the admins (there is not a single admin in the whole of Wikipedia who has knowledge of or interest in this special field of oriental studies). I am out. I do not want to waste my time on a hopeless case. --Lysozym (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the two users, although the IP address is currently blocked. - SudoGhost™ 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually just blocked Tofaan also, for the round of ridiculous edit warring at Ghurid Dynasty a few hours ago. Should we unblock them so they can comment here? Larry V (talk | email) 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally we copy any comments from the blocked users talkpage over to here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from the user's talkpage)The user:Lysozym is showing himself an angle, as he haven't done anything except cleaning up and report the case. But in fact this user is a devil who is using IP-addresses, different users names and is busy with sockpuppet. By which he hopes and pushing his POV to get his points and make racists and nationalists edits. But however, can someone ask this little angle why is he trying to change an Afghan emperor in the image script to an Afghan artist work? [9] He is saying he has cleaned up, but can some ask him what did he have cleaned up? Does removing historical pictures means clean up? Does removing the tab History of Afghanistan means clean up? or does the changing of translations of historical pictures text which says "an Afghan emperor" and he changed it into "an Afghan artist" means cleaned up, here and here? And if he was really cleaning up the page, than why did he not react on the discussion page here? Can someone ask this little angle why is he whole the time following my edits and why is he each and every time trying to delete my edits on each and every article? and last but not least, can someone ask this little angle what's his relation with this IP-address:94.219.108.194 ? I am 100% sure that this IP-address is one of user:Lysozym, maybe stolen with wireless internet from neighbors!Tofaan (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now I am also the "devil", huh?! And I am also using IPs and various other sockpuppets, huh?! Great! 99% of Tofaan's edits are like his comments above: WP:PA, wrong and baseless accusations, off-topic, etc. If Tofaan believes that I am using IP socks or some other kind of sockpuppet, he should feel free and ask for a checkuser file. But while we are at it: someone should also check the relation between the accounts Tofaan (talk · contribs) and Farsiwan (talk · contribs) ... it's just a thought ... --Lysozym (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs

Resolved

Would an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs again? The debate started on 31 May 2011 and remains open. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping, Pang, Pong...
Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Pang? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Pong? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Calaf? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Liu? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Floria Tosca? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Who's that? Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to T. Canens for closing the debate at AN. The main result is:

In closing, I should note that while no editor-specific sanction is imposed on Doncram at this time, given the conclusion reached in this thread concerning the acceptability of these stubs, if Doncram continues to create similarly styled stubs after their block ends, they would be liable to be blocked for disruptive editing.

– EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Persisent problems with Petey Parrot

Resolved

talk page gone now too. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna say right now that I am half-dead and half-asleep, so other editors like Dougweller and possibly noclador could fill in the details as I need to hit the hay soon (need to get digging at 05:00 GMT+2). There have been some problems with User:Petey Parrot. He has made very POV edits on many articles, particularly ones related to Jews, Israel, US Foreign policy and neo-con stuff. I listed most of the Jew-related stuff in this topic. At the time it was a very exhaustive list. Now that is a problem, but it's not what prompted this ANI posting. The main problem is that Petey has been violating NPA nonchalantly. Now after Doug gave him a Level-4 warning, he stopped and only started posting suggestions for additions to various articles as well as making minor helpful fixes and larger not-so-helpful ones. Recently though, he made a PA and got blocked. His response to this was to post a strange PA on his page about the Likud party. [10] He also made this odd comment [11] and this one after his block was extended [12]. The other editors could explain it better. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page alone, it's a wonder they haven't been indefinitely blocked by now. Larry V (talk | email) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If I hadn't been struggling with an iPad using Wikiedit (which seems to have no tildes) on a bad 3G connection in the middle of a field and then delayed by a dead batter (now replaced by the RAC) I'd have brought this here much earlier today. I interpret " the Rainbow Likudis at the Pentagon" as meaning Jewish homosexuals, in line with his other anti-Semitic comments on talk pages. Why he decided to ignore my Level 4 warning I don't know, but he did and another editor reverted his attack as vandalism. When I saw that I gave him a 24 hour block, raised to 60 hours after his Rainbow Likudis comments. I'm not sure how we should proceed now and would appreciate other comments. It doesn't appear as though he's taking these blocks seriously at all. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I ran into Petey Parrot too - his edits are: unhelpful, disruptive, violations of BLP, homophobic, anti-semitic, and he ignores any advice/warnings. The last straw for me was this edit: [13]. He clearly is not contributing anything of value to wikipedia, but disrupts the work of productive editors. noclador (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noclander. I have thought for a while now that the user is not here to improve the content from a NPOV position - some undue edits - user page once deleted as an attack page. His early contributions suggest returning user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Petey Parrot apparently has no regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My previous experience with this user was to revert this unsourced edit, so I was a relatively uninvolved admin until I saw his talk page response to Dougweller's block. I extended his block to 60 hours in the hope it might give him pause, but I suspect that no number of limited blocks will cause him to amend his behavior. I'll support an indefinite block. -- Donald Albury 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Petey Parrot problems? Propose permanent prohibition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"'Ooose a petty boy, then?" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't often say this, ... but this one has "indef" written allll over it. — Ched :  ?  01:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • He was issued a short block, and is squawking about it.[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • As he is blocked he cannot respond here, so I cam copying his full response to the ANI notification from this talk page: "Go grab sand health hazard.". Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I was trying to figure out what that was supposed to mean, and then it occurred to me that, in keeping with his standard comments, it probably has something to do with a catbox. Hard to figure why the guy is not indef'd already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've reviewed this editor's contributions and I've concluded that they're not here to edit constructively and in a collegial fashion and that short blocks would probably serve no purpose; as such, I've been bold and increased their block to indefinite. As usual, anyone may undo, if they think it was inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support indef -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse Salvio's action. -- Donald Albury 11:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, unanimous agreement. Support indef as well. It was amusing at first, but he's done too much damage to articles. Also, I can't stand people who actually think that ad hominem attacks are a serious form of reply in a real conversation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support indef -- noclador (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano has placed an indefinite block on him. Which I support. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support indef., propose Community Ban JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a bit of an overkill, in my opinion. Petey Parrot has been indeffed, which might be enough to stop disruption. Should he start socking a ban discussion can be iniatiated, but now it's premature, imho. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to go that far unless he starts making sockpuppets. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment suggests that this is not the first incarnation of this user. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor the last. I think he's back. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

talkpage privileges

Petey Parrot really, really, really wants his talkpage privileges to be revoked. noclador (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Ched :  ?  03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That comment directed at me was just strange.... Good privilege removal imho. It's not just PAs and incivility, it's complete nonsense (I can understand the Antisemitism and the homophobia (even though I am not gay myself, homophobia actually does annoy me, whereas I laugh at anti-Semitism), but all the colon-related comments are just weird). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

block evasion

quack-quack: User:Petey Petenov obvious block evasion and already up to the same ant-semitic and homophobic shit. noclador (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering this socking (also User:Petey Peteler, who has also been banned) I'm inclined to support JoeSperrazza's motion for a community ban. This guy is offensive, disruptive, and nothing but trouble. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support community ban. -- Donald Albury 10:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support if we need one. I took Petenov to SPI earlier (would have blocked but it's nice to make it clear to someone that nobody wants them). Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support community ban, noclador (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's obvious he's going to keep it up. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Ban is appropriate given the numerous disruptive socks. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen–DrKiernan

Resolved

 – Lecen and DrKiernan agree only to talk about each other or the other's opinions on pages to which both have contributed.

I wish to suggest a ban on either of the two editors above mentioning the other or the other's opinions on user talk pages.

Despite my request to desist misrepresenting my opinions,[15][16][17] Lecen has continued to do so.[18][19][20]

I now fear that a restriction on mentioning the other editor outside of article or wikipedia space is now the only sensible way forward to prevent further misrepresentation and discord. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the backstory here? Interaction bans usually require rather more than one person not wanting to be mentioned by the other. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said, plus can you please describe how you are being misrepresented? → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want an interaction ban. What I want is a restriction on mentioning the other editor or their opinions on a third-party's user pages. I have tried to engage him repeatedly in perfectly clear language but he persists in spreading untrue stories about me. For example, I made it perfectly plain that I support the inclusion of alternative names in the lead,[21][22] but he runs off to his friends and says I want to remove them from all articles.[23] It happens so frequently and so obviously, that I cannot see how it can be a simple misunderstanding. I want it stopped. DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not saying it justifies an interaction ban. But [24] "For some reason that I'm not aware, he is against alternative forms of names in any article about royals which I work on, but not on any other. Is that a huge coincidence" seems a little unfair when the user has stated that their desire is the removal of anglicised names when they (in their opinion) the anglicised version is rarely used in RSS but the non-anglicised version is. Unless there is some evidence DrKiernan is targetting Lecen's articles rather then trying to remove the names they feel don't appear in RSS.

However it looks like Lecen has tried to improve by removing references to DrKiernan even if that's who he/she is referring to. From what I can tell, they haven't even linked to the dispute in their latest questions. I don't know if we should stop someone asking opinions of other editors even if they're presenting an inaccurate summation of a users view when they didn't link to the user or otherwise provide info that is going to directly lead to who they are referring to.

However the best thing may be for Lecen to just remove all references to any user. E.g. "What do you think of the removal of translation of royals' names from the paratheses in the lead. This means that there would be no Anglicized form of the name of Wilhelm II, German Emperor in the lead as there is now."

P.S. This doesn't of course mean I'm agreeing with DrKiernan's POV, simply that I feel people need to be very careful if they attempt to summarise someone else's POV and therefore should avoid doing it unless really necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that DrKiernan forgot to notify Lecen of this thread: I've done that now. Am I right in saying that the problem here is not so much misrepresentation as canvassing? It seems as though the problem is that Lecen is dropping targetted "please help me out in this discussion" comments on sympathetic editors rather than the specific language used 9although non-neutral language is indeed a hallmark of canvassing). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan did notify him here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Nil Einne's quote remind you of "What do you think of the Republican proposal to slash Medicare? This means there would be no protections for seniors." I agree canvassing is a concern here. By way of disclosure, I've worked with Dr Kiernan for several years and he sponsored my RFA. But I wish that two distinguished FA writers would find some way to get along ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have warned Lecen about WP:CANVASS (which he disagrees with on my talkpage). I think DrKiernan's major complaint is that Lecen is misrepresenting things that he says when subject canvassing is taking place ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah canvassing is a concern. I meant to say "If there isn't any canvassing I don't know if we should stop...." or something of that sort. 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Edit:Although one of the confusing things to me is what Lecen is trying to do anyway. An RFC was suggested by someone else but unless I missed it, hasn't started yet so I'm not sure what they hope to do by asking various people. At least in the later cases, they don't seem to be linking to any dispute but just giving a random example. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was aware of this topic since the beginning. Dr Kiernan did warn me about it. I opted to ignore it since I knew beforehand its outcome. It was one sided before, it will be one sided now.

For the editors who aren't aware of what's going on, the problem is "simple" (no, it's not, it has a lot more, but I won't mention any of it): whether the name of a royal should be followed by a translation of his/her name in parantheses. That's the case in every single article on Western royals: from Nicholas II of Russia to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Having said that, I'll explain what I did (although I hardly believe it will matter). Since the discussion was going nowhere in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies' article, I went to Wilhelm II, German Emperor and invited three editors to share their thoughts. Why this article? Because the name of the subject is in German. not English, as Teresa Cristina is in Portuguese, not English. Both have the anglicized forms of their names in parentheses, at the very beginning of the lead. I don't know any of the three editors (LightSpectra, Rjensen and Berean Hunter) to whom I sent invitations.

I also invited Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, whom I do know, although we are not friends and we never worked together on any article before (unlike Astynax, for example). I called him because he is a well know editor who always contributed to articles on royals.

If you regard that as canvass, that I was trying to "cheat" on the debate. Fine. I believe it's useless to argue against. Chris Cunningham said that "seems as though the problem is that Lecen is dropping targetted 'please help me out in this discussion' comments on sympathetic editors". Well, it would be good if you had asked or waited for my opinion before judging me.

Nonetheless, that's not the point. DrKiernan will not rest until he gets me banned or something similar. I'm tired of having him looking at my contributions log checking with whom I talk and what I do. --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You and Dr Kiernan both work with articles about royalty. That is not a big pond.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Kind of weird to see DrKiernan's friends in here clearly against me. As I said: "one sided". Feels like I'm facing a firing squad. Who's next? --Lecen (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've disclosed my interest, which I did not have to do. Having done so, I can freely engage in discussion, knowing that other editors will give my disclosed COI appropriate weight. Were I less honest, I would not have bothered, and just relied on your spamming half of FAC as evidence that you just don't "get" the canvassing restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You say "discussion was going nowhere in Teresa Cristina" but we already have 10 points of agreement; see Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Names. I see no reason to abandon that discussion now. That is why I do not want an interaction ban, as agreement through interaction is still possible. I want you to understand that your opinion of me and my views is misplaced. DrKiernan (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)It seems to me part of your problem is "the problem is "simple" (no, it's not, it has a lot more, but I won't mention any of it): whether the name of a royal should be followed by a translation of his/her name in parantheses". DrKiernan has said more then once that they are nor arguing for the complete removal of any 'translations' but a removal when those translations are barely used in RS. As long as you continue to present this a dichotomy between complete removal and complete inclusion the debate is going no where. And I can see why people are sympathetic to DrKiernan regardless of whether they agree with his/her POV and whether he/she has even presented a compelling argument for how the inclusion/exclusion will be determined.

This is further demonstrated by your trying to move the discussion to 'Wilhelm II, German Emperor'. Has DrKiernan even suggested the 'translation' should be remove there? Or is Wilhelm II one example where the 'translation' is widely used in RS and even DrKiernan agrees so there is no suggestion of it being remove by anyone?

Finally, as I said above, while it's good you've stopping naming DrKiernan, since it's obvious to anyone familiar with the dispute who you're referring to it would be better if stop referring to any editor at all when you have the potential to present a misleading view of what they want. If you would agree to that I hope we can end that part of the discussion so the only issue of relevence to ANI would be the canvassing.

BTW while I can't speak for other editors, I've never interacted with DrKiernan or you before now AFAIK.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. I only invited to review my newly FAC nominated article reliable editors who reviewed my articles before. SandyGeorgia told me once that FAC's nominators were supposed to find their own reviewers. I didn't sent invitations randomly. I really don't like this feeling of being followed wherever I go. Why keep looking at my contribution log? --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lord, I do not look at your contributions log. I'm an administrator; this is a noticeboard for administrators. I've had this watchlisted from the time my RFA passed in December 2008. Lecen, everything is not always about you. I'm just saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, would you agree to a voluntary restriction on mentioning the other editor or their opinions at pages which the other one has not visited? DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Declared good-hand-bad-hand account

North8000 (talk · contribs) appears to be operating a good-hand-bad-hand scheme with TheParasite (talk · contribs). The latter's userpage states, "Most of the time I am North8000 who tries to contribute and be productive. But I have a split personality [...] When this personality comes out, I just want to pick at, delete, criticize and tag other people's work rather than doing anything useful [...] I am so expert at quoting and misusing Wikipedia policies [...] If you anger me I will go after you and win."

While this sort of thing could potentially be humourous, it doesn't seem to be so in this case. A recent example of pointless disruption took place here: [25] [26] – which I only realised was a 'joke' by accidentally clicking on the link to one of the userpages.

The editor has declined my request that they voluntarily stop this disruptive editing so I am reluctantly bringing this here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, one of the accounts should be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. If TreasuryTag hadn't stumbled upon the person's userpage and brought it to the attention of the disucssion's participants, it would have appeared (and did appear to me) that they were two seperate accounts joining in a discussion. This clearly violates WP:ILLEGIT. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Another instance of using both accounts in the same discussion without indicating they are the same person: [27] and [28]. This and the above incident are the only times the second account has edited outside of its own userspace. The only purpose of this account seems to be to add support for the other account's comments. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true./ I will prepare a thorough answer in the next few minutes. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TheParasite has only had 2 brief edits (outside it's talk page) in it's history, and both of them essentially a brief disagreement with me, and both obviously there only to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me. I prominently declared this in both directions. So it is not disruptive per that definition, nor agreeing with me. So, all of the above accusations of going against policy or guidelines are not correct.

But I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that. I'm leaving now for about 6 hours and won't be able to participate or do anything further until then.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stop with the split-personality. It's a pity that you couldn't have so agreed about half an hour ago when I asked you to on your talkpage, though. Also, if the only purpose of the account was "to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops..." etc. then that is obviously disruptive because it serves no valid purpose related to building an encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation[29] GB fan (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident where I provided a profuse and detailed explanation. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:GHBH and it is silent on the issue of whether it is only talking about "undeclared" bad hand accounts (which would make it a "sock puppet") or both "declared" and "undeclared" bad hand accounts. However, I would ask North8000 to say how he thinks that creating a "mirror universe doppelganger account" contributes to building the encyclopedia. I would also ask him to review WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the dangers of picking an alternate account with a vastly different name from your main one; at least I had the sense to make the signature of mine really obvious. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In my case I would think that Ron Ritzsock is obvious enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although it also isn't a bad-hand account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other alternate accounts that have been used by this editor?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A WP:SPI may be in order. Phearson (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not for fishing --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am sure that there it was not the intention of North8000 to be deceitful, and I for one accept his explanation that the secondary account was duly disclosed on its userpage. However, to a participant in the village pump discussion in question, it would not be immediately apparent that the sock is the same editor as North. It would be preferable if he stopped editing from the secondary account, or at least did not use it at all to participate in community or content discussion. I do not agree that an SPI is warranted here, because this seems more like a misguided than a deceitful use of a secondary account; but I do think that administrative action would be necessary if North does not voluntarily abstain from using the account. AGK [•] 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your assessment of my intentions is very accurate. Recapping my earlier note, I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that.

I think that persons throwing around inuendos, making clearly erroneous accusations without/ before carefully reading the guideline, mis-characterizing it as a bad hand account, and leaving out key information is the worst thing happening here. When I accidentally edited as both North9000 and Goober9000, (ONCE, and about 8 months ago) I immediately took ownership (I think I also then double signed the edit) and explained the situation right there by the edits. I also left a detailed explanation of the situation and how the error occurred at the top of the Goober9000 page for 5 months after that, (check the history) and after that left a briefer note which remains there. And then 8 months later somebody left all of that out and just wrote "Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation".

Further, the message at TheParasite is to call attention to a very serious problem in Wikipedia, and I feel that the manner chosen to do it at the TheParasite page is an effective if unusual way to do it. There are very destructive people like the TheParasite roaming Wikipedia. The two times that TheParasite has ever edited outside of their talk page is when this problem was germane to the discussion. North9000 was arguing for things which would help solve the problem, and then TheParasite briefly chimed in opposing me, in essence saying that they wanted to keep the status quo. And as if the name alone "TheParasite" wasn't a dead giveaway. With an inexplicable and unexplained goofy comment like TheParasite made, and a name like that I think it was very clear to most that I obviously wanted people to go to TheParasite's page, but somehow that also got "missed" and left out in the above.

And finally, the "shouting from the rooftops" was explicitly "where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me"; referring to how prominently I indicated on both user pages that both accounts are me. Then TT chopped off the operative "that it's me", then "forgot" this and made the comment that the shouting from the rooftops was "disruptive". Disclosure of the alternate account was certainly not disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But having an alternate account designed to imitate the behaviour of a destructive editor in order to make a point seems to be a classic WP:POINT violation, so I for one welcome your pledge to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 08:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wp:point says to not do disruptive behavior to make a point, and then goes on to give examples, all of them involving editing articles to illustrate the damage that can be done by the issue in question. It does not say that "reverse psychology" is disruptive behavior, it is pointing out not to do disruptive behavior in reverse psychology type situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline plainly covers the creation of an alternative account simply to act like an asshole. Whether or not it is specifically mentioned on the list of examples is irrelevant. Assuming that you understand that, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks, which, unlike my conduct, IS a violation. And my point was not that it wasn't listed in the examples, my point was that the behavior has to be disruptive on it's own right in order to forbidden by wp:point, and the examples give a general idea of the nature and severity of behavior which would be considered that, and mine (two brief comments on TALK pages) was not even in the ballpark on either of those metrics, much less both of them. As indicated, I wanted to retire that alternate account anyway and have done so. If there are no further incorrect accusations or insinuations of mis-behavior, then we're done here. If there are, please be specific and lets review it here. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that you may be the one in the wrong here? Our "incorrect" accusations that you created an alternate account solely in order to act like a "destructive editor" (your words) clearly have to conclude that your actions were disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You must understand and I take behaving properly and nicely very seriously. And that includes reading the behavior-related rules precisely and complying with them. I see nothing anywhere that defines the types of things that I did as disruptive. Perhaps you feel it is disruptive even without that. Perhaps we could agree to disagree on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Wikipedia has a relatively high percentage of users with difficulties judging social interactions and getting jokes. I believe we have a great deal of tolerance here for them, but making innocuous behaviour illegal just to make it easier for such users is not a good idea. Just like we are not removing all the markup in articles to make it easier for screenreader users. Hans Adler 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• It is an old example, and this editor and I have a history, but this archived talk section off the editor's main talk lists a couple of cases where I suspected meat or socking (especially the instance noted here). Sometimes he takes personally things not meant to be personal (like this AfD which pretty much started our history) or questions the pshycological state of other editors, but can at other times be a decent enough editor. Novaseminary (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whole new topic (if we want to get into it) but I can provide extensive evidence bearing out anything that I have ever said about this editor. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000, Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? -- Atama頭 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Condensing the full disclosures and declarations on my account pages and above, North8000 is my main account, Goober9000 (who has only made one edit outside its user space, by accident, fully explained, and triply taken ownership of) I keep for logging in at insecure locations, and TheParasite (who has only made two edits outside of it's user space) I'd guess you'd call humerous; I was planning to retire it to simplify things and now have done so. So, all of my alternate accounts put together have made 3 brief edits outside of their user pages, total words for those edits = about 1/100th of the above discussion, and now they are down to just Goober9000. . North8000 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(This is just a copy-paste of the question asked by Atama (talk · contribs) but since you didn't answer it, I assume you didn't see it.) Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He replied that he considered TheParasite a humor account, and used Goober9000 for public logins; both of those are listed as acceptable uses. Regardless, he's said he intends to retire the TheParasite account, so assuming he does, are there any outstanding issues to consider? 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully answered the question, I don't know why it was repeated. Also as indicated above a couple times, I already retired TheParasite. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, though the "humor" usage is a dodgy one; I know that we allow some accounts for humor but it's on a case-by-case basis, for example using a sockpuppet to insert humorous misinformation to BLP articles would count as "humor" but I'd block someone for that as soon as I saw it. Either way, though, the disruption doesn't seem to have been that extreme and TheParasite is being retired so that's not a concern for me. Goober9000 is clearly linked to North8000 and has a legitimate use so that's not a concern either. If those are the only alternate accounts then I think North8000 isn't doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK. -- Atama頭 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename through protection

For the June 4–16 RfC closed by Jehochman, see Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content.

I recently renamed Campaign for "santorum" neologism shortly after Jehochman (talk · contribs) had renamed it to Santorum Google problem and move-protected it as part of closing a RFC on the article. He stated that he considered it an interim move, and that discussion on a final title should continue. I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title. I reviewed the then-day-old discussion on the renaming issue, found that there was one title that appeared to me to have significantly more support than the other proposals, moved the article to the title above, and posted to the talk page indicating that my rename was also an interim title, and that discussion should continue. Since then, I have been urged to self-revert, but I have refused, feeling that this would be acting against consensus.

I have no interest in criticizing other people's actions at this point. What I am asking for is an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and see if there is enough support for another interim move, either back to Jehochman's original rename or onward to another title, and if so, to perform that move. I would also like people to stop pestering me to self-revert, and attempt to influence consensus for their preferred title at the appropriate venues, which do not include my talkpage.

Thank you. I haven't notified anybody because I'm asking for an evaluation of the discussion, not any editor's actions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do think it was partly premature to rename it (since there wasn't a clear idea what to name it to), and also I think it was premature to again rename it. I think the one thing all the editors can agree on with that article is that there is almost no agreement on what the name should be. The status quo gets a big nod, but the BLP issues were getting a big round of support also. Any name with Google in it is problematic, especially with BLP or defamation associated with it. The problem is that any super accurate title becomes a little ungainly. "Dan Savage Campaign to Start a Crude or Sexual Neologism about Senator Rick Santorum" is just too long. So I think the best you can do right now is get close until someone very crafty comes up with a better title, or just give it an ungainly title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, I see consensus to revert Sarek's move through protection; an act which spawned objections from a large number of editors, even from those who supported the actual name that Sarek chose: here and here. There was no consensus for Sareks move, it was a unilateral move apparently based on Sarek's own opinion - there was no time given for a true consensus to emerge. This move merely undermines an RFC closure, a fellow admin, page move protection, and the progress of the discussion. I ask that an uninvolved admin reverse Sarek's move back to what the RFC closer Jehochman did. Dreadstar ☥ 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why would we "forget" page-move protection when I pointed it out in my original post?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Jehochman's Santorum Google problem was a good stop-gap solution. Renaming the article so soon after his RfC closure, through move protection, was not helpful in my view. I'd rather we go back to his title. Sorry, I am sure you did it with the best intentions, but what the article needed at that point was a period of calm reflection. (Personally, when Jehochman closed the RfC, I breathed a sigh of relief and thought I could spend a day or two not thinking about the article. Next thing I knew the name had changed again.) --JN466 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 There was never going to be consensus on the name of this page, the "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" about sums it up, the word is a neologism ("is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"), SarekOfVulcan made the call, a very tricky one, lets WP:AGF on behalf of all administrators who make such calls and move on to the actual article it's self. Personally, I see the article as a continuation of that campaign and would support the whole scale culling of the article but there are enough editors invested in this to drown out my voice. Mtking (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Can we please avoid discussing what the name of the article should be here? I was asking for someone to go _there_ and look, not for people to fork the discussion into yet another venue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Why not, do you Own that name? Worse than I originally thought... :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • What part of "Uninvolved admin please review the discussion I haven't participated in" equals "I own this article"? Please, enlighten me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Be nice, both of you. I think Sarek was simply saying that he'd prefer this discussion take place at the article, where it can have a stronger impact. -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was not making my point, let me put it another way, ask 5 administrators and you are likely to get 4.5 different answers on this one, you made the call and whoever made the call at least 20% of editors on the page would be unhappy with it. Mtking (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sarek, just self-revert already and let another admin handle the next page move if and when there's clear consensus for one. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment. Sarek himself summed up the problem in his post above: "I felt that this was a bad title choice ..." Therefore he moved it. He had no right to edit through the protection Jehochman added just because he personally felt the new title was a bad choice. The RfC had been open for nearly 14 days. Jehochman's closure was a compromise and should have been respected, at least in the short term. If Sarek wanted to move it, he should have started a formal requested-move discussion, with notification and seven days for comments, so that people had a chance to express their opinion. As things stand, he edited through protection to impose his own preference, and he ought to self-revert. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please note the point in the sentence where Slim stopped selectively quoting me above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• The quote I selected sums up the problem. You wrote: "I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title." But there was also discussion on the page that indicated people were supportive of Jehochman's title as a compromise. You had your own opinion and therefore you noticed only the posts that confirmed your opinion.

  What is required in a case like this is handling by admins who have no opinion, or no strong one. We had that in Jehochman, so there was no need for a second admin to step in. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek should self-revert to avoid any further drama and allow proper discussion. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there was really no consensus for the first rename either -- the one to "Santorum's Google Problem". Plus it potentially makes it appear that Google is personally intentionally inflicting damage on Santorum, which may or may not be true, but is not supported by any Reliable Sources we have. The Sarek title is still not perfect but its less bad than the other. If anything related to reverts should happen, it should be all the way back to the status quo title. Otherwise leave it at Sarek's until people can actually come up with a new title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There was broad consensus on both sides of the merge debate that the old title reflected neither the article content, nor the weight of the sources, nor BLP policy. Jehochman read that correctly. As for your concern about Google, terms like "Google problem" or "Google bomb" are what this sort of thing is called; these terms don't imply any culpability on the part of Google, they just indicate that someone has manipulated their search results. --JN466 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is fiction. The RfC proposed, in effect, to delete the article (via merging without preservation of a redirect). That proposal failed. Jehochman renamed the article (an "interim" solution) despite the fact that this was not part of the RfC. That name has no more support than Sarek's -- or, rather, demonstrably less support than Sarek's. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. Renaming was indeed part of the RfC. See the link at the top of this section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite there being an RfC, there were other discussions on the page at the same time for other ideas because the RfC was simply too limited. I agree with Nomoskedasticity that neither rename really has consensus, although I like that it isn't named what it was, if a non-Admin had done this, it wouldn't have been allowed to stay. THAT SAID... I think the new name will ultimately prove to be less of a headache than the status quo name was. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page, during and after the RfC, has for days now focused on what to rename the article to, not whether to rename it from the original title it had when the RfC started. Editors from both sides of the merge debate have been putting a lot of good-faith effort into finding a more appropriate name, for more than a week. Macwhiz did an analysis towards the end of the RfC showing that the point there was most underlying agreement about was a rename. --JN466 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Whereas Jehochman's move was clearly based on a careful reading of the RfC and its ensuing massive discussion, and supported by the majority of those involved in the RfC and its discussion, Sarek's was a rash act based on his preference and a superficial assessment of a day's discussion among a few not happy with Jehochman's closing move. Would someone please do something? Until now, this had been a model of thoughtful discussion and consensus-building. Why should we bother with that very hard process if this kind of unilateral act is allowed to stand? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Let me first say A) I was happy with the RfC close and B) I prefer Sarek's proposed name change to the one from the RfC. That said, I don't think the community had reached a consensus on the name post-RfC (and in fact the RfC closer more-or-less pulled it out of the hat too). I'd suggest Sarek revert and we wait the week or three it will take at the article to find a name. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Hobit. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• First, what Sarek did was like yelling in a church full of little old ladies. But seriously, what's wrong with multiple renames? And if the debate died down (as noted here), it can only mean that this name is near to consensus, or near enough that people don't really care. So... what's the problem? Everyone stop fluttering your fans and saying "Oh my... Oh my WORD" and tell me what is really wrong here besides a breach of underlying assumptions of decorum. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sarek, would you consider it fair for me to characterize this thread as you asking for another administrator to come along and ratify what you did? In that regard, it strikes me as uncomfortably similar to your reconfirmation RfA, where there was some appearance that you wanted the community to tell you that everything you did was OK and you should keep on doing it, an appearance that seems heightened here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I would not consider it fair. I'm asking for the consensus to be re-evaluated at this time by an un-involved admin. If they move it to a different (or the original) interim title, that's fine: if they leave it where it is, that's fine too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• ... but think of the redirects .... errr, ummm ... I mean children. — Ched :  ?  17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png

I've just semi-protected this file against creation (semi-salted?) as it seems to be a popular page for new accounts to create. JohnCD, January and I have each deleted what appear to be test edits there.

What appears (to me) to be happening is that when new accounts reach a page like this, they take the "Click on one of the links in the list on the left hand side ... Then, click on 'Edit'" instructions a little too literally, and click on the image at the top left and edit it.

If there's a better way to handle this than semi-protecting this (e.g. changing the link target when someone clicks the image), I'm certainly open to unprotecting it. And if anyone thinks my theory is wrong and something else is going on, feel free to offer thoughts on that as well. 28bytes (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That puzzled me, but I think your explanation is probably right and semi-protection is a good solution. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to make the images not link to anything, but I forget how. I do know how to change the link target, though: just put link=wherever as the last parameter in the image template.—Soap— 20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we could change the [[File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png]] to [[File:Account Creation - Progress bar - Step 3.png|link=]] to achieve that, but we'd need to change it in all these MediaWiki files. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's permissible to stop a CC-BY license from linking because it prevents the author being attributed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave an edit notice on that page letting new users know they're attempting to edit an image description page, and they should probably head back and work on an article instead? This feels like it would be helpful. elektrikSHOOS 21:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could do the attribution in a different way, such as alt= parameter for Frank Schulenburg and the license, or perhaps we could create a public domain version of the image that does not need any link or attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome edit warring

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an indefinite block on Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) for persistent edit warring (this time on Doctor Fate). He has already been blocked 4 times for edit warring and socking/block evasion; the last block (which I made and mistakenly reduced from indef to 1 week, when he evaded the block about halfway through) has left me way too frustrated with this user to deal (from an admin's standpoint) with a clear mind. This user does not get it and will not get it, and it is bloody obvious that he will continue to persist with edit warring. –MuZemike 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, restoring the indefinite block would be correct. User:Brian Boru is awesome contributes to comics articles but he is incapable of dealing with conflict except by reverting others. 25 of his last 50 edits were reverts. He almost never engages in discussion. His first block was in 2008 and there has apparently been no progress in his willingness to negotiate since then. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 3RR report at the edit warring noticeboard concerning his edits at Venom (Marvel Comics character). - SudoGhost™ 19:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was talking to MuZemike about how we would give the editor one more shot through my final warning; however, Brian did not seem to take heed. Blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on article rescue

Since Avanu (talk · contribs) is not showing that he can differentiate between useful and unhelpful contributions on the subject of Article Rescue, I propose that he be topic banned on the subject for one year. For example, he added a section to Template talk:Rescue last night about an article that had been "rescued" without the use of the tag, as an indication that the tag wasn't required. Since most of his contributions on the subject seem to hover around that level of logic, I think he needs to stay away from the topic altogether.

• Support as proposer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because if we started topic-banning editors just because they happen to make a few bad/controversial edits, based on a "low level of logic," around a particular area, then we would quite likely need to exclude every single IP editor from topics to do with the US government, and from sci-fi, and from cartoon shows. We'd lose quite a lot of editors. Topic-bans, especially for extended periods of time, should only be used on the most compelling and serious cases, and I'm really not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is a lot of discussion and engagement on the talkpage, among other things. This is clearly a good-faith contributor; perhaps slightly misguided, but really not at the level of desperate incompetence which should be the domain of the topic-ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Further observation: Avanu's engagement on the talkpage seems to be pretty mature in comparison to some [30] I might add! ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poem was clever, and friendly. However, if you don't think so, it would appear that an interaction ban is probably the right thing because if that's all it takes to get sand in your shorts, and you can't help but turn everything SoV does into something worth whining about... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Interaction ban" you say? Funny suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Let me get this straight. You're proposing that an editor be topic banned because he made a talk page post that doesn't run afoul of any policies or guidelines, but, in your estimation shows a "low level of logic?" Can you please either provide the diffs of disruptive or otherwise problematic editing in this area that would show the need for a topic ban or withdraw your proposal? Right now the proposal looks awefully spurious, and given your history with Avanu perhaps it looks even worse. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by Avanu - Sarek, if you think I was saying the Rescue tag *isn't* required, then you completely missed the point of what I posted. The thing that myself and other editors have all been trying to get the 4 or so of you to recognize is that we are in favor of Article Rescue, *but* we're not in favor of drive-by tagging. For some reason Sarek, DreamFocus, and a few others feel incredibly threatened by anyone suggesting that the Rescue tag follow its own guidelines. The story I posted last night was an amazing example of an editor doing things right and being about more than just talk. Sarek, I'm not sure if you read any of it or just simply did a knee-jerk reaction, but frankly I was really impressed by the story of how that Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) article was rescued.

Note: I have a feeling that if people look deeper into this Sarek, they're only going to see what we've all been seeing in your conduct and others' conduct, but you brought it here, so, ok. -- Avanu (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Note: I'm posting the diff to my very first discussion on the Rescue Tag Talk page. I notified people that I was making a WP:bold suggestion for change, and the first person to reply to my post was Sarek, where he immediately phrased it in terms of WP:ownership. diff Essentially this has been what the discussion has been about. 2 or 3 Article Rescue Squadron editors who express a strong strong ownership of this template, versus several others who are trying to get them to see that their cause would be much better supported if they weren't being so touchy about following policy and the tag's own guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistorical note: The debate started a bit earlier than that.

• improper tag in light of Articles for Deletion discussion. If I can't simply merge it to end the debate, why should someone else 'flag for rescue'?
• again, adding a POV tag (rescue) in the article with a strong demand to leave the tag in place while an AfD is ongoing runs counter to the idea of CONSENSUS for AfD, until AfD is settled, leave out
• Violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS, WP:CANVAS, WP:PS, and possibly more. Improve the article, await consensus, do not re-add tag
• Undid revision 426293719 by Heironymous Rowe (talk) - vandalism and violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS
• ...there is an ongoing deletion discussion. No consensus has been reached, and during this an editor decided to add the 'rescue' tag, which implies the article will be improved, which skews the deletion discussion. True improvements to the article are needed, not WP:CRYSTAL promises, so this seems like a way for people to WP:GAME the AfD rather than actually improving the article and letting AfD run its course.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - As an uninvolved editor, I read the current Template talk:Rescue. While, at first read, I believe Sarek's perspective on the issues raised there is the correct one, the issue raised here seems more like a content dispute. I think both parties are operating in good faith, but the tension on the talk page is a bit too high. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk)

• We have never been in the business of attempting to silence editors who voice strong opinions about our processes, so far as I know. It's not exactly an uncommon opinion that ARS is far from a net positive in its current form, and editors who are part of ARS should accept that the onus is on them to either reform the project to be more universally accepted as productive or to convince its detractors that it's fine as it is. The diffs provided certainly don't warrant a topic ban on the entire process of "article rescue" (a phrase which had never been controversial until ARS started up, by the way). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the justification for a topic ban. I do see an editor who is being tenacious and borderline disruptive. I'd strongly recommend that Avanu take a break from ARS for a while. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hobit, I, and other editors, have asked for minor and reasonable compromise on this tag. In the course of this debate, the status quo editors have continually expressed ownership of this template and have said this issue comes up "every six months or so" (since 2007). Rather than have this issue drag on for yet another 4 years, I'd like to get a reasonable compromise established so we can put this issue to bed once and for all. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You just declared an intention to argue against consensus for the next 4 years?????? I think you just made my case for me. Thanks for the help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not how I read what Avanu said. Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Yes, I get that. I'd say another way to say it is "this WikiProject won't do things the way I want them to and I'm going to stick at it until I get what I want". I'm not saying you are wrong (I honestly think most of what you have proposed is reasonable, but so is the current tag--I view either as acceptable), I'm saying you need to let it go. There is no consensus for your view and pounding on it isn't going to change things, nor frankly should it. One should not reward people for coming back again and again with the same point. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, what we have seen is a perennial issue and a set of editors who have been running off those who ask for compromise. My goal is to seek a lasting consensus, not just have 3 or so editors continually driving away alternative viewpoints. -- Avanu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But we don't tend to ask other groups to do do things the way outsiders to that group want them done unless there is consensus there is a wider problem. It's clear the members of the group prefer the template as it is. And it's also clear that there is no consensus that the template is a problem as it is. Unless a wider consensus of a problem gets established (perhaps via an RfC?) just arguing with the same editors over and over again isn't going to change anything. I imagine you know that. So it becomes unclear why you keep beating the same drum. As I said, you are being tenacious and borderline disruptive. You are doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. If we're going to topic ban editors from Article Rescue for having a "low level of logic", that's going to be quite a cull. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For real. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is really the most informative and erudite opinion expressed in this entire section. Plus I laughed :) -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I laughed, too! Actually quite refreshing to find such a gem in this 'house'. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support LOL — Ched :  ?  21:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC).. just so there's no misunderstanding: the support for Black Kite's "LOL" is an oppose of the "ban". — Ched :  ?  22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- We only impose sanctions on editors who are being disruptive. Strongly advocating that the ARS use their tag responsibly is far from that. This seems to me to be a case of "I don't agree with Avanu! Silence him!" Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For a number of reasons, the largest of which is I'm not really sure Avanu is that far out of the mainstream in his thinking on ARS. -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Please take this in context. Avanu will not stop bringing up the same argument time and again, and even now is trying to start over and do it yet again. Think of this is any other wikiproject. If someone who never contributed to any articles the project was involved in, spent months filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations, wouldn't you consider that disruptive? Dream Focus 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ..."filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations" - pretty good description of your own user page and talk page, no? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's his personal page, of course. Here Avanu is like the preacher on the public street corner all day telling us we're all going to hell. A few times is sufficient to inform us of our sinner status.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to hell. Nor do I think you are going to Miami. What I do think is that *very* minor adjustments can satisfy all parties, but frankly there have been a very small group of 3 or so editors who just won't bend even the smallest amount with regard to addressing misuse of this tag. I put in a proposal that allowed people to remove the tag after 24 hours if people hadn't followed its own guidelines. This was just flatly rejected. Despite knowing it was being used improperly, the minority of faithful ever-present defenders can't allow anything about this tag to change. I've provided many different formats for proposals to find a compromise here and we've had old editors come out with stories of their attempts to work out a compromise on this, all the way back to 2007. Yet the same very small group of editors tenaciously grip the reigns on this tag. I'd like to see this perennial issue get settled, and although it might seem pushy, I'd just like to see this finally stop. And that isn't going to happen by running people off every few months. I'm new to this really, but the same issue has cropped up for years, and I believe with a VERY minor degree of compromise, we can reach a solution here. -- Avanu (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on our discussion today on the rescue template talk page, its pretty clear your objections are form over substance. When I said awhile back that an editor will pop in at ARS from time to time since 2007 seeking changes, my point was that each said editor crusaded essentially alone and got no consensus for a change. This is no different when people come to the village pump or AfD and say "hey let's suspend AfD" "AfD has been a problem for years, and let's call it Articles for Discussion" not "deletion." These proposals also never gain traction, they just come up from time to time when someone new to the situation is not familiar with what came before (all normal Eternal September stuff). You continue to insist that change *must* occur, but you haven't proven a serious problem to those participating in the discussions. So we are getting weary.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as an involved party. The proposer (User:SarekOfVulcan) and User:Dream Focus have been involved in a content dispute with User:Avanu (and myself). The latter named editor has not covered him- or herself with glory (making poor choices related to boldness, personal comment and hasty reply), but I tend to agree with User:Avanu on the merits. Avanu raises a real issue, that recurring Rescue tag abuse tends to color the ARS as a canvassing club. Template usage instructions should be improved to dissuade abusers. Avanu and other editors who've approached the ARS about such improvement in talkspace and in template talk have been discouraged, derailed, and gamed. User:Dream Focus has been particularly unhelpful and dismissive. If ARS members can take responsibility for maintaining a formal part of the deletion process, then they can respond reasonably when drive-by tagging abuse is pointed out again and again. BusterD (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - the debate playing out right now with regard to the Gery Chico article epitomizes the problem here. Compare with Silk Road (anonymous marketplace) and Islamic Center and Mosque of Grand Rapids, discussions on the same page. -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. While we agree with Avanu, everything's hunky-dory -- as soon as we start disagreeing, the WP:CABAL is being disruptive. Hence the topic ban proposal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, that's bollocks, and not really worthy of a respected admin. Meanwhile, of course, a much easier way of sorting out these problems would be with the magic letters "MFD". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Not sure how the WP:CABAL comment applies here. I just see a very small set of people claiming they can WP:OWN a template and disregard its rules. Wikipedia does have a WP:CANVAS guideline and by willingly disregarding these simple rules, they're basically just violating that. As I've said, very minor changes can fix this and as we see at the Gery Chico discussion on this tag's Talk page, compromise seems to simply not be a part of these editors' vocabulary. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Black Kite, while an MFD would eliminate the problem (by eliminating the tag), I think that would be overkill. I can see a legitimate use for this tag, but if you ask people to follow the Usage section of the tag's rules, you get DreamFocus, Colonel Warden, or Sarek on your case defending its misuse. Milowent seems to follow suit as well, but seems more willing to have a reasonable debate on the merits of the issues. The first three really just seem completely set on no changes at all, and seem to regard those perennial requests for doing things correctly as a bothersome nuisance. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron would attract outside input. I'm not necessarily endorsing an RfC, as things have changed since WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination) (May 2009). Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have never known a use of the tag to be harmful by getting an article kept that should not be kept. There would be no such thing as excessive use if more people actually fixed articles in response to it. Every discussion about this tag has detracted from the main issue of getting more people to do careful and responsible work on articles -- whether on looking for information and improving them, or looking carefully for information and not being able to find any. Those two needs should be carried out simultaneously, because the hard part is looking for information, not arguing at AfD. If anyone want to really waste time on this, do an MfD. Every minute spent there is a minute not spent improving the content, which will not be helped or hurt much by anything about the tag--it's the attitudes behind using it or not wanting people to use it which are the problem. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In line with the suggestion above by Flatscan, I have started an RfC on the Usage of the Rescue Tag at Template talk:Rescue#RfC: Review of Rescue Tag Usage. -- Avanu (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted below by User:Dream Focus, User:Avanu has twice reinserted material under discussion in project space, then requested comment (in bold above). Avanu discredits the issues under discussion by such disruptive and gaming behavior. I still oppose a topic ban, but this editwarring is disruptive enough to warrant a block. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Avanu has once again tried to add in a bit others have objected to on multiple occasions, both in reverting him, and also the lengthy continuously discussions on the talk page. This editor is obsessed with adding in a bit, and will not stop trying to do so without forming consensus first. See the current discussion [31] The main discussion is at Template_talk:Rescue and has been going on for so long with this same person, that all three archive pages contain it. The template page has been protected previously to stop him from edit warring on it. This does seem rather disruptive and he clearly has no intention of stopping. Dream Focus 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much any time DreamFocus weighs in on this subject/template, it is with a very partisan tone and phrased in fairly absolute terms. Per the suggestion from this AN/I, we now have a RfC going, which seems to have attracted outside input and new editors. Unfortunately the typical approach of several of the partisans in this debate has been to attack the editor, rather than make substantive debate or suggestions. I'm thankful for some of them who have been willing to discuss, but particularly DreamFocus and Colonel Warden seem just interested in attacking me personally and figuring out any way to simply end debate. I myself am growing tired of the debate, and I wish that we could have initially had more reasonable voices. PabloX seems to have a willingness for reasonable debate, and Jclemens is also doing so. These two editors have expressed an opposing viewpoint to me, but have at least been willing to debate the issues and not the editor. When a tiny group thinks its acceptable to belittle the opposition, that's what tends to make me want to continue instead of giving up. When I get real and thoughtful discussion, I don't mind admitting I'm mistaken, but partisan us-versus-them mentality is neither polite nor right. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You attack others, and claim they are attacking you. This discussion here is about you and your actions. If you want to make a change, write it out, as I have said repeatedly, and see if anyone supports it. If five people have reverted you, and additional people have objected to your changes on the talk page, then you need to accept consensus and stop trying to make that same change time and again. And you tried bringing in outside views earlier when people didn't see it your way. That is what real canvassing is, not someone tagging an article to ask for help in finding sources to save it. Dream Focus 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you the impression that ANI threads have to focus solely on the actions of one editor. Avanu's whole point here is that it's the same small group of editors who keep reverting him, out of what looks to be a sort of siege mentality (which is never good on WikiProjects, even pseudo-cleanup ones like ARS). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL per Black Kite, and trout Sarek who should know better than to start a discussion this ridiculous. —SW— ^confabulate 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Permanent end to defunct Northern Ireland flag status

not an ANI issue. Take it back to whatever swamp of pure tedium this normally gets fought over in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In reference to the ongoing request for consensus: Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Request for consensus - flag This matter is rather embarrassing, in that it has been allowed to be ongoing with no such closure. The flag in question has been defunct from the early 1970's and has continuing strong resentment and divisiveness due to its polarised sectarian background. The constant excuses used aren't valid- "because the flag is used by sporting bodies", should never be used as a sole reason for using it on most N.Ireland related Wikipedia bio articles, info-boxes and the like, to do so lowers the factual nature that the site would be trying to portray, in particular to its proper governing admin editing functions. I'm raising this elsewhere to gain prominence to the issue and in particular the fact that with the time stamps, it shows that the discussion for consensus hasn't went anywhere and deserves attention from all angles to put the issue to bed. Eireabu (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Is there some disruptive editing going on? If not, this is a content dispute, not an incident. You'll probably want to pursue some kind of dispute resolution, such as a request for comment or formal mediation. Larry V (talk | email) 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Northern Ireland Flag - Northern Ireland Travel - seems quite simple. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) FYI I have already started a RFC here Should Darts articles use the Ulster Banner to represent players from Northern Ireland? Bjmullan (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

False and misleading

Resolved

 – We have no power over Spanish Wikipedia - and Jaimesaid needs to be thankful we don't. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulse and misleading accusations from NEREO, CHUCAO, Jcestepario are to much!.They act coordinated, probably the same person, or VandalBOT, Sneaky Vandalism,Template Vandalism, Harrassing. Leaded by NEREO without boundaries.They put violent notes under a copyrighted maps and in history as " Falsification" under the template and other discrediting notes in Wikipedia to my articles Jaime Said. They put "false data" and have taken all my work down. They threten me as I try to recover the work that NEREO and his team deleted. He has obtained for the second time to Blocked me for 3 month. He has spreaded in the spanish secctions Frutillar, Patagonia, Puerto Montt, Valdivia, Lago Llanquihue, Lago Ranco, Chiloe, Puerto Octay, Monte Verde all Chilean Territories of Patagonia, deleted all my work, changed to his point of view and construct HIS Argentinian view of Chilean Patagonia with a campain to discredit my work as Historian. Please VIEW HISTORY of the pages mentioned--190.96.40.109 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)--Jaimesaid (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This complaint was originally left at the vandalism noticeboard. I dropped a note at their talk page asking for some clarification. Larry V (talk | email) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nereo (talk · contribs) and Jcestepario (talk · contribs) have been notified. I can't find this "Chucao" fellow, though. Larry V (talk | email) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any editing to topics related to Patagonia by these accounts appear to have been a couple of years ago, certainly in the en-WP. If there are edits on other language wiki's then there is nothing that can be done here. Of note is that there appears to be no block history at en-WP relating to User:Jaimesaid, and I wonder if the references to "spanish secctions" (sic) refer to that project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Does there appear to be any history between Jaimesaid, Nereo, and this "chucao" user at es.wp? If so, that may explain quite a bit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be rather extensive interaction between these users on the Spanish Wikipedia.

• Usuario Discusión:Jaimesaid (signs his posts as "PATAGAU")
• Usuario Discusión:Nerêo
• Usuario Discusión:Jcestepario
• Usuario Discusión:CHUCAO

Jaimesaid has been blocked twice over there for disruptive editing—once on April 27 for two weeks, and again on June 15 for three months. Larry V (talk | email) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected this had something to do with es.wp. Marking resolved as we can't do anything (and it'd be a bullet in the foot if we could anyways). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's actually a pretty neat idea that (according to Google Translate) their ANI is 'Noticeboard for Librarians'? -- ۩ Mask 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(Take all this with a grain of salt; my Spanish is rusty.) They call their admins bibliotecarios ("librarians"). It looks like they used to call them administradores, but they voted to change it. There may have been confusion about whether administrador was a technical role (i.e., "syadmin"), or whether the term too strongly implied a hierarchy of editors. They decided bibliotecario more accurately described the role. Larry V (talk | email) 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Al-Andalusi in 'Asma' bint Marwan

The article is about a female poets who were executed by the order Muhammed (Muslims prophet) because she critisied Muhammed in one of her poets. Al-Andalusi has a very disruptive edits in this article trying to push traditional religious views and undermine academic and modern historian views and any view which is not in favor of traditional Islamic views.

If you look at his talkpage you can see a long history of his disruptive edits in Islam related articles. Here is some of his disruptive edits in 'Asma' bint Marwan article:

• Deleting sourced materials belongs to a wellknown professor and historian: 1 and 1
• Disruptive taging: He keeps adding tag where quotes are provided in footnotes and in article body: 1, & 2, & 3.
• Serious violation of NPOV: Pushing religious POV of Hadith Mullahs views and represent it as the fact and universal accepted views where modern historians and academics views are missing: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, or see this edit summary,

• Try to undue historians and academics views by different ways such as renaming the section name to undermine the importance of the views or pushing modern scholars views to very bottom of the article to undue these views, e.g. out of several similar edits: 1 Penom (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add Twinkle: potential abuse. He used WP:TW to revert my edits just recently[32]. The TW page says Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. He was warned before on his talkpage for abusing TW by other editors. By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism--Penom (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the substance of the dispute, but he isn't accusing you of vandalism, and he *did* use an edit summary. If he was using Twinkle to accuse you of vandalism, he would have hit the button that said rollback vandalism, and it would have been reflected in the edit summary. It is true that it is generally considered wrong to use twinkle on nonvandalism edits without using an edit summary, but that's not because doing so equates to accusing someone of vandalism - it's because Twinkle (and hg/rb) allow for high speed reversion, and when dealing with good faith editors using an edit summary decreases the chance of it developing in to a revert war. But - he used an edit summary anyway... Kevin (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the dispute, I've notified the editor. I haven't investigated this in any depth, but the removal of a section pov tag and sourced text here [33] given the pov concerns expressed on the talk page suggests that there may be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to emphasise that, you were supposed to do that when initiating this discussion as it says in the orange box when you edit this page and also in the header Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Without saying the accused editor has no fault, I do agree with their view that saying "One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam" in wikipedia's editorial voice is very poor writing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank user Dougweller for notifying me on the issue, as Penom should have probably done either on the article's talk page or my talk page. That being said, I believe all the claims raised by Penom here are a distortion of what actually has happened, which could be easily checked against revision changes and their summaries. FYI, user Penom has made 5 edits to the mentioned article since raising this issuue, which clearly shows his interest in resolving the dispute.

Background: I rewrote the article back in February that addressed all concerns raised on the TP: mainly the inclusion of the 2 accounts that appear in the Islamic sources (one by Ibn Ishaq and the other reported by Ibn Sa'd) and the presentation of the views of mainstream hadith scholars on the alleged incident: We have statements of outright rejection by Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201 CE), Ibn ʻAdī (d. 976 CE) and the modern authority in hadith, Al-Albani based on their studies of the isnads of the reports.

Penom doesn't like the "rejection" views, claiming hadith scholars are not historians. On the TP, he writes "it's the view Muslim authors who as can be expected and without any surprise reject the story" and then on my TP writes: "nobody needs to know about hadith here". But this is extremenly ironic and contradictory as I pointed out on the TP, that he trusts the 2 accounts reported Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, reputable Muslim scholars and hadith compilers, but rejects that of Ibn al-Jawzi and Al-Albani. This is the core of the issue, and all his subsequent edits has never addressed this contradiction.

Addressing the points one by one:

• Antonio Elorza: My edit summary and TP comment were very clear, quote is needed, the unquoted "essential background for the terrorist side of Islam" as is stands is not neutral. Being "wellknown professor and historian" is not relevant at all.
• Disruptive taging: Same as first point, full quotation needed in the article in accordance with NPOV, and not just in the footnotes.
• Not true. The statement is clearly attributed to hadith scholars: "classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story"
• Clearly, views on reliability of the event take precedence over commentaries on the alleged incident, no attempt to undue any opinion as he did.
• Twinkle: User Penom says: "By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism". I don't think he knows what TW is. Besides, all my reverts included an edit summary, and I've never accused him of vandalism.

Also, notice his use of Mullah and his statement on the article's TP: "Hadith and Isnad are Islamic dusccussions in Taliban schools", which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor.

Thanks to the admins. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I request admins to have a look at th Al-Andalusi talkpage. Several other editors are complaining about his Tendentious editing pattern and his effort in Pushing his POV. He frequently deletes warnings and negative comments but his talkpage history is full of such comments.
• For the information of admin Mullah is a general term used for Muslim theologians by Muslims and "Taliban school" is a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools and have no prejudice. Besides, I found Andelusi comment on me ("which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor") very inappropriate.
• I must add this user WP:SYNT here ([34]). He cited numbers of hadith scholars and concluded "Classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story" which is clearly WP:SYNT.
• This user fails to accept that Islamic theologians views and secular academic and historians views belong to 2 different domains. Each one have different research methodologies. Both views should be covered but each view can only represent itself not the other one .

Penom (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the false accusations of enforcing a view never stop. I do not think anyone here buys your claims that since I have received feedback on my TP, then I must have a history of doing something wrong. Have you gone through each and every post on my TP to make such claims ?

Secondly, "Taliban school" is NOT a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools as you ignorantly claimed; the word for a person who uses this term to refer to anything that is Muslim is "nut-job". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that MOS:ISLAM states that "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding {{Hadith authenticity}}." So ignoring Isnad/authenticity information is not an option on articles about hadith. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Waqi. Asma execution is not a hadith. Is an incident.

To admins. Please look at the last incivil comments of Andalusi: "ignorantly", " nut job"Penom (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged personal attacks (principally by User:Thumperward)

Resolved

 – Nothing here to sanction. Let the AfD finish up. Best to just move on. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought a year ago to debate the propriety of the subject of Lolicon on Wikipedia, an article about comics solely having to do with pedaphilia, in light of the at-that-time newly elevated wp:Child protection guideline, specifically outlawing the promotion of pedophilia. Now I have listed for AfD the article Camel toe as a definition more than an encyclopedic article. Users are now injecting snarky references to my Lolicon AfD nom in discussions e/g here, here and here. Do these constitute a personal attacks?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack in this case. Asking if a nom for AfD is pointy isn't an attack in my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have been polite to inform the other editor involved about this discussion as well. I've done it for you. a_man_alone (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, User:A man alone, but after I re-read your statements, I discoverd that you hadn't actually reference my Lolicon AfD from 2010 so I'd striked my link to it. Still, if you wish, consider yourself informed, in any case. Peace out.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but your comments here certainly imply that you consider me part of the personal attack - "principally by ..." implying that there are others involved, and the link is to the section started by me - as pointed (no pun intended) out by Wildthing, who thought you were indeed refering to my comment. a_man_alone (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing etc. by IP

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

This person appears to be at Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing hir POV, which is that Jews are untrustworthy, gays are pedophiles, the only real racism is against white people, etc. (I can provide examples if you'd like, but you could also just look at hir contributions.) I warned hir and asked hir to find another topic to edit on if zie could not edit with a neutral point of view on social and political topics; this warning was removed with the comment (emphasis added) "user describes itself as a 'queer, Jewish feminist'. Not welcome." One can't really be continually reverting hir until the end of time, particularly because a number of these edits are BLP violations in addition to being flagrant NPOV violations, so a block would probably be helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• A block would be helpful, but the user had hardly been sufficiently warned. I've left them a final warning; it's pretty obvious that this is some serious POV editing, with a liberal sprinkling of BLP violations and a personal attack thrown in. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Any connection to the recently-blocked Petey Parrot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I consider this edit to be a BLP violation, as an unacceptable and unverified injection of supposed ethnicity that seems intended to cast a negative light on the subject of the article. Since I gave the IP a final warning, I have blocked them for 31 hours; I invite scrutiny of this block from other editors. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'm hoping that the user will now realize that we're serious about NPOV and BLP and clean up hir act, or find another subject to edit on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

False and misleading

Resolved

 – We have no power over Spanish Wikipedia - and Jaimesaid needs to be thankful we don't. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulse and misleading accusations from NEREO, CHUCAO, Jcestepario are to much!.They act coordinated, probably the same person, or VandalBOT, Sneaky Vandalism,Template Vandalism, Harrassing. Leaded by NEREO without boundaries.They put violent notes under a copyrighted maps and in history as " Falsification" under the template and other discrediting notes in Wikipedia to my articles Jaime Said. They put "false data" and have taken all my work down. They threten me as I try to recover the work that NEREO and his team deleted. He has obtained for the second time to Blocked me for 3 month. He has spreaded in the spanish secctions Frutillar, Patagonia, Puerto Montt, Valdivia, Lago Llanquihue, Lago Ranco, Chiloe, Puerto Octay, Monte Verde all Chilean Territories of Patagonia, deleted all my work, changed to his point of view and construct HIS Argentinian view of Chilean Patagonia with a campain to discredit my work as Historian. Please VIEW HISTORY of the pages mentioned--190.96.40.109 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)--Jaimesaid (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This complaint was originally left at the vandalism noticeboard. I dropped a note at their talk page asking for some clarification. Larry V (talk | email) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nereo (talk · contribs) and Jcestepario (talk · contribs) have been notified. I can't find this "Chucao" fellow, though. Larry V (talk | email) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any editing to topics related to Patagonia by these accounts appear to have been a couple of years ago, certainly in the en-WP. If there are edits on other language wiki's then there is nothing that can be done here. Of note is that there appears to be no block history at en-WP relating to User:Jaimesaid, and I wonder if the references to "spanish secctions" (sic) refer to that project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Does there appear to be any history between Jaimesaid, Nereo, and this "chucao" user at es.wp? If so, that may explain quite a bit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be rather extensive interaction between these users on the Spanish Wikipedia.

• Usuario Discusión:Jaimesaid (signs his posts as "PATAGAU")
• Usuario Discusión:Nerêo
• Usuario Discusión:Jcestepario
• Usuario Discusión:CHUCAO

Jaimesaid has been blocked twice over there for disruptive editing—once on April 27 for two weeks, and again on June 15 for three months. Larry V (talk | email) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected this had something to do with es.wp. Marking resolved as we can't do anything (and it'd be a bullet in the foot if we could anyways). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's actually a pretty neat idea that (according to Google Translate) their ANI is 'Noticeboard for Librarians'? -- ۩ Mask 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(Take all this with a grain of salt; my Spanish is rusty.) They call their admins bibliotecarios ("librarians"). It looks like they used to call them administradores, but they voted to change it. There may have been confusion about whether administrador was a technical role (i.e., "syadmin"), or whether the term too strongly implied a hierarchy of editors. They decided bibliotecario more accurately described the role. Larry V (talk | email) 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Al-Andalusi in 'Asma' bint Marwan

The article is about a female poets who were executed by the order Muhammed (Muslims prophet) because she critisied Muhammed in one of her poets. Al-Andalusi has a very disruptive edits in this article trying to push traditional religious views and undermine academic and modern historian views and any view which is not in favor of traditional Islamic views.

If you look at his talkpage you can see a long history of his disruptive edits in Islam related articles. Here is some of his disruptive edits in 'Asma' bint Marwan article:

• Deleting sourced materials belongs to a wellknown professor and historian: 1 and 1
• Disruptive taging: He keeps adding tag where quotes are provided in footnotes and in article body: 1, & 2, & 3.
• Serious violation of NPOV: Pushing religious POV of Hadith Mullahs views and represent it as the fact and universal accepted views where modern historians and academics views are missing: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, or see this edit summary,

• Try to undue historians and academics views by different ways such as renaming the section name to undermine the importance of the views or pushing modern scholars views to very bottom of the article to undue these views, e.g. out of several similar edits: 1 Penom (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add Twinkle: potential abuse. He used WP:TW to revert my edits just recently[35]. The TW page says Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. He was warned before on his talkpage for abusing TW by other editors. By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism--Penom (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the substance of the dispute, but he isn't accusing you of vandalism, and he *did* use an edit summary. If he was using Twinkle to accuse you of vandalism, he would have hit the button that said rollback vandalism, and it would have been reflected in the edit summary. It is true that it is generally considered wrong to use twinkle on nonvandalism edits without using an edit summary, but that's not because doing so equates to accusing someone of vandalism - it's because Twinkle (and hg/rb) allow for high speed reversion, and when dealing with good faith editors using an edit summary decreases the chance of it developing in to a revert war. But - he used an edit summary anyway... Kevin (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the dispute, I've notified the editor. I haven't investigated this in any depth, but the removal of a section pov tag and sourced text here [36] given the pov concerns expressed on the talk page suggests that there may be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to emphasise that, you were supposed to do that when initiating this discussion as it says in the orange box when you edit this page and also in the header Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Without saying the accused editor has no fault, I do agree with their view that saying "One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam" in wikipedia's editorial voice is very poor writing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank user Dougweller for notifying me on the issue, as Penom should have probably done either on the article's talk page or my talk page. That being said, I believe all the claims raised by Penom here are a distortion of what actually has happened, which could be easily checked against revision changes and their summaries. FYI, user Penom has made 5 edits to the mentioned article since raising this issuue, which clearly shows his interest in resolving the dispute.

Background: I rewrote the article back in February that addressed all concerns raised on the TP: mainly the inclusion of the 2 accounts that appear in the Islamic sources (one by Ibn Ishaq and the other reported by Ibn Sa'd) and the presentation of the views of mainstream hadith scholars on the alleged incident: We have statements of outright rejection by Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201 CE), Ibn ʻAdī (d. 976 CE) and the modern authority in hadith, Al-Albani based on their studies of the isnads of the reports.

Penom doesn't like the "rejection" views, claiming hadith scholars are not historians. On the TP, he writes "it's the view Muslim authors who as can be expected and without any surprise reject the story" and then on my TP writes: "nobody needs to know about hadith here". But this is extremenly ironic and contradictory as I pointed out on the TP, that he trusts the 2 accounts reported Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd, reputable Muslim scholars and hadith compilers, but rejects that of Ibn al-Jawzi and Al-Albani. This is the core of the issue, and all his subsequent edits has never addressed this contradiction.

Addressing the points one by one:

• Antonio Elorza: My edit summary and TP comment were very clear, quote is needed, the unquoted "essential background for the terrorist side of Islam" as is stands is not neutral. Being "wellknown professor and historian" is not relevant at all.
• Disruptive taging: Same as first point, full quotation needed in the article in accordance with NPOV, and not just in the footnotes.
• Not true. The statement is clearly attributed to hadith scholars: "classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story"
• Clearly, views on reliability of the event take precedence over commentaries on the alleged incident, no attempt to undue any opinion as he did.
• Twinkle: User Penom says: "By using TW. he is accusing me of vandalism". I don't think he knows what TW is. Besides, all my reverts included an edit summary, and I've never accused him of vandalism.

Also, notice his use of Mullah and his statement on the article's TP: "Hadith and Isnad are Islamic dusccussions in Taliban schools", which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor.

Thanks to the admins. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I request admins to have a look at th Al-Andalusi talkpage. Several other editors are complaining about his Tendentious editing pattern and his effort in Pushing his POV. He frequently deletes warnings and negative comments but his talkpage history is full of such comments.
• For the information of admin Mullah is a general term used for Muslim theologians by Muslims and "Taliban school" is a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools and have no prejudice. Besides, I found Andelusi comment on me ("which speaks a lot about the mentality of the editor") very inappropriate.
• I must add this user WP:SYNT here ([37]). He cited numbers of hadith scholars and concluded "Classical and modern hadith scholars have rejected the story" which is clearly WP:SYNT.
• This user fails to accept that Islamic theologians views and secular academic and historians views belong to 2 different domains. Each one have different research methodologies. Both views should be covered but each view can only represent itself not the other one .

Penom (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the false accusations of enforcing a view never stop. I do not think anyone here buys your claims that since I have received feedback on my TP, then I must have a history of doing something wrong. Have you gone through each and every post on my TP to make such claims ?

Secondly, "Taliban school" is NOT a general term used in many Muslim countries for Islamic religious schools as you ignorantly claimed; the word for a person who uses this term to refer to anything that is Muslim is "nut-job". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that MOS:ISLAM states that "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding {{Hadith authenticity}}." So ignoring Isnad/authenticity information is not an option on articles about hadith. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Waqi. Asma execution is not a hadith. Is an incident.

To admins. Please look at the last incivil comments of Andalusi: "ignorantly", " nut job"Penom (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged personal attacks (principally by User:Thumperward)

Resolved

 – Nothing here to sanction. Let the AfD finish up. Best to just move on. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought a year ago to debate the propriety of the subject of Lolicon on Wikipedia, an article about comics solely having to do with pedaphilia, in light of the at-that-time newly elevated wp:Child protection guideline, specifically outlawing the promotion of pedophilia. Now I have listed for AfD the article Camel toe as a definition more than an encyclopedic article. Users are now injecting snarky references to my Lolicon AfD nom in discussions e/g here, here and here. Do these constitute a personal attacks?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack in this case. Asking if a nom for AfD is pointy isn't an attack in my opinion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have been polite to inform the other editor involved about this discussion as well. I've done it for you. a_man_alone (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, User:A man alone, but after I re-read your statements, I discoverd that you hadn't actually reference my Lolicon AfD from 2010 so I'd striked my link to it. Still, if you wish, consider yourself informed, in any case. Peace out.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but your comments here certainly imply that you consider me part of the personal attack - "principally by ..." implying that there are others involved, and the link is to the section started by me - as pointed (no pun intended) out by Wildthing, who thought you were indeed refering to my comment. a_man_alone (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing etc. by IP

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

This person appears to be at Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing hir POV, which is that Jews are untrustworthy, gays are pedophiles, the only real racism is against white people, etc. (I can provide examples if you'd like, but you could also just look at hir contributions.) I warned hir and asked hir to find another topic to edit on if zie could not edit with a neutral point of view on social and political topics; this warning was removed with the comment (emphasis added) "user describes itself as a 'queer, Jewish feminist'. Not welcome." One can't really be continually reverting hir until the end of time, particularly because a number of these edits are BLP violations in addition to being flagrant NPOV violations, so a block would probably be helpful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• A block would be helpful, but the user had hardly been sufficiently warned. I've left them a final warning; it's pretty obvious that this is some serious POV editing, with a liberal sprinkling of BLP violations and a personal attack thrown in. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Any connection to the recently-blocked Petey Parrot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I consider this edit to be a BLP violation, as an unacceptable and unverified injection of supposed ethnicity that seems intended to cast a negative light on the subject of the article. Since I gave the IP a final warning, I have blocked them for 31 hours; I invite scrutiny of this block from other editors. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'm hoping that the user will now realize that we're serious about NPOV and BLP and clean up hir act, or find another subject to edit on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Clyst

Clyst (talk · contribs) keeps making short pages about unnotable English hamlets, even after being warned. Can someone please take action? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I've notified Clyst of this discussion, which you should have done.
2. English hamlets are not unnotable. Places of human habitation are inherently notable.
3. I've requested that Clyst tries to include more information in his stubs. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can any real place be unnotable? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have a very strong personal viewpoint on this topic, some Wikipedians disagree with your sentiments. see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability; Wikipedia:Inherent notability; and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Existence. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some really small hamlets are better covered as a section in the artcle covering the village/parish which they lie in, but the general principle holds AFAIK - see WP:DEFACTO. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the same token there is hardly clear consensus that articles about places where people live should not be included. This discussion should take place on the relevant policy talk pages: there is nothing warranting summary sysop action (ie, blocking) here. --causa sui (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean the part that says Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low.? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• there are no non-notable English hamlets. There are certainly claimed hamlets that never had a real existence; I recall our deleting a few that turned out to be just manor houses. There may be some for which there is no evidence they did or did not exist, but given the Ordnance Survey, it is probably easier to determine the real existence for England than for anywhere else in the world. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Can someone actually point to a guideline or policy page which explains the above rationale (that every single collection of two or more houses in the world constitutes an article-worthy entity so long as it can be pointed to on a map), rather than just an essay? I'm having a hard time believing that this is as rock-solid settled as it's being made out to be, largely because it's utterly incongruous with the (definitely) settled consensus that existence is not notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The problem is where you would draw the line. If you say that some hamlets are notable and some aren't, what definition are you going to use? If hamlet X with six dwellings is notable and hamlet Y with two buildings isn't, what about hamlet Z with three houses and a duckpond? It's far, far, easier to say that any named place is effectively notable (with very few exceptions as mentioned by DGG above). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

    • I don't see what's wrong with requiring reliable secondary sources which do something other than name it and place a dot on a map. Plenty of hamlets presumably have such things. I do not understand what is so wrong with asking users to provide them when creating articles. It's what we do with literally every single other subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

      • I have no objections to reliable sourcing that the place exists, but, as with secondary schools, consensus is, and has been for a long time, that existence is notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

        • As before, I'd appreciate a link to some firmer evidence of that if possible. And "all secondary schools are notable" is still quite a leap from "all named groups of two or more houses are notable" anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

          • I think the point is that it would be difficult to find an example of an existing settlement that is not covered in any reliable third party sources. Of course, the above examples are British and therefore have hundreds of easily found sources, but I am sure that even the most remote village in, say, China, will have been written about many times, even if those sources are more difficult to uncover. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

            There's a difference between "covered" and "covered in passing" or "covered as a statistic" though. Two houses at a bend in the road somewhere may very well have been mentioned in a dozen places, but I'm sure every one of us is mentioned in plenty of school reports, church records and so on as well. There must have been a real discussion which led to the aforementioned consensus and I'd simply like to know where it is, if only to further my own understanding of what's settled consensus-wise around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

            • That's a good point. If the notability threshold were "Any mention, even a brief one, in a reliable source" then we could write articles about every person in the phone book just the same as we could write articles about every group of houses named on a 1:25000 map. (Not very long articles, or encyclopædic, though). However, that is not the notability theshold; the GNG actually says something quite different about sources and notability. bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

<=== Wikipedia:Common_outcomes#Geography_and_astronomy is an essay, but then, WP:N is a guideline. There is no policy on geographic notability, but the first link I provided is the current consensus. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, well, count me as very wary of taking this as settled. In this particular case, I don't believe that Clyst has done anything wrong: each article has sources (albeit primary ones), the places are villages rather than hamlets, and six new articles is hardly some ANI-level epidemic. I think we're safe to close this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reactionless drive being use as a soapbox by a fringe proponent

User:CowlishawDavid seems to think that objecting to him using article talk pages to push his fringe concepts constitutes 'vandalism' - see recent talk page history: [38] (I think it is safe to assume that the anon IP is him). Can an admin please put him right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked CowlishawDavid (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Reactionless drive. I considered doing the same for you, but a block for reverting blatant original research didn't seem kosher, especially since CowlishawDavid was previously warned about the problems with his OR. You might want to submit an WP:SPI report about that IP. Larry V (talk | email) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that they know what the deal is, so I left a note on their talk page to warn them that further edit warring, OR, or talk page soapboxing may get them blocked in the future. Larry V (talk | email) 06:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Process

Resolved

 – Topic bans enacted, nothing more to see here. Night Ranger (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently the featured sounds process is in a bit of a controversy. Due to the wording of the criteria, both a video and the audio track from a video can be nominated and passed as a featured sound. This is opposed by many of the regulars to the process. To keep the same arguments from being rehashed in each nomination, the active FS directors (Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) and myself) put a freeze on all nominations of this sort so they could be debated in one central place. This has erupted into a scene. All of the good faith and will I have has been exhausted. Would a cooler head please intervene. (I haven't exactly kept my cool) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure what the issue is here there is support on both sides. I have seen two or three regs who oppose duplicate noms and two or three (including myself) who support them. I am awaiting a substantive response to issue that are repeatedly WP:TLDRed. I am asking for explanation of why they want to run WP:FSC differently than all other quality review processes. I believe what Guerillero seeks is an excuse to continue WP:TLDRing from a friendly admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) continues to nominate duplicates (videos and sounds, mostly separately and this was all done directly after the wording of the criteria chagned to allow videos and sounds), despite being told not to in addition he also continues to nominate arrangements (mostly brass band) of well known and historical music despite being told not to, now while brass band arrangements aren't all bad they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis (his response above shows he's just doing it because a couple regulars support some of his duplicates), a majority of these nominations have been boring or musically uninteresting music. He claims he's doing this because both files have EV, but take a look at his wall of stars and his first post at WT:FSC, he made it clear that he wanted an FS to his name because FS was due to appear on the main page (this has been pushed back until underlying problems in the process are addressed). His continual ignorance of the concerns raised by others goes against the collegial nature of Wikipedia, it's hindering progress and is downright annoying. It's funny that he should be accusing Guerillero of TLDRing, check his active and past nominations. How incredibly hypocritical. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:14pm • 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) When was I told not to nominate them any more? I have not violated any instructions. In terms of arrangements, I am not a musician. I don't know when things are arrangements all the time. I am a volunteer file-hunter and trying to find good files. I have found about 50 good files, so you have to put up with a few dozen bad noms along the way. Are you looking for an excuse to WP:TLDR as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) It's just one of a number of issues that need to be worked through among editors at FSC and integrated into the criteria. It's a pity that TTT can't hold off nominating files of the categories he knows have become controversial—until there's an in-depth discourse on these matters, some of which are complicated in their implications. I appreciate TTT's work at FSC, but I don't want to think that there's a mad rush to acquire rows of stars on his userpage for featured content promotions. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) First off, you are acting like I am nominating a bunch of stuff everyone is rejecting. My nominations have resulted in 49 WP:FS since April 1. Second off, I don't even know that I was told not to nominate audio duplicates of videos (before today).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yes you were, look through all of your recent 20 nominations. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:59pm • 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 44 of my last 56 file nominees have passed. Check WP:FSL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Is this so much an issue with FS than it is with one single editor? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Strange Passerby has hit the nail on the head. Although I am no longer an active participant at FS, I do watch it, and this particular problem editor began causing issues while I was still there. TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. He has exploited the fact that FS does not really have a policy on videos yet, which is the entire reason that he has so many FS credits already. I have advised Guerillero to consider delisting many of them, although it is up to the current participants at FS to decide whether or not to take that advice. The long and short of it is that TTT has exhausted the community's patience. Like James (AA), I've long since abandoned the pretense that TTT is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons. He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego. If his actions at FS were not enough to convince me, recent events at FfD have (see nominations 16 though 71. I don't want to steer this too off track with the FfDs, but I think that this specific nomination, combined with the above situation, shows that TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Though I have no opinion on the FS issue at this time, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago, and then, when he was generally unsuccessful, moved to VPC, where he was active until the project was closed down precisely because it lacked any real drive/direction beyond "WE NEED MORE VALUED PICTURES". He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating) and, though I wasn't involved with this (so please don't take my word as gospel truth), I believe he has been warned about similar behaviour at FAC and GAC as well. Tony takes very seriously the, as Sven mentions, "stars on his trophy wall". While many editors (myself certainly included) like to display their achievements on their userpage, Tony can take it to something of an extreme, which can sometimes lead to issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) As the other WikiCup judge, I can second virtually everything J Milburn just said, except that I haven't heard anything about FAC/GAN warnings. Regardless of how the FS issues are worked out, I believe there is a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is very different than FPC and VPC where I could not get the hang of things. At FS after an initial pass rate of 5/19, I have learned what WP:WIAFS is saying and have had a 44 of 56 file pass rate since.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Amalgamated this and the topic ban proposals to keep it in one piece. MER-C 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is classic TonyTheTiger-- he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived. This behavior occurs in any area in which he edits-- I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Can we get an uninvolved admin to close these two ban discussions below please? It's been almost a week. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The discussion has been open for over 5 days, and it is clear that there is strong consensus to support both proposals: (1) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured sounds, and (2) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." There does not appear to be consensus that the topic bans should be time-limited, so these topic bans will be in effect until the community decides they are no longer necessary. I will inform TonyTheTiger that these topic bans have been enacted, and will update Wikipedia:Editing restrictions accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC). Edit: I have informed Tony and updated the list of editing restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds As per my comments above, at the thread "Featured Sounds Process", TTT has exhausted the patience of the Featured Sounds community. I quote from above "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process. Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I can only speak from my own experience of Tony at DYK last year, where concerns were also raised (then WikiCup-related) that Tony was spamming, almost abusing, the process just so he could claim more DYKs. As a result I have no difficulty believing he is misusing FS in a similar fashion, and would support such a ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) As I explained in the section a few above this one, similar things have also happened at FPC and (before it closed) VPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps it would be a good idea to extend this topic ban proposal to all featured media processes and similar (GA, DYK, ITN), in that case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support as a completely uninvolved editor. TTT is using the process as a personal vanity project by nominating as many files as possible for consideration and hoping some get through. He does not appear to be taking the time to evaluate them correctly before nomination. This is subverting it's intent which is to get the absolute best files featured. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support. I am pretty new to looking at either FS or TTT, and no axe to grind. Guerillo has been professional and TTT has been moving stuff around on the page in contravention to the Director decisions (as the final acts in a pattern of problem-causing). It's fine to debate the policy, but outright distruption of actions of the Director (elected by the participants) on holding or rejecting nominees, makes the whole place unworkable. Throw into that, that he is an admin and should behave better. And that he is tone-deaf and wikilawyering in interactions. And the history of similare disruption on other Featured Content processs...TCO (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) DON'T TOPIC BANS REQUIRE DIFFS OR ARE ADMINS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY STORY THEY WANT Resoponse to the four claims above by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing." Not true. I began participating in FS in April. You might note that my nominations have passed at nearly an 80% (44 of 56) clip since my initial learning period (5 of 19) (Check WP:FSL). I have developed a good understanding of WP:WIAFS and begun only nominating things I view as very likely to be determined to adhere to WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger ignoring negative responses." To the contrary I have been learning from negative responses. I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful" I have recently fought against closures that were against process both for those that were unsuccessful those that were to be successful. N.B.: Yesterday there was a batch of 5 closed unsuccessful without regard to WP:WIAFS that I fought against and last week there was one of my nominees that was moved to nominations to be closed that had 2/3 majority required to pass that I fought against being closed immediately and put back into the queue because I felt it was being closed prematurely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) "TonyTheTiger generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." (Repeating from above). I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted. I have not been clogging the system. I have been filling it with stuff that gets promoted about 80% of the time (44/56=79%).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support While a lot of this "content" based discussion passes me by I am capable of determining concerns from reviewing contributions; there are over 5,000 deleted contributions. This is against a total number of edits of around 150,000, or 3% of edits, but of concern is a review of the deleted contributions in detail indicates that this appears to be a persistent or consistent ratio since 2006. This leads me to the conclusion that the editor has not (or cannot) been able to alter their approach to introducing content - the majority of deleted contributions being either "autobiographical" (in the widest sense, content derived from their own sources) or various files - despite some evidence of concerns having been raised all the while. This appears to be an editor, while a good contributor in certain areas (as the 146k "live" edits testify), who does not seem to Get It over certain matters. Removing them from areas where these concerns are manifested seems to be entirely reasonable and, given that this appears to be a long term issue, it should be for as long as there seems to be an issue. Presently, this is apparently the Featured Sound process and therefore I support this topic ban. I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I am not trying to impress you by calling him a liar. I am presenting an uncontested fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) You are apparently as eager to test the limits of WP:CIVIL as you admit you have regarding WP:Notability. There are more acceptable ways in which to make a point that anothers accusation are unsupported by diffs/are likely not to be able to be evidenced. Being able to conform to WP practices is part of what is at issue here - and you are not helping yourself. Impressing me is irrelevant, but not impressing me has lead me to my opinion given above and not caring makes me more unlikely to change it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) How do I observe my deleted content, I believe there are three or four spikes in this regard. There were probably a lot of deleted edits when Template:NYRepresentatives and Template:ILRepresentatives were deleted. Then when Template:1970-1979VogueCovers, Template:1980-1989VogueCovers, Template:1990-1999VogueCovers & Template:2000-2009VogueCovers were deleted. And finally when the recent user space pages were deleted. I doubt that there is a consistent rate of deleted files, but rather a few spikes, mostly in template space when I was learning what was a good contribution there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) There may well be "spikes", but I noted that there were instances going back to 2006 and for every year since. It is still a lot of deleted contribs. As for being able to review them, I do not know how an editor can review their own deleted contribs - I have been a sysop too long and my non sysop account (User:LHvU) has no deleted edits (and very few otherwise). Perhaps a non admin can address this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Obviously, I am going to have a high rate of deletions. I am probably the only editor on wikipedia who has created 100s of reviewed class (GA, FA) articles from scratch without doing the same type of article over and over again. I am constantly testing the fringes of notability with every article creation. Most article space deletions will be from having ventured to the borders of WP:N with my article creations. You will note that I have several GAs of articles that had been AFDed and such. I contest the borders and sometimes my borderline contribution result in early articles for NBA basketball players like Manny Harris and sometimes they end up in deletions. Someone who polices Barack Obama, fights vandals, or perfects the art of creating virtually the same article over and over again will not have high deletions like me. These deletions are basically unrelated to WP:FS and should not be used to determine this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is a project to produce a free encyclopedia, and not an exercise in determining what the base level for notability - or to alter that standard by production of marginal subjects (especially with a relative high level of failure; surely only a small percentage of the other 140K of edits can only be to such content). One of the major tools of content creation is WP:Consensus, where by both discussion and action one determines what the criteria for inclusion is - and once it has been established ensure that contributions are compliant. It is recognised that sometimes there will be mistakes or re-assesments, and that consensus may change. However, it is apparent from both your editing history and your comments here that you either do not care for or are unable to comply with consensus and notability, and nor do you think you should. That is your choice, but it means that those who do work to those standards need not have to endure your disruptive presence. As this appears, per your comments above, to be your standard operating procedure, I continue to support those who wish to continue to act within the expected norms - which in this case are those involved in the Featured Sound process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support this POINT violation makes me beleive that TTT is unable to work well at FS. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per LHvU. Doesn't appear to get it. Noting that I'd prefer a time-limited ban as opposed to an indefinite ban. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per LHvU. I really wish it didn't have to come to this :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:59am • 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - A topic ban seems excessive, considering so many of his nominations have already suceeded. This needs a topic RfC or to be take to the talk page and ironed out by all parties, not a topic ban on a highly productive editor. Night Ranger (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I see you aren't very familiar with TTT's edits, it's true he's a generally productive editor. However, a majority of his edits are counter-productive and arguments ensue in every featured process he's been involved with (including the now defunct Valued Pictures process), I'd hoped this would not be the case at FS but in the last 2 months his nomination reasons have been shorter and shorter, his first few FS nominations were fantastic, now he merely uses a useless, unhelpful statement such as "meets all the FS criteria", without going to explain how it meets the criteria and his own reason for nominating (which would be personalised, of course). —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:07pm • 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Support. I think there is a broader problem - Tony's interest seems to have shifted from building good content to collecting scout badges which is rather missing the point of wikipedia and is consuming the time and goodwill of other editors. However, this proposal is a good start, and I hope TTT will tweak their priorities a little in future, as TTT seems to have done lots of good content work in the past and I look forward to more of that, both from TTT and from the other people whose time has been wasted... bobrayner (talk) Oppose, his nominations have a 79% pass rate, I'd hardly call that spamming FS with material that does not belong there. I mean, can we get some evidence of attempts to actually resolve this without a topic ban please? I looked at his user talk page and it seems the only feedback he has ever gotten about his work at FS (on his talk page) is a barnstar.... jorgenev 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) His pass rate has nothing to do with it. Numerous people have commented that he has abused numerous featured processes, and if you look at WP:FSC now, you can see several flops. His pass rate is high because we didn't have a clear policy on videos, we didn't have a clear policy on length, and we enjoyed, before we found out about the caveats, the enthusiasm he was bringing to the project. Most of his current FSes will be put up for delisting in the near future, because most of them are around an hour long and a good deal of them have quality issues. This is not to say specificly that he is being targeted, as many current FSes are in need of being delisted, but a good number of his will be among them, and that will drop his percentage considerably. Both of the active FS directors, a former FS director, and several people in several other featured processes are all saying that TTT is highly problematic. Looking at it just on numbers drastically understates the amount of damage that TTT has caused. As for the evidence, it is at WT:FSC, the archives of that page, and in the nominations themselves. There is a cumulative affect from the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the battleground behaviors that is very easy to pick up on, and for lack of a better term, extremely grating over the period of time that he has been at FS. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Support—Reluctantly. I sugggest a one-month topic ban to protect FSC from disruptive nominations and other edits, and to allow it to negotiate the criteria, which clearly don't serve the process well now. This trophy mentality for his user page is over the top. Tony (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support as an uninvolved editor. I'm seeing what others do: an editor so intent on using the project to get praise that he threatens the success of the project. --NellieBly (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I am not familiar with this particular brouhaha. I've edited minimally in the last 6 months and hoped when I didn't see TonytheTiger at FAC when I got back that he'd learned from his previous issues. That does not appear to be the case; instead, the issues have transferred to a different process. I would support a broadly construed ban on TtT from any featured nomination process unless he can gain the support of a conominator. Someone who can provide a reality-check when TtT's enthusiasm for the process crosses the line. If that's not the case, then I will support a topic ban targeted to Featured Sounds. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed Over fifty graphs of TonyTheTiger's poker winnings were recently deleted in one day at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1. The conversation at one specific nomination, this specific nomination|this one, illuminates that TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable. Among the items not deleted are two images of the letter T in his signature, a check paid out to him, and a tee shirt he made himself. They are available for viewing at his biography page User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon. He's begun requesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here, and it may be necessary to start a similar proposal there,Edit: Someone else made the move-to-commons requests. however in the mean time, unless he is ordered to stop, I have serious doubts that he will. Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support, definitely. Still thinking about the proposed topic ban for FS. Unfortunately, I don't see signs that TTT is understanding the problem. Tony (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Not only that, but a good chunk of this user's userspace was recently purged in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. MER-C 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) THIS TOPIC BAN IS BASED ON A LIE BY SVEN MANGUARD THERE EXIST NO DIFFS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ON WP OR COMMONS (1) ME INSISTING I WAS NOTABLE (2) ABOUT ANY REQUEST TO MOVE FILES TO COMMONS BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT MAKE ANY Come on Sven have some class. What other lies are you willing to tell to make a WP:POINT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to have to Support the ban proposal. Sorry, because TonyTheTiger is clearly a long-standing contributor with a great track record. But I've looked at all that poker stuff - the images and the masses of personal bio material recently deleted - and it has to stop. He just isn't notable, and this isn't a web host - he needs to take all that stuff someplace else and stop trying to use Wikipedia for material about himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Comment- I believe the title of this and the preceeding section should win the top 2 prizes for the most unintentionally hilarious discussion page topic headings in Wikipedia history. If you don't understand what I mean, read the two section headings while pretending you are a non-registered, first-time Wikipedia editor looking at ANI for the very first time. No offense Tony. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) At least they're fit for family viewing (you might say they're G-rate!), which is more than I can say for some of our notable subjects' self-images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Isn't a ban suppose to occur after a warning. I was never given any indication that my image uploads were inappropriate. I have not uploaded any since the FfD. What gives with a ban?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support that much vanity content is painful --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support unfortunately, this seems to be needed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This makes no sense. I have been participating in XfD for 5 years and never violated a consensus decision. Why would someone say something like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Fully support Topic Ban - amongst many other reasons the screaming all-capps bold hysterical response from a tiger in a corner above is self evident that Tony's passion is far from acceptable in this arena - indeed maybe Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:01am • 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Support Completely not involved, but having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out. --Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - This seems to be quickly devolving into a huge pile-on. What's next, he's banned from having pictures of tigers on his userpage? He appears to have stopped uploading images and says he has not opposed any kind of consensus at xfd, so I don't see the need for a ban (which I wouldn't necessarily call a topic ban anyway, but I digress). Night Ranger (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Support - Pedro says it well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, he has not continued has he? It seems like editors with some personal dislike of the user are trying to pile as many topic bans on him as possible here. jorgenev 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) First of all, I don't have an underlying dislike for this editor. I think that if he focused more of his energy on improving content and less of it on self-aggrandizement, if he put in the work to earn all the stars he displays on his userpage, that he'd be one of Wikipedia's best assets. Unfortunately, TTT categorically refuses to accept that he is not notable. He has, by now, gone through several discussions where that message has been made clear, most recently the 52 templates and 50something graphs that went through deletion discussions. With this editor's track record on the matter, I do not believe that temporarily stopping is in any way indicative of future behavior. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane. That MfD was one of the worst; other people would have been blocked for such egregious violations of WP:UP#NOT. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Comment That vanity piece of his should be sent to MfD per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:UP#PROMO --Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC) - I have just nominated the page for MfD. Doesn't anybody like working on articles anymore? Who the fuck cares about someone's personal page like this, really?--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support – Unfortunately. That MfD was a textbook application of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pedro himself also brings up a good point. —mc10 (t/c) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane. I would also caution the editor that BOLD CAPS don't give the impression he hopes; editors may see them not as sincere anger but as an attempt to intimidate or bully, and that is counter-productive to a positive reception of any argument. --NellieBly (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Blackmane and WP:NOT#WEBHOST Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Support per Pedro. It turns out that User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is based on content deleted (unanimously!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and userfied five years ago. MER-C 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Not going to happen per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Because Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) resorts to lies in discussions about me, I would prefer not to have to deal with a liar in my WP interactions. At his topic ban initiation you will note that he resorts to lies and does not use diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) Lie number 1 "He's begun rewuesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here" I do not recall requesting that any files be moved to commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) He's right there. I admit, on this small point, I got it wrong. Sfan00 IMG put the requests in on the letter and the check, and I'm not sure who moved the ones already in commons over. I can stand by the rest of my argument though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Lie number 2 "TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable" Why would he make arguments that I am claiming notability. Note that in the arguments he points to I state "I am not arguing notability"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) You may not be arguing notability, but by trying to host masses of biog stuff about yourself, you're *acting* as though you're notable (or that you think Wikipedia is a free web host) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - This seems to be a ploy to silence sven. You tout your passing percentage but you fail to mention that most of those files passed by a slim margin due to the fact things pass with a 2/3 majority (including the nominator). If you would look at my closing statements they reflect this. For the moving files to commons this link should be helpful. File at commons The file was moved to commons after the local version was deleted at FfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This link? Jarkeld (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) That would be the one --Guerillero | My Talk 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Neither of those is a diff supporting a claim that I have been requesting moves to commons. None of these opposes presents any evidence against the statement of fact that Sven Manguard is a liar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - this is just petty retaliation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. This is just silly. TCO (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Sven should be proud that all his admin friends think the fact that he is a liar is silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose if you don't want to deal with Sven Manguard, you don't have to. no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Note - It might be helpful if the "accused" admin would post a diff or two to refute the editor's claims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Reversal of fortune Don't propose things that are obviously not going to fly. I propose topic banning TTT instead. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is absurd-- since it's also unsigned, I can't tell who put it up, but it's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger did, at this diff. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Um, and also, it is signed... GiantSnowman 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Tiger troll. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 'Oppose per WP:POINT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Can everyone calm down a little and look at this objectively? I don't know Tony but from a look at his edits, he appears to be one of the most significant content contributors I've come across. I've read through this and while I see some indications Tony should (1) stop and attempt to form consensus and (2) stop uploading unhelpful files in violation of NOTWEBHOST, I also see no reason to institute topic bans and I certainly see no reason to use comments like "tiger troll" as someone did in Tony's proposal. This is looking like a huge gang-up and it's really not on. Night Ranger (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. TTT has shown consistently over the span of a few months that he is unable to work at featured content processes without turning it into a "look at my featured contributions"-like flood, many editors who have dealt with this across the different processes clearly feel this goes beyond simply FS and this needs to stop, hence the community ban request which is wholly justified. StrPby (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I believe that these topic bans are in fact the best thing for the project. The comments by J Milburn and Strange Passerby, among others both at this thread and elsewhere, indicate that TTT has done this type of thing before. Chances are moderately high that if he continues this behavior at another featured process, the next topic ban proposal will be for all featured processes on Wikipedia, and will have significant support. I, however, chose not to go for that extreme. Also, I was tempted to suggest that TTT be topic banned from creating any page related to himself, be it a subpage, file, or template, after the combination of his 50+ poker templates and his 50+ poker graphs. He's been told repeatedly that he is not notable, and has used, to an appalling level of excess. Again I chose not to go for that extreme, and again I can easily see the community deciding to go for that in the future. This isn't pleasant, I didn't do this for giggles, but I also didn't do this on raw emotion and I believe that I was being objective when I made the proposals. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Night Ranger, I see you've been editing en.Wiki for a few months and have 134 edits; apparently you haven't had the pleasure of dealing with TTT's aim to use Wikipedia to promote ... himself. Your analysis is mistaken. I suggest that any featured content process should enact a clause similar to the one we had to enact at FAC to end the abuse endured there (and I noticed that TTT moved on to disrupting DYK in his quest to win WikiCup, and then to Featured Sounds in his ongoing quest to promote himself, which he admitted at TFA/R) ... FAC's solution to the TTT problem was a rule change: If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Sandy, my account here is new but I've been on Commons since 2007 and have edited here as an IP for a few years as well. You're right, I'm not very familiar with Tony, but from the standpoint of someone who is totally uninvolved and sees someone who has made a great deal of content-based contributions to Wikipedia, it just seems a shame that this has been taken to this level. There has to be a better way to deal with this than topic bans. Maybe not, I dunno. I do know we need more content contributors, not fewer. Night Ranger (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy's and Sven's comments are dead-on. As at FAC, TTT's activity at DYK was the direct impetus for a rule change requiring nominators to conduct reviews on a 1-for-1 basis. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy, I don't know what you are saying I admitted to. During the 2010 WP:CUP, I happened to be out of town at my grandmother's deathbed trying to edit without a regular connection and I ended up causing a lot of problems at DYK. Then, at WP:FSC, there seems to be a bunch of lies being cast about by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) that I am nominating any old crap, when 80% of my stuff has been passing. Clearly, I never got in tune with FP, but Sven is insistent on categorizing my FS contributions as if they have not been successful and huffing and puffing about how it is just like all other situations. For any featured content review process, 80% pass rate is pretty good. At FAC and FPC, I don't have great pass rates, but at FSC, and FLC, I do. At FLC my last 8 in a row have passed if my records are correct and at FSC, 44 of my last 56. Don't generalize to all featured content processes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Your FAC pass rate is what it is because you get other people to pull your articles through-- they almost all appeared at FAC ill-prepared, and you continued to bring them ill-prepared until the TonyTheTiger Clause was added to the instructions. I was referring to your typical self-serving statement, once you realized Featured Lists and Featured Sounds would be on the main page, that "Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing." After that, you went straight to Amazing Grace and tried to insert sounds just so you could get them featured. It's always all about you all the time. Please stop calling Sven a liar-- that's a personal attack and you should be blocked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) A liar is a person who tell multiple untruths. He has admitted to one regarding whether I have requested materials be moved to commons. Most people would say claiming I nominate wantonly with low-quality nominees at FSC is far from the truth since 44 of my last 56 have passed. He has said I have claimed to be notable when I have stated the opposite. This ban discussion has basically gone down the path of Sven posting lies, me showing they are untrue and people piling on saying that even though the things are not actually true you have a bad attitude and have been a problem in a whole bunch of other ways. How would you like me to sugarcoat this ban nomination. It is a string of untruths put together to instigate a lynch mob of people willing to ban a person from posting images against an XfD when the person at issue has never violated an XfDs in five years on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, when I was on my grandmothers death bed, I worked offline and dumped dozens of articles into the DYK process for the CUP causing people to question why I was not using my normal editorial routine (wondering if I was dumping my own work) and creating debates about whether the numerous hooks should be merged as well as causing consternation about why I was not reviewing articles as fast as I was nominating them. At FAC, I'd have to check, but I think about 4 of my last 5 passed. So the complaint you are griping about is from years ago. I have only been nominating with co-authored work of late to keep problems to a minimum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. WRT, Amazing Grace, now that I have nominated 75 FSC, I understand what sound reviewers think improves/degrades articles (as evidenced by my 80% pass rate) and believe the two files that I want to add belong in the article. However, the main editor does not want to talk about the merits of the files and continues to WP:OWN the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC) My condolences, but please stop throwing numbers around, they're irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that you've been asked to stop and your methods have, in fact, been questioned and you aren't confirming or denying this. You continue to update your biography despite the very fact you aren't notable, while you are thanked for your contributions you seem to be promoting yourself and your work on Wikipedia albeit liberally (your consistant calling up of how many FSes you've made in your comments in this ANI thread are just some of these examples). Wikipedia isn't a world stage or WordPress, it's an encyclopedia. All userspace frippery is not helping build an encyclopedia but rather starting unnecessary arguments such as this, I'm sure you know full-well you aren't notable and I'm sure you know full-well no one cares if you're successful or unsuccessful in your poker ventures. Sure you've contributed a lot of content, but showing it off and going around and waving the number of featured content you've nominated/contributed to in arguments in an attempt to coerce others to agree with you seems like you're trying to get the upper-hand, so what if you have good "pass rates", you're starting arguments left, right and centre. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:08pm • 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Can you explain to me why you are condoning me for following your suggestion. Aren't you the one who said to go count my recent nominations. I went straight to WP:FSL at your suggestion {"look through all of your recent 20 nominations"). Now, that you realize your suggestion makes you look bad, you try and say to ignore the numbers. I don't know if 56 files is exactly 20 nominations, but those are approximately the most recent twenty to have been evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Proof once more ... that handing out achievement badges results in people disrupting the project for the sake of their trophy pages. It's high time we codified that FA / FS / DYK / WikiCup et cetera are strictly intended to make contributing here a little more fun and that editors who take them too seriously will be asked not to participate in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I'd wonder whether instituting regular discussions to whether to ban particular editors on the less than clear-cut question of how inappropriately seriously they are taking the processes would end up causing a lot more drama than the status quo. Thinking of the cases of Ottava Rima, Matisse etc. Skomorokh 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) I would hope that it takes less effort to ban one from, say, DYK than it would to ban them from the whole project. But the point was simply to state up front that we consider these things to be strictly informal games meant to aid the building of the project, such as to dissuade people from treating them like an end to themselves. That way, there would hopefully be less drama when it comes to asking people to voluntarily stop participating in star-collection. I've been meaning to write Wikipedia:You are not your barnstars for ages now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) delurk A person's motivation for contributing is unimportant. What matters is the end result: does it result in a net improvement to the encyclopedia? Somorokh makes a good point that the informal approach has advantages. Trinket collection is a positive except when it morphs into gaming a process, and usually that self-manages. The drawbacks to formalizing 'don't take it too seriously' is that it shifts attention from project mission to qualitative judgment of the editor, and that type of shift generates conflict. In this discussion (re: the main thread), the basic problem is that one editor who does not take feedback well has nominated a very large number of 'freebies'. Roughly that is like the difference between putting an article through an automated spell check versus manually editing it. Although it does help the project to convert files to .ogg format, it also creates problems when an editor frequently submits nominations that may take more time to review than to nominate. Two approaches have resolved that in the past: reviewers decline to evaluate and/or editors enter informal agreements to shift focus toward submissions where their own efforts have a greater role. In this instance an individual's response became combative after other editors called a break to revise the featuring criteria. New essays aren't needed: WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT already apply. The current friction would be substantially less if an editor had built up a trophy collection of several dozen FS stars by recording cicadas--especially if they created new articles for the cicada species. There's a wide open niche at FS to parallel FP's bird and bug photographers. The difference between conflict and productivity is a willingness to take feedback and step outside the box. Durova412 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) relurk A person's motivation is important when it's self-promotion that is wearing down other editors who must review ill-prepared work, draining their time, and abusing of the featured content processes. I have never been in favor of banning anyone from a featured process, on the principle that even a stopped clock is right twice a day-- IMO, the solution is to change the rules of the processes to stop the abuse, which is what we were forced to do at FAC because of TTT's repeatedly using it as peer review for ill-prepared articles, after which he moved on to DYK (which he seriously abused in his quest to win the WikiCup) and Featured Lists and Sounds. I also think DYK made the wrong change to their rules, requiring nominators to review, which has only resulted in more faulty DYKs, poor hooks, and ongoing copyvios, but that's another topic. There are other problems at Featured Sounds, which is an immature process-- they should adjust to prevent this kind of abuse, but I don't foresee that happening. Similar problems occurred at Featured Pictures, which is also gameable for those who participate in the "reward culture". The "reward culture" per se is not the problem-- it's editors who game the processes while abusing of editors who must review sub-standard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC) The now-banned user ItsLassieTime was notorious for a number of things, including racking up "good article" nominations while apparently compromising many of them with copyright violations (as was later learned). I wonder what the point is? Is anyone likely to list writing wikipedia "good articles" as a point on their resume? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Not yet, but someone has used good articles to assist in achieving tenure. --70.246.148.152 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Sandy is quite right that negative effects on other editors are an important consideration. It's a difficult situation to manage when an individual consistently leeches productivity from a large number of highly productive editors. She has handled difficult situations and earned a great deal of respect for it--most people would have burned out. I just wish I could share her optimism about formal criteria changes being the solution for FS: both FS and FP are in a situation that FA would face if about 1 in 2000 public domain articles from other encyclopedias were adaptable for FA promotion, with about 95% of those requiring serious work but the remaining 5% of those only needing wikimarkup. That 5% occurs in clusters. Both FS and FP have the same dilemma: although it's useful to this site's readers to import great content to WP and get it recognized, people are human and reviewers get fatigued. The editors who know where the caches are could flood the nomination process with freebies, and if the community attempted to create a formal definition of a freebie they would likely create a gameable definition. In the past this worked out informally because the people who knew this loophole had the project's best interests at heart, and the community would be pleasantly surprised how some "notorious" trinket-collectors were basically enthusiasts who responded to this reasonably. A pragmatic strategy is to deal with an editor's motivations empirically: if the energy is positive it can be redirected into win-win alternatives, although the history prior to FS and the reaction to recent feedback do not bode well. Tony, if you're reading this it would be a really good idea to switch gears: there is plenty of other low hanging fruit at FS--I suggested a couple of types in a previous post. But if the motivation really is to game processes then the most effective response is to disengage. Nobody is forced to review nominations. Durova412 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Naive question -- if a contributor is gaming some incentive like FS by flooding it with self-noms, can't people who object just let those self-noms sit while they review others? Or, as a policy fix, set an upper bound on self-noms-per-week? FWIW, I don't know TTT from Lulu the Lotus Eater, and my user page boasts of 8 DYKs. Sharktopustalk 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Astute question, Sharktopus. That's exactly how the reviewers usually handle gaming: withholding reviews on a case by case basis. A flexible response has served the project better than hemming in the most productive editors a blanket "be less productive" rule. Durova412 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC) FS has no self cleaning mechanism like FP. A sound could sit unreviewed for a month and stay on the board. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Can someone explain to me what the difference is between gaming the system and posting numerous noms that are sufficient quality to have a high likelihood of passing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Too bad Just checked out his tony the tiger (Antonio) user page. Pretty darnded interesting actually. If he had that as his user page itself would be kinda OK, no? Or if we made him skinny it down (not tracking his current winnings or the like...guy needs to get his own blog really.) The 600# deadlift in particular is pretty darn respect-worthy. Too bad the fellow does not "get it" that he is disruptive, but it's been years and the guy is an adult. (Even worse, he is an admin, which means he should have a certain type of maturity, of self-reflection). Wiki just needs to do what is right for itself. Too bad we don't have some special stars for FAs on core articles. Hmmm...getting an idea here. Even for that, I know he would gaff it off and do the minimum...guy is a bit of a sea-lawyer. Still...reminds me of the comment about Wikicup and FA interactions. If we made at least SOME of the "rewards" like TFA and 'cup give priority to "real topics" this might make our overall "product for readers" better. TCO (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, TTT is not an administrator. I believe he had an RfA at one time but did not pass. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Three RfAs (1, 2, 3). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Also, this year, the WikiCup is offering more points (and, probably, a separate award) for high importance articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Good job. I look warmer on the 'cup now.TCO (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Close this With the enactment of the topic bans for TTT, could an admin please close this enormous thread? Thanks --Blackmane (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vacating Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Resolved

 – TonyTheTiger's request to vacate one of his topic bans has been rejected. Bencherlite^Talk 17:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been informed that this ban has been closed as enacted. I have been informed that Wikipedia:Arbitration is suppose to be a last resort after all avenues have been exhausted. I have been told by the closing admin that the alternative formal avenue of appeal is back at WP:ANI. At ANI, instructions say to Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Following the procedure I contacted the nominating admin (Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)) and asked him to consider requesting that the ban be vacated for the following reasons: It was not filed in good faith. I.E., you did not follow WP:AN/I procedure (Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.) and attempt to determine if I had any intention of uploading images about myself and if I might consider resisting such urges. There was no warning given that I need to desist from uploading images about myself or action might be taken to ban such activity. There was no violation of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1 decisions by me. There was no history of violations of other WP:FfD decisions by me. There was no history of violations of any WP:XfD decisions by me. He responded that he felt I had threatened him by notifying him that I was pursuing appeal procedures. He also informed me that proper procedure was to view the ban as if it came from the community. I am asking the community to take heed of its own policy and reconsider the ban for the above reasons as well as those below. Following closure of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1 regarding images related to a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template discussion Sven Manguard, nominator requested a ban to keep me from undoing the two XfDs by reposting the material or posting new substantially similar material. The debate was cluttered with side-discussions statements supporting the two WP:XfDs (E.G., "that much vanity content is painful", WP:NOTWEBHOST, "having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out", WP:N, etc.), which had already been resolved. Note that ANI policy is that Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions Reading through the ban discussion you will find repeated statements in support of both prior XfDs, but no statements that I had or was likely to violate either based on my history. There was no discussion regarding any behavior by me involving history of or intent to violate the deletion discussions by reposting the material or posting new substantially similar material.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Definitely not, per WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU. The community has pretty resoundingly spoken, alleged bad faith or not on the part of the original nominator. It's not even been 24 hours and this is further proof that TTT is refusing to listen to the community. If TTT wishes to pursue arbitration he should be advised it isn't likely to turn out well for him on this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I heard the community supports both XfDs. No need to propose a ban to support them when they are in no danger of being violated, especially in violation of policy in all kinds of ways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose vacating ban. I agree with User:Sven Manguard [39] that your statement "I would request that you consider your responsibility as an administrator and make a formal statement at WP:ANI that the ban be vacated so that I do not have to raise questions about your ability to follow procedure at ANI and then Arbitration." is a threat. Your follow-up statement [40] "I apologize that you view my statement that I was following appeal procedure as "now you have threatened me"." appears disingenuous, at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) And for the record, Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) is not an administrator. I agree with JoeS that your comments above and on Sven's talk page are threatening, all the more so since you appear to have used your incorrect assumption of his (non-existent) admin status as part of the threat. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC) That is true. That I am not an admin also came up in the original ban discussion, which is why I didn't correct him on my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - a quixotic focus on the minutiae of procedure is the very definition of Wikilawyering. And people don't wikilawyer unless they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anyone to actually agree. Don't like it? Take it to arbitration. → ROUX ₪ 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - I'm not getting involved in either side here, but I will say that Tony has a good point that he was never warned and that these kinds of things should be discussed on talk pages before being brought to AN/I for bans. Night Ranger (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Editor gives the appearance of trying very hard to game the system to get what he wants despite community consensus. That's not how one works collaboratively, and it's disrespectful of the consensus of the community and of the individuals who make up that community. --NellieBly (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Roux said it well. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - you are clearly not taking the hint. In addition, if you have no intention of violating the community's desires by continuing to upload images about yourself, why should it matter? PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC) As much as I may oppose the request here, I think there is room for understanding the concept that no user should be under restrictions which confine them to behaviour circumscribed by policy, inasmuch as any understanding of such policy would negate any need for restrictions. Everyone knows what the speed limit on highways (where you live) is; one speeding ticket should, if the driver understands they made a mistake, not result in a judicial injunction to stay under it. The circumstances here, however, seem to indicate this is an habitual speeder who doesn't comprehend that speed limits apply to everyone. → ROUX ₪ 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose (edit conflict) I am, of course, 'involved' at this point, however I stand behind the ban I proposed. TTT has been, over a long period of time, told that he is not notable and that Wikipedia does not exist for self-glorification. Did he upload anything after the mass deletion? No. However the extent and length of the abuse was so staggering, consisting of the single largest case of WEBHOST I have ever seen, that I believed immediate action was necessary, and the community agreed with me. I also ask this; If TTT did not intend on uploading more images/graphs about himself for his biography, why would he be fighting this so hard? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I didn't comment in the initial ban discussion, but it was quite clearly enacted properly and I thus oppose overturning it. I would also suggest that TTT wait at least three months before making another attempt like this. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I didn't participate in the original topic ban discussion, but the consensus there was very clear, and it is much too early to consider vacating it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Question1 If I have no intention of reuploading the deleted content or uploading similar content in the future, what am I suppose to change about my behavior before requesting to have the ban removed in the future? What am I suppose to learn about uploading content before having the ban removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Tony, if you intend to comply with the terms of the ban, it would seem you don't need the ban to be removed. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) You are allowed to have a bio, and although yours is excessive, it isn't against necessarily against policy. You are not, however, allowed to upload 50+ graphs or create 50+ templates that only exist to serve on that bio. You need to demonstrate that you understand that Wikipedia is not a server for your own personal use. My advice: go six months without creating any new pages related to yourself, use a table or two to replace the graphs you have now, put the custom t-shirt and the two letter T scans up for deletion, and take all the stars and tigers from your user talk page and stick them on your user page (so that it dosen't take ten minutes to load your talk page). I would most certainly not start loading personal images at commons, and would most certainly not drag out these proceedings, as they don't paint you in the best of lights. You need to show the community that you've learned from the recent XfDs, you need to show the community that the topic ban is no longer necessary. Come back in six months with a genuine apology, a promise not to abuse the system again, and an invitation for the community to look over your contributions. That's the strong case that will get this repealed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Partial support. No, I haven't gone crazy. Nor have I been drinking (as someone who implied that a week has tens of days in it recently accused me of). Of course, the restrictions had to be passed. Enough was clearly considered enough, and emergency action was needed. I should state that the rest of this post refers more to the FS topic ban, than to TTT's personal upload rights, and that I endorse the first three sentences of Sven's above post, dated 00:56 UTC on 20 June. My reason for supporting is that this entirely justifiable interim measure should be reviewed, if it is to be applied in the longer term. The benefit TTT is capable of bringing to the project is astronomical. I'm not downplaying just how much of a mess he made at DYK, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is capable of producing reasonable quality articles at an incredible pace. I've no doubt that a similar thing happened at FSC, and therefore that a ban is a necessary short-term measure until something more suitable is devised. But lest we forget, a sizeable proportion of all current FS's were uploaded by Tony. 18%, assuming his userpage and WP:FS are both up to date. His contributions include a number of national anthems of underrepresented countries, and a number of noteworthy Presidential speeches, including a 2010 State of the Union address video. Low-hanging fruit some of it may be, but I'd much rather the project had it than not. What is clear is that Tony's interaction with processes as a whole need to be managed, as does his personal uploading, and I use such a broad word as "managed" deliberately. I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but looking at the big picture (Tony's behavior as an entire package), isn't this exactly the sort of area that Arbcom should be handling? If starting this discussion is a prerequisite bureaucratic tick-box for an Arbcom hearing of some sort, then this discussion has my support. However little confidence I have in Arbcom, in practise only it has the ability to apply something that lies in between nothing and a topic ban. In this instance, I consider something between the two extremes to be appropriate, on both topic bans. — WFC— 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Comment Tony's proposal, entitled "Vacating Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed", is explicitly tied to topic ban #2, "2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed". Tony did not propose vacating "the FS topic ban" #1, "1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds"), but perhaps he meant to do so. I see no reason to vacate ban #2, especially given Tony's promise to not violate its terms henceforth. As for topic ban #1, I believe that should be discussed as a separate item. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I have no problem with the first three sentences of Sven's statement. However, they were addressed by the two XfDs. There is no need to support XfDs with bans against violating them, especially without even attempting to talk to the party involved. The ban is basically a wikilynching in support of some kind of lesson. After the XfDs closed there was no need to run around stirring up support for a ban on the XfDed items. Since I have been here 5 years and not violated an XfD, no need to have ever had a discussion about a ban to enforce them. If the ban is enacted, what is a person who has not violated an XfD ban in five years suppose to change about his behavior. That is what I need to know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Nothing could provide more conclusive evidence of the need for these topic bans than this proposal which comes 12 hours after the ban notification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC) It is unfortunate that 12 minutes after the original ban proposal someone didn't say this whole proposal is out of order because there was no behavior violating the XfD and no warning involving violative behavior.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Please stop Wikilawyering, you're not helping yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Sven, he sums up the current situation well. Could someone close this per WP:BOOMERANG? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Support I like how the pathetic attempt at wikilawyering further strengthens the original arguments for placing the ban on TonyTheTiger. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Sven, and request a quick closure per WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and WP:SNOW. cmadler (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting the ban. Self-promotion had been going on far too long, and the community has spoken to stop it - and that's where things should stay, at least for now. If it is not your intention to act against the terms of the ban anyway, then trying to get it lifted now is just pointless lawyering -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Proposing one image upload per year TonyTheTiger's user page may require an occasional update. I propose that he be allowed to upload one self-serving image per year, broadly construed, a minimum of 12 months between such uploads. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC) WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. If he wants to upload another image of himself, he can ask an admin/the community if it's okay like every other topic-banned person. elektrikSHOOS 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Can we just let this end? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ASHOKBINDUSARA

Resolved

 – Editor blocked as WP:SOCKPUPPET. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk · contribs), when they deleted a historian from List of historians without providing any edit summary. I looked at the contributions of the editor in order to see if this was vandalism or constructive editing. While it was not vandalism, the contributions certainly provided evidence of a highly problematic editor. While not being well versed in Indian history, religion and ethnic disputes, it does seem like user:ASHOKBINDUSARA is editing from a militant hinduist viewpoint, and is mainly using WP:TRUTH to back up their claims (literally in fact as can be seen here).

A few days ago the editor was apparently engaged in a dispute on Adolf Hitler's religious views and the editor proceeded to spout this rant on an involved editors talk page:

"go and get some knowledge about the authors who have published the books you dumb christian , oh maybe you are jealous that Hitler was inspired by Hindusim now you will someday say that hp blavatsky too dont have any expertise in the field of aryans the historian who told about aryans first simply means that the latest use of aryan is refers only to INDO-ARYAN people and not to indo-european or indo-iranian. the section just below this on islam contains things which are not given in any book simply a link has been posted and do you want to say that Heinrich himmler didnt have affection for hindu religious writing then you are simply a anti-hindu and weak person and i will ban you next time if you try to vandalize the article , can you give your thoughts on islam section it says something which is not given in any book by any author. Otherwise you are just another dumb christian who dont know to which religion Jesus christ belongs."

dif.

Now the editor has engaged in an edit war (with me, admittedly, but I am not sure if the edits doesn't violate WP:BLP, since they are entirely unsourced) at Romila Thapar (the historian deleted from the list mentioned above), claiming that she is not worthy to be called a historian and she is only doing it for fame (or something or other, I can't entirely decipher the editors intent) on account of the editor thinking that something she wrote is wrong. She is also called a "anti-hindu historian or leftish historian..." and a "fake historian who have never read any books themselves".

ASHOKBINDUSARA has possibly made some good edits, I can't be sure because as stated this is not my field of expertise, but the bias and militant behaviour of them seems to be entirely at odds with the spirit of this encyclopedia. Any inputs from administrators about how to proceed would be nice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have personally read the books mentioned by me and i stand by it, i have given source which are written by noted historians such as RC MAJUMDAR,HELENA BLAVASTKY,JAMES TOD,HC RAYCHOUWDHARI,RK MOKKERJEE. further romilla thapar is often considered as pseudo secular in India by many Hindus, she speak without any knowledge ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you have read the books in question is irrelevant: what I see as the prime issue is the massive personal attack that you made against someone who does not share your view. On top of that, whether or not you feel you have the WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, and not one-sided edits. Wikipedia is a neutral, collegial encyclopedia, and rants and attacks are not at all welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content discussion, so please keep that at Talk:Romila Thapar. My point with this thread was that your bias seems to infringe upon your ability to edit in a neutral fashion. It may be that with some proper coaching and studying of the relevant policies, you may yet become an asset to the project. I haven't got any experience in judging that, but for now what seems the majority of your edits constitute a problem to the netrality and verifiability of this project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The insertions in Romila Thapar do appear to be serious BLP violations about a very distinguished academic. In a 2005 review in the New York Review of Books William Dalrymple explained in detail the political revisionism in the writing of textbooks on Indian history since 1999 [41] adding in a footnote, "Romila Thapar recently revised her Penguin history of India under the new title: EARLY INDIA: From the Origins to AD 1300. The brilliant culmination of a lifetime of scholarship, she brings her work up to date and directly challenges many of the myths of Hindutva. It is, however, written in fairly dense academese." ASHOKBINDUSARA does not seem to be editing neutrally. Wikipedia would take the Penguin History of India as a WP:RS. Those with experience editing articles on India. like Ncmvocalist and RegentsPark, can probably judge whether there are problems involving Indian nationalism, as appears to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think statements like "it should be mentioned that how a leftist historian views are dominated by her disgusting nature of appeasing muslims or lower caste people of hindus" definitely shows an editor pushing a Hindu nationalist POV in completely inappropriate language. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: There's more to this than meets the eye, this is standard operating procedure for User:Mrpontiac1 who has caused more disruption on South Asian religion, history, caste and food articles for many years. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1 for the latest report pending CU. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems checkuser came up with ASHOKBINDUSARA being a possible match. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been indeffed as a sockpuppet, so I guess this can be closed now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot or not?

Resolved

 – Account blocked by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else please check this diff and see if that was an actual bot edit? If so, I'd call it a very ill-behaved bot. If not, there's an impostor running around somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ETA...based on this diff, I think there's a serious problem. I haven't looked at the other edits committed by that username yet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of typing up a report myself but got multiple edit conflicts. At any rate, the account is now blocked. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it's an unauthorized bot per [42] and [43], and the block is most certainly valid. –MuZemike 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user as a vandal account with misleading edit summaries and impersonating ClueBot. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Albanian diaspora article

• User Vinie007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accused me of vandalism and reverted my edits on this article Albanian diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) based on my alleged vandalism.

I simply corrected (as a user with IP 178.148.32.118 - i did not notice that i was not logged) previously wrong numbers and matched numbers to the numbers given in refrences of the article.I am new around here and i need help in dealing with biased contributors because i can not find any other reason for my edits be called vandalism. I go to wikipedia every single day, not even questioning data in it because of so many levels of controls and on this article that i was going to use as a reference to a scientific paper i found completelly wrong and innacurate numbers.How is this possible?And when i tried to put real numbers on article i was accused of vandalism!?!? Is that common?

This is my edits in comparison with reverted,someone arbitrarily and randomly put wrong numbers by simply adding numbers 1,3 or 5 to get a bigger numbers.You can notice that half of number match label i lost over half an hour to look into each and every reference link to correct those data. Vandalism is very serious accusation and i think that my edits are not vandalism.I understood that in case of vandalism i can be banned from visiting wikipedia.I think that i am falsly accused. I tried to meet the standards of posting on this page, hope i did everything ok and that you will answer me. TheBigCatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It doesn't look like you have tried to talk to Vinie007, or even notify him of this section, as you are supposed to. I have now notified him. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that from this page. I left the message on talk page of article in hope that he will see it. TheBigCatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You should have left a notice on his talk page. You also should have tried to talk to him about your concerns before bringing them here. I think admin intervention in this matter would be premature. I suggest that you wait for a response from Vinie007 and express your concerns in a non-accusatory manner. -- Donald Albury 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As a fallback, I've issued ARBMAC and EW warnings to both editors. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Where was TheBigCatcher edit-warring? He made a series of good-faith edits, was met with an unjustified vandalism accusation, and was of course entitled to then re-instate his edits. He did so once. That's not edit-warring. If Arbmac warnings are to retain any meaning, please don't dilute their force by slapping them on people indiscriminately like this. Handing out a warning to a good-faith editor who has done absolutely nothing wrong is adding insult to injury. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, based at least on the English language references, the changes TheBigCatcher made did not make any sense, and I can see why they were reverted. The references were changed to out-of-date statistics, and the new numbers did not match what the references stated. (That being said, the old numbers don't match what the references stated, either.) Singularity42 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, TheBigCatcher's changes all matched the sources, except that in the case of Kosovo he seems to have slightly miscalculated (the source only has total population in absolute numbers and ethnicities expressed in percentages); the figure he gave ought to have been derived from that calculation but was slightly off unless I'm mistaken. In all other cases the figures are taken correctly from the sources. In the previous version, in contrast, the figures had be absurdly distorted through earlier sneaky vandalism (especially this edit, but also others), which had randomly increased the figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IP OUTING & NPA on User talk:Guyonthesubway

Resolved

 – Content deleted and user page semi-protected for 30 days by Atama — Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RFPP semi of talk page for Guyonthesubway (talk · contribs) expired, and outing and personal attacks have resumed, apparently from the same IP user, based on content as I remember it.

• 77.241.230.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 208.54.95.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

See also here — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to see for a peon like me if it's the same kind of stuff (the previous edits were oversighted, unless I'm mistaken). What we have here now (in the history) is weird, and borderline personal attack, maybe, but whether it's really outing or not is difficult to determine. Thus, while I would be more than happy to extend protection of the talk page if there is really outing involved, I can't tell whether that is justified or not. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The most recent bit of harassment looked like it contained an attempt to name the editor's employer, so I revdeleted it. As a fellow peon I can't see how bad the previous attempts were either because they were removed via oversight. But I semi-protected the talk page for a month, hopefully that's long enough for the person to get bored and move on. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't sure how to read that drivel, but better safe than sorry. Thanks Atama. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim of defamation

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs). Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could someone uninvolved take a look at this diff and take appropriate action IAW WP:NLT and advise this user if they feel it is appropriate to do so? Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a specific legal threat, although the language used in the diff is fairly strident. Keeping in mind that the absolute defense for libel is truth, what are they claiming was defamatory? Is it something that can be supported under WP:BLP? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the defamation laws in the UK or how stuff talking about people in other parts of the Commonwealth are dealt with, but could anything written by someone in the UK about people in India be a violation of those laws? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I *assume* that Fraudly is worried about my observation here and perhaps the rest of the Talk:Enthiran discussion which may provide an insight to their issues. Fæ (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The important part of NLT is "threat". Making vague intimations that it would be in someone's best interests for them to disengage from a topic or revert all their edits due to some perceived legal problem definitely falls under that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The edit seems like an obvious threat that if the edits are not all reverted, the user is in violation of some law and will be prosecuted and/or sued. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like all bluster to me. There's nothing defamatory about wanting to verify data or mathematical calculations. Uncomfortable for someone, perhaps, if the verification shows other results than what someone wants. But not defamatory. That said, I see Tnxman307 has already dealt with the WP:NLT problem. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats and block evasion- not a good combo. TNXMan 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that combo may fall under the "kiss of death" heading... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Has wikipedia ever had a more fitting sock / legal threatener than an ID named "Fraudly"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Badrinath (film), a page targeted by this user, has had a new account suddenly show up making substantially similar changes such as inserting it being declared a flop without citing a source, and changing income numbers without changing sources. -- ۩ Mask 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick look shows a passed WP:DUCK test based on similarity of edits. Worth a full WP:SPI? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not denied. Not directly tied to this maybe-sock, but worth SPI to confirm and perhaps block harder...blocked is blocked, NLT is non-negotiable, and editor is apparently hell-bent on evasion. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can one person determine that only Hindu sources be used from now on in perpetuity? Is this Wikipedia policy?

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

Thigle has taken the hint and opened a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Admins, can one person determine that only Hindu sources be used from now on in perpetiude? Is this Wikipedia policy?Thigle (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No and no. WP:RS is the standard. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. So why don't the Admins do anything? How many more days will go by? Thigle (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it painfully obvious from the previous discussion here that without an obvious admin-action request there is nothing to discuss on this noticeboard? DMacks (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The previous thread was closed; please don't open new WP:POINTY ones. GiantSnowman 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Come back if editing gets disruptive or something. Larry V (talk | email) 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding right? You all are probably not realizing that 80% of the discussion page was created in the last few days. Scroll UP for god's sake. Thigle (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As pointed before, following the dispute resolution process is the best way to address content disputes. Also the dispute resolution noticeboard was recently created to provide guidance in situations such as this one - frankie (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Right but no content can be proposed in the first place since it was unilaterally decided that only Hindu sources are acceptable. Topmost Western professors such as Gavin Flood, Alexis Sanderson etc. used everywhere else in Wikipedia are no longer acceptable. Thigle (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLOGGINGADEADHORSE anyone? GiantSnowman 00:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just letting the Admins know that as of right now, only Hindu sources are allowed on that page. Do what you want with that. Peace. Thigle (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

^{(Friendly non-admin suggestion)}Thigle, take the hint(s). Nothing on Wikipedia is decided "unilaterally". WP:Consensus rules, and it's reached via talk-page discussion. If no consensus can be reached on a particular issue, then it can be taken to dispute resolution. Haploidavey (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible for one lone editor to define the parameters of an article unless he's the only one editing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He has the support of ThisThat2011, an infamous editor. See his discussion page. Thigle (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Two editors does not consensus make. Unless they're the only two editors working in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can consensus overcome Wikipedia policy on sourcing in the first place? Why are you all talking about consensus? Thigle (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If two editors are on one side of an issue, and you're the lone editor on the other side, you're pretty much "screwed". Unless you can take them to dispute resolution and demonstrate that they are not following rules, e.g. by citing unreliable sources or something. But as this appears to be a content dispute, unless the editors are breaking some rules of conduct, there's not much the admins can do. Is this about the "Hinduism" article? I find it hard to believe that only 3 editors in the entirety of wikipedia would be working on it or at least watching it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So consensus CAN overcome Wikipedia's policy on sourcing? Thigle (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been told that policy does not exclude western sources, and have been told repeatedly where to go to help get consensus (or to get additional input if you feel the associated discussion could benefit from additional editors' input). None of that is here. No policies have been broken. You disagree with others in a content/sourcing dispute (and maybe many of us here do too), but the policy is "follow WP:DR to get consensus in a dispute" not come complaining to admins when two editors don't agree with you--even if they are not correct. There is no administrator action required here. If you actually follow dispute-resolution and are correct in your interpretation of actual policies and guidelines, others will support you in the proper venue and lead to the incorrect interpretation being set aside by consensus. DMacks (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Thigle looks to be suffering from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure what the goal is, but to this non-admin, it's bordering on both tendentious and disruptive. Perhaps your stern words will sink in. I hope so, anyway. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me restate what DMacks has said: You may be right or wrong, and the others may be right or wrong. There are places at Wikipedia where you can go and determine that definitively. This noticeboard is not it. There are other places that are it. Please use those instead of this noticeboard. If after you have used dispute resolution process, editors are ignoring the results of that process, you come here to get things fixed. However, Thigle, you have put the cart before the horse. If you just go to the correct procedure, you can solve this problem. Just go through the dipute resolution process, try either WP:3O or WP:RFC or the new WP:DRN, and do exactly what you did here, and see where it leads. After all of the other editors have backed you up at those processes, THEN come here. --Jayron32 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My motivation? I am tired of being called a Christian bigot, having poor understanding of sourcing issues etc. whenever I mention a Western professor / department head at major university. They explicitly are of the position that only Hindu sources (not even Indian ones) are proper RS. They cite tourist guides from the 1980's. I really don't see why I have to start a dispute resolution over Wikipedia policy and the repeated nasty insults. And I don't understand why you all are not on my side. Instead you are criticizing me. Its ridiculous. Talk to PaulB. Thigle (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If other editors continue to call you names without justification, and it's impeding your ability to edit, WP:WQA would be worth a try. Meanwhile, I note that the Hinduism page is covered by many projects, including the most obvious, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. Have you raised these content and sourcing issues at the project talk page? When I run into a content dispute on a baseball article, I typically take it to the baseball project talk page and get some further opinions. That might work for the Hinduism project also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Allowing only Hindu sources merely a "content dispute"? No its not a content dispute. Its a violation of Wikipedia policy, as several of YOU pointed out. Thigle (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I called it a content and sourcing dispute. You should take this matter to the Hinduism project page and see what other editors have to say about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let;s say this even clearer Thigle. Some people commenting here may be on your side (hint-hint-fucking-hint), but no one is going to say so at this noticeboard because that is not what this noticeboard is for. If you take up the same issue in another forum, perhaps, just maybe, you will get the exact support you keep begging for here. Like, take this complaint, go WP:DRN, and see if you don't get exactly what you keep begging for. Its just that here, in the context of this noticeboard, no one is going to commit to saying you are right, because that is not what this noticeboard is for. Go to the right place, make the same complaint, and watch what happens. This is likely to go much better for you if you just do what we keep asking for. --Jayron32 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Petty templating and edit warring over an infobox

Over the past several weeks, there appears to have been a dispute over whether or not a particular comedy song (3-Way (The Golden Rule)) should be classified as a promotional track or as an official single. This basically only concerns changing the infobox's template from {{Infobox Single}} to {{Infobox Song}} and vice versa. Tonight, I made an argument on the article's talk page concerning why Infobox Single should be used, used an edit summary that I probably should not have (referring to what I believe are WP:OWN issues amongst a couple of editors on these pages), and also removed a statement that had no real source in the article. This has prompted Tbhotch (talk · contribs) to revert any edit I make to the page as apparently classifying the template differently requires a source, any comment I leave on his page, as well as give me what I consider petty templated warnings meant only for the new members (see [44] [45] [and yes, I know I used rollback on them, but I have a statement on the top of my talk page that says I will do this to such impersonal messages]). I know I should not particularly result to this tactic, but the lameness over which template should be used and the actions Tbhotch has taken just because I switched the template I feel needs a slightly wider audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say 1 word on this: WP:Verifiability. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How does WP:V carry over to what template is used on the article? If it is only an aesthetic aspect, why are you treating me as if I don't know anything about how this project works?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I change the infobox to 1+1 (song) just because of my balls? Is it how Wikipedia works? I don't think so The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Also, it seems you do not understand how the project works ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

I have never seen anything on WP:V that dictates what template should be used. All I know is that this has gotten unnecessarily out of control.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because WP:V is a police that, along with BLP, should be applied elsewhere, that's why it is a policy. The template Infobox single cleary says: "The design and content of all music-related infoboxes should follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy, infobox style guideline and music style guideline. While this document may clarify details of their specific application to the infobox, it is primarily concerned with explaining usage and not with matters of Wikipedia policy and style.". ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bike Shed, anyone? There are far more pressing concerns, even BLP concerns, on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 01:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that WP:DEW existed. And I know that this is barely even a molehill. I just was not sure how to proceed considering Tbhotch's actions over such a WP:LAME issue, particularly how he accused me of harassing him in this edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DEW, the ESSAY with no validity, how I forgot that as well. Anyway we are not here due the next edit: Please revert yourself and let me violate a policy, otherwise you are violating "Verifibiality" with the source... wait! I did not provide a source, but anyway, I was correct, please revert yourself, thanks. Are we? ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that essays are not policy. But if you read it you will see why what has happened has been blown unnecessarily out of proportion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should handle this the same way you treat any edit-warring situation, Ryulong? In this case, I agree that the underlying motivation is pretty minor, but it does make a certain amount of sense to reserve the "infobox single" template for songs that reliable sources have described as a "single", and use "infobox song" for songs that haven't been described as a "single" in reliable sources. Your edit has been reverted by multiple editors on that basis. That would imply that the next step is to either leave it alone, or to find a reliable source that describes the song as a "single" and discuss it. Easy enough, no?—Kww(talk) 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kww, I agree that this edit war is silly and it shouldn't have been bought here but thank you for explaining in plain simple English why it may be better to use the "song" template in this article and how WP:V may apply instead of throwing around WP:FOOs and catchphrases. If this were done more often then maybe there would be less edit wars. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was only reverted by Tbhotch who proceeded to treat any of my edits regarding the page as requiring reverts. I've made/added onto a discussion on the article's talk page concerning the issue, but Tbhotch's actions in regards to my edits and what I thought were not valid reasons to dismiss them and revert them I wanted some input on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not obligated to answer you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do however explicitly request at the top of my user talk page that editors such as yourself follow the message in the essay WP:TEMPLAR when leaving me messages as I find it patronizing to be left {{uw-unsourced1}} when you could have explained to me in the first place that you are taking a strict reading of the little box in the documentation of {{Infobox Single}} as well as a general overall strict application of WP:V.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Another essay. I will wonder why you follow vox populi and not rules and guidelines. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because adhering to common courtesy should not be a written rule.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You pretty much are required to defend reversions, Tbhotch. Certainly when I examine an edit war and determine who to block and for how long, I give editors that are discussing their point of view credit for attempting to edit constructively, and look unkindly on editors that refuse to join talk page discussions. Of course, I also look unkindly on people that bring content disputes to ANI. I think I'm pretty normal in that regard. As for who's reverting who, Ryulong reverted Legolas2186, who had reverted Supergamer345. Time for everyone to go to the talk page and discuss things. As I said earlier, while Tbhotch might be wrong in thinking he is immune to needing to discuss things, his insistence on Ryulong pointing to a reliable source that describes the song as a "single" does fall in line with normal procedures, and I think Ryulong should be searching for a source.

As for other things, if I could speedy delete any essay, those that complain about templating regulars would be high on the list of candidates. Disputes about talk page "rules" are about as petty as disputes can get.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I simply prefer not to be treated like some idiot who doesn't know that there are rules to follow. There is a much more wider ranging policy that I adhere to in situations such as this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• What a ridiculous waste of time and energy. Even putting aside the fact that the "single"/"song" distinction makes very little sense when virtually all digitally released tracks are unbundled for sale. According to the relevant article, a "single" is typically "a song that is released separately from an album." This song, without dispute, does not appear on an album. What else is there to discuss. Do we require specific sourcing to put Lady Gaga in the "living persons" category? Whatever you cite, it's out-of-date. There's a point where arguing the obvious becomes unusually tendentious, and we're well past that point here. Only conclusions that should be drawn from this discussion: Wikipedia has too many infobox variations, and people take infoboxes way too seriously. Trouts for everybody. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I believe a more specific distinction lies in whether or not the song charts separately from the album in terms of airplay or sales. But this is still a useless splitting of hairs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• The distinction between "single" and "song" here shouldn't be something that Tbhotch should be editwarring over, and it certainly shouldn't be something he should be Wikilawyering over. Since he wants policy pages, using common sense is an official policy, and I don't see Tbhotch doing a lot of that here. --Jayron32 02:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And are you an admin Jay? Wow, using my common sense, your RFA was poor. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I do not see Wiktionary:improvements or Wiktionary:maintainments. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tbhotch is being out of control here. There's no two ways about it. I recommend that he turn off his computer and go read a book for 24 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not my boss. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but when you get blocked for, among other things, that attitude, you're going to wish you listened to my advice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you threating me with block me? You have nothing. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not threatening to block you. Rather I saying that at the rate you're going at, you're very likely to earn yourself a block in the near future. No one likes being taken to task at AN/I, but your behavior here, as well as the behavior that led to this thread being started, are inappropriate. I'm suggesting that you need to take a break and cool off, let calmer heads prevail, and all that good stuff, because you're lashing out and the only one it's hurting is you. I'm also not an administrator, so even if I did want to block you, I couldn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a heck of a lot of behaviour that's not following the community nature of Wikipedia: WP:TRUTH - and indeed, a statement that they have no requirement to communicate with people who are trying to properly gain WP:CONSENSUS. Sprinkle in some WP:OWN, some WP:DICK, some WP:TENDENTIOUS and I see valid reasons for a short, imposed break. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I wanted to bring this to the attention of the board. Tbhotch has been extremely too confrontational towards everyone in this whole debacle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop

Geez. Alright then. Speechless (Michael Jackson song) is a featured article. Way back when, when myself and others were having this exact argument, the compromise was to create a infobox that listed it as a promotional single because that is what it is. Is this 3-Way song a promotional single as well? If so, I advise you just do the same thing as was done at Speechless. The middle ground. Silverseren^C 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is sure because its status is not mentioned anywhere. This is why I made the edit, and after I realized that Tbhotch was going to continue to act in the way he did, I started the talk page discussion. Regardless of the content of the article, Tbhotch needs to change his attitude.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, this is NOT the correct place. "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see WP:wikiquette alerts." Can you stop this Ryu, you are the only who continues with this. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

While i'm not going to wade into this rather insignificant infobox issue, I will say that throughout the course of this ANI discussion, you have been acting extremely rude and inappropriate and you should really work on your civility, especially when it concerns such an unimportant issue. We all need to act like adults here. Silverseren^C 02:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, Tbhotch, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Your aggressive attitude here is really killing any sympathy anyone might have for your position. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hinduism

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

This isn't a place to discuss changes to articles, and it's certainly not a place for petty bickering. If an admin or an uninvolved editor wishes to comment here, please feel free, though, of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

---

This talk page is rapidly degenerating into chaos with bizarre accusations and counter-accusations flying around (Talk:Hinduism#.22Hindu_Dharma.22_-_the_title_of_the_page.2C_instead_of_Hinduism). There has been concern expressed that a militant Hindu contributor editing as an IP (117.198.54.252 and variants) is a sock of a banned editor, but I have no idea who that might be. Some administrator intervention might be desirable if only to calm things down. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be a reference to this earlier section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No the IP is clearly a different individual, far more literate and coherent than ASHOKBINDUSARA. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From my side, I am not even bothered to notice any disreputable claims from any side, other than making a point on authority of sources, which apparently was the point of discussion. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The link point to the same discussion here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the editor of the I.P. is militant Hindu, by any unsaid standards.

Can someone suggest what is meant by a militant Hindu editor? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is a militant Hindu. Thigle (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, this mysterious IP editor called the Virgin Mary a harlot and REFUSES reputable Western professors / department heads to be used as sources. He thinks only Indian sources must be used and calls anything else a "Christian bigoted" source. Thigle (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you have instigated this name game by callin three other users "Hindu fundamentalists". Just because you do not have any good arguments does not make the other side "Militant Hindu".-117.198.54.220 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Time out. I think BOTH of you need to step back for a bit. Casting aspersions on each others' beliefs is not going to win any battles. And now that we have that out of the way, I'm looking for a reason for an admin to step in here (other than for the WP:CIVIL issue), and I'm not seeing it. This is a content dispute, and should go through dispute resolution. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not about content. I gave up on that. He STILL only allows Indian sources, calling anything and anyone else "Christian bigots". He unilaterally determined Wikipedia policy. Please don't make uninformed comments. I am not even the one reporting him. Thigle (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion is on RS sources, than let's not diverge from it.

For Thigle, I just found a new tag that can be used to emphasize : the u tag like this: so one could use u--tag though ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, drop the "militant Hindu" 狗屎. It adds nothing to the discussion other than invective. And if an editor is working to disallow particular sources based on religion, it is, by definition, a content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not even use the phrase "militant Hindu". That was the reporter PaulB. Again making uninformed comments? Thigle (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, informed ones. I quote from above:

Of course he is a militant Hindu. Thigle (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, you have exactly two choices here. Drop it, or I make my first ever entry at WP:WQA. 懂了嗎？ --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I assure you both, this noticeboard is not where you want to be hashing out your nasty arguments. --causa sui (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway the problem is one person determining that only Hindu sources can be used in the Hinduism entry, all the while insulting noted Western professors as "Christian bigots" and other Hindu people as "Christian bigots". Is that Wikipedia policy?Thigle (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Alan, I love how you threw those chinese characters in. They lend such an elegant emphasis to your point Yes I can read them =D --Blackmane (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to see deleted company article in relation to a lawsuit

See WP:Refund#Media Tenor. The article about Media Tenor was deleted three years ago. A representative of a company that is being sued by Media Tenor about something they wrote is asking to see our deleted article and its editing history. Is there any problem with emailing the deleted text and the history? Deletion was per G11 (advertisement), not for any question of attack. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is in all likelihood not the right place to ask. un☯mi 11:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• On one hand we more or less routinely make CSD G11 style deleted pages and history available - on the other, it makes me as uncomfortable as I am sure that it made you to be party to handing over evidence to be used as a part of a legal process. In any case, I would imagine that for the content and history to offer benefit to such a process it would have to be handed over by a certifying body. Offhand I would suggest that they email OTRS, or post at WP:OTRS/N so that it ends up in the right inbox. un☯mi 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to get them to contact the foundation and have them provide the material; as an organisation rather than an individual. That gives us a bit if legal covering - if an individual provides the information they could (even if it is a remote risk) end up being dragged into whatever unrelated mess this is :) Best direct them to [email protected] --Errant ^(chat!) 11:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to have my doppelgangers indef blocked

I would like to request for all of my doppelganger accounts to be indef blocked, as I suspect my old password from a few years ago may have been compromised (see this). There is no need for alarm for my main account, as I use a different password for this one, as with all of my accounts on other sites. They are:

• User:B3NL15QU4R3
• User:Benlisquare 888
• User:李博杰
• User:Libojie
• User:Rihakuketsu
• User:이박걸
• User:リはくけつ
• User:Ben Li
• User:Benjamin Li
• User:Libenja

Since I have not touched these accounts in years, they (most likely) still have the same old password (I say likely because I've personally forgotten). Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done - can you check I've got them all. The redirects kept catching me out. I've blocked 'em all with talkpage disabled and email blocked - seeing as they are all supposed to be you, and you have a working talkpage and email. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, from what I can see, you've got them all. Thanks for that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tanya Marie Bryant articles

Resolved

 – unless anyone thinks I was wrong, of course

There's something slightly odd going on over at Tanya Marie Bryant Adoption Termination Act and Tanya Marie Lowry. The former was created yesterday by User:Cedartrees, and I can find nothing wrong with the content or references so far. This morning, an editor User:Tanya Lowry created Tanya Marie Lowry, noting that the person is also known as Tanya Bryant. In this edit, a third editor User:Faeriewiccan removed the Unreviewed tag, but made no further changes. Faeriewiccan is now tagging Tanya Marie Bryant Adoption Termination Act with db-person with an edit summary claiming personal and safety issues, and also asking at my talk page to delete it with threats of legal action against Cedartrees, followed by an immediate revert. Not sure what to do about this: I can see nothing libellous yet, and there's not way of affirming which editor is who they claim to be. Advice please? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I also notice in contributions of Faeriewiccan: User:Faeriewiccan/Tanya_Marie_Lowry, indicating that User:Faeriewiccan and User:Tanya Lowry may be the same editor (though not necessarily intentional sockpuppets) Gurt Posh (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We clearly don't need both articles, especially as they're largely identical. The person isn't notable outside of the event, so I have redirected her article to it. To be honest, I don't think the event is notable either. I cannot think of any reason why private petitions to Parliament for filiation are notable - if it belongs anywhere, it belongs at WikiNews or in a larger article about the process of adoption termination, and not just in Canada. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article and the talkpage stuff, I've just been WP:BOLD and deleted both of the articles. The woman herself isn't notable and nor is her personal life. WP:DONOHARM and WP:BLP issues abound here; if anyone thinks I'm wrong feel free to restore them, but I can't see a reason for them to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but shouldn't Tanya Marie Bryant Adoption Termination Act have gone to AFD first, rather than speedy? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? It was deleted as WP:CSD#A7 as no explanation of notability, which is a valid speedy deletion based on the content (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if we're policy wonking it should have gone to AfD (or more usefully PROD) - A7 doesn't really apply to political lawmaking, but since it was so tightly bound up with the person themselves, I figured that A7 could stretch to cover it. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to sidestep the wonkery, if that's usual practice. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Case of WP:BOOMERANG

Resolved

 – ENOUGH already - clearly, admins are paying attention to the situations, and there's NOT YET anything actionable, except perhaps your own persistence now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See comments of Dougweller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Resolution_4Thigle (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Klownboy

• Klownboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klownboy Circus of Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Klownboy's article was tagged and deleted per {{db-g11}} as spam, after which he went on a mini-spree, posting a copy of the deleted article (text and images) on my talk page twice, then replacing the {{uw-coi}} warning on his own talk page with another copy, then posting yet another copy on his user page. I shouldn't be the one to further warn or block him, but his activity needs some adminly attention. – Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Klownboy's user page is now up for MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klownboy. — Becksguy (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He/she blanked the user page and thus the MfD template. I restored the page and warned user on his/her talk page. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with a user blanking their own user page? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That's silly and counterproductive. Someone starts a discussion to delete the page, and then when he blanks it, effectively complying with the deletion request, you bar him from doing so? He can blank the page if he wants to, it's in his own user space. It renders the discussion moot, unless someone thinks it should be deleted from the page history.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the blank version, removed the inapplicable warning, and commented on the MfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article itself has been recreated (see above) and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE. Blanking of his own user page seem OK to me, although not the other stuff. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the MfD notice on the user page included the text: "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion." The justification for that language is that removing the notice may make it harder to develop a consensus at the discussion. So, if you have a problem with it, the template message needs to be changed. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose "unless it is in your own user space and you created it" would be an okay exception there. Would be a good idea to propose that be added. Anyway, yeah, there's nothing wrong with it being blanked in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And we work on common sense here, not blind literal obedience to the written rule - that particular instruction is not generally applied to the original author blanking their own creation, as that effectively achieves exactly what a deletion request sets out to do in the first place -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Delete all, salt, indef block the editor for disruption. Any outstanding MfDs can be speedily closed, as it seems that the conclusions are already obvious, mostly as a result of this editor's disrupive behaviour. While the film might just about make a case for notability (Troma at least are well-known amongst this delightful little niche), the editor has blown it by their own actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ummm, no. Only in exceptional cases do we consider a user's edits as tainted and delete them without consideration to their merits. While it's likely we're dealing with a non-notable subject here, there is absolutely no need for us to delete it out of process just to spite the user. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Chris, unless this editor has been site banned there's no need to nuke all of their contributions on sight. Even contributions from a banned user can be kept if other editors think they are worth keeping. This sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. -- Atama頭 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks for all the followup / followthrough here. – Athaenara ✉ 17:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike (talk · contribs) blocked Klownboy (talk · contribs) indefinitely for having a spam username. The AfD for the film is still ongoing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLOWNBOY CIRCUS OF GORE. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That article was deleted per WP:SNOW. -- Atama頭 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Unruly and off-topic FfD

Get the WMF legal team to make a statement

IANAL NOUAL (None Of Us Are Lawyers)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Saying 'oh well, whatever' here and moving on isn't good enough anymore. This war over the NFCC has been going on for an absurd amount of time and involves a half dozen editors that have shown themselves more than willing to repeatedly throw themselves at each other, then go to ANI and ask for everyone else to clean it up. TreasuryTag, Damiens.rf, Delta, and Future Perfect all have a very conservative view of what the NFCC allows. BQZip01 and others have a less conservative view. The war has devolved to the point where one side will take a member of the other side to ANI and try to get them blocked, ususally with some flimsy excuse that hides the NFCC war being the motivation. The only way this is ever going to get resolved is if the WMF legal team issues a statement of clarification on the NFCC. I'm not a fan of non-community derived policy, but considering that the entire point of the NFCC is to allow Wikipedia to use non-free content without getting sued, I'd say that the WMF legal team has every right to step in here and speak. For those of you that see "legal team" and immediately thing "legal threat", slow down and read what I'm saying. I want a legal policy statement, which has nothing to do with legal action. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The problem with rule number 8 is that it's extremely subjective. Strict constructionists argue that unless a fair-use image (or any image, frankly) is absolutely necessary for understanding, then it has to go. Many of us on the other side argue that even if an image is not theoretically "necessary", it helps the reader to understand more quickly. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Deletionists prefer the thousand words to one picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The subjectivity is exactly why a clarification is needed. I also, for the sake of discussion, take issue with the term "deletionists". Sven Manguard Wha? 00:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'll be interested to see how anyone can objectively define whether an illustration is needed for understanding the subject better. As for the term "deletionist", if the shoe fits, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not optimistic that the WMF will offer a clarifying statement, since the underlying fair use laws (in the US, at least) are frustratingly vague themselves. But I understand your frustration, and if you want to ask them for one, go for it. Maybe we'll luck out and get one. 28bytes (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Nor am I, but it would seem to be in WMF's best interest to address it, as it's they who are hung up on minimizing non-free content. And if, by some small miracle, they are able to issue a bright-line ruling, it will behoove all of us to follow it, be we in the "inclusionist" or "deletionist" camp. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You know, this kinda makes sense. This has been going on for years, and it seems clear that it is well out of the ability of the community to decide what proper use of non-free content is. If the WMF would just come out and issue some definitive statements, even if arbitrary, it would solve the problem. In other words, it seems to me that most of the community doesn't care WHAT guidance the WMF gives on this, we just need guidance to stop the war. Personally, I couldn't give a shit what they set the policy to, they just need to make a policy we can all find unambiguous so people on both sides of this rediculousness can follow it. Even if we disagree with the WMF's standing on a personal level, it doesn't matter, its a foundation-derived policy, so we would all just get in line with it. --Jayron32 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I think that, at least in this case, there's a free-content solution; a new drawing of the coat of arms, based on the blazon, can be created. cmadler (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC) This is so beyond this one case; this is a project-wide problem that has been brewing literally for years, and recurs every day several times per day. --Jayron32 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I forsee requests to the WMF to make a binding decision and produce clear language being loudly ignored. Wikipedia is... kinda weird sometimes. What about an RfC or even an arbcom? Night Ranger (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Who created the fair use rules here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:History of non-free content policies. Jimbo was involved in such initial drafting back in 2005. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The previously more flexible version of rule 8, "to illustrate points in the article", somehow got removed, and that's where the problem lies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Because that's pretty much ripe for abuse with decorative images. Not everything needs illustration. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That's a matter of personal opinion, not policy. "A picture is worth a thousand words." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) And also an ongoing RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The core argument boil down to this: "I don't need an illustration, therefore no one else does either." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that the time has come for the Foundation to address this in an unambiguous manner. This is the defining dispute of today's English Wikipedia. Our image deletion process is utterly dominated by a small number of editors who - in good faith - believe they are serving the interests of the project by applying the strictest possible interpretation of non-free content policy. Yet they leave a trail of angry and disillusioned content editors behind them, literally unable to accept that an image which has been considered fair use and used for years in an article has now been deleted because editors at some distant noticeboard - who often very obviously have no actual understanding of the topic or the image's significance - considered it "not essential to understanding" - something that NFCC doesn't even require. There is a civil war brewing between the armies of Free and Useful, and it has the potential to split this community apart. I really believe there is potential for the project to fork over this issue. The WMF need to show some leadership here; we will all fall in line, if only they will tell us where the line actually is. Thparkth (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The problem is, they want to have it "both ways". Ideally, they want only free content. But if they disallow all fair use, then countless important illustrations go away, and then your encyclopedia is seriously degraded. So they invent these rules as to what constitutes "reasonable" fair use. But that's ignorant, frankly. You either have fair use or you don't. It's not possible to straddle the fence and have things work out collegially. But that's what they're trying to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Remember that there are wikis in other languages that disallow any non-free. And yet they are still seriously-taken works. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Then you should abolish ALL fair use in the English wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) No, because 1) the Foundation allows some, and 2) there's clear allowable cases of en.wiki non-free use. And as long as we're talking about WP:VEGAN, we have to be completely aware that NFC has no bright line on when it is and isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC) WP:VEGAN makes me ask the question "are we a free (libre) encyclopedia or are we a free (beer) encyclopedia that uses a free license?" It seems to me that to the "non-free image deletionist" we are the former which makes their motivation different then that of an "article deletionist". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You've got it all wrong. Deletionists are just rule-mongers on power trips who want to make the encyclopedia less useful for people. At least that's what I hear every day. it's time to let this thread die. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) It's NOT clear, and that's the whole problem. What you call "decorative", I call "educational". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I think any attempt to appeal to the WMF is going to produce no result as long as our current approach is not breaking their Resolution (which it isn't). I believe attempts have been made to ask for clarity on what they mean by minimal use or the like, and no real response has come back. The thing to remember is that NFCC policy was pretty much ok'd by the Foundation at the time of the Resolution, and that's why I think we're not going to get any clarity on feedback. The only question that matters for a good response is basically, what is valued more by the Foundation: a free-content work, or one where free content approaches are sacrificed for educational purposes, all still within the confines of the Resolution. My guess, only by how the Foundation presents itself, is they want free content, but that's my read. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) What "resolution" would that be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) This one. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That so-called "resolution" abounds with self-contradictions and weasel words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, that's the minimal "law" we need to follow. Yes, it's vague, it obviously is open-ended to exactly what is "minimal use", and thus why we have problems, but there is a line we can't cross based on that. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) No, there is no line that can't be crossed, because the so-called "line" still comes down to personal opinion, not rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Baseball Bugs: Could you please stop being so confrontational when contributing to this discussion? Thank you. AGK [•] 10:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I gave up on the FU thing because pretty much every image I uploaded eventually got deleted under the more "vague" points of the NFCC. The only valid rationale I can see for limiting (or eliminating) non-free content is the possibility of the WMF getting potentially sued by huge image monsters like Corbis and the like. Photographers take pictures to sell for money, and image houses buy them and the rights and expect money for their use each and every time. I used to tangle with the "image deletionists" but do have respect for what they're trying to do. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 03:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I don't think that this is actually a legal issue at all (in the broad sense. individual cases may certainly be copyright issues, or non-fair use, but that's not really what all of this is about). I happen to agree with Jayron32, and Sven Manguard for that matter, that someone somewhere should just make a decision and then stop one side or the other from behaving the way that they do. This is absolutely a legal question and no the WMF should not respond to this request. The original directive was made to give the WMF the largest amount of protection against any possible lawsuit. The WMF fair use rules will be more restrictive that the laws that govern it require; therefor if anything is added that is remotely actionable it is solely the responsibility of the editor who added it. The more specific the WMF gets in mandating what is allowed on the encyclopedia the more it can be held accountable for it. The WMF should not get involved in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Personally, since the Foundation has never said that non-free content isn't allowed, I happen to think that the position represented by TreasuryTag, Damiens.rf, Delta, Future Perfect, and others is a bit over zealous, and I'd hope that someone would tell them to relax. On the other hand, if we prefer to say something to the effect that "non-free content should be removed in all possible cases" then I'm fine with that, as long as it's clear that's what we're doing. then we could delete a few thousand images and media files in one fell swoop and largely be done with it. I hope that's not the way things go, but I value a clear set of "rules" (if you will) over the current uncertainty. for what it's worth though, I'd rather have arbcom decide this than trying to get the Foundation involved directly. I don't think that the Foundation should be involved in content issues at all (as far as that's possible), for a variety of good reasons. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I believe arbcom has steady-fastly refused to take a case on NFC both in a specific example and in general that they don't decide policy. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Then who does make policy, when the consensus-building process fails, as it has in this case? I already know the answer; nobody does. So the fighting continues instead. Thparkth (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Would you be surprised, at least in as far as I've been watching NFC (4+yrs) that there's never really been an RFC to decide a matter that was then closed by an uninvolved-admin to review the issue (the normal way that policy disputes are resolved?) That's partially why the above RFC was started, to generate ideas to bring forward to a larger RFC to get changes made. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I know that what you're saying about a lack of an RFC is true. The problem is the type of issue that this is... think about precisely who an "uninvolved-admin" would be. This is one of those binary issues, where you either support the position or you don't, so there really can't be an uninvolved admin to come in and close it. Anybody that closes any such RFC would instantly be "involved"... there's just no way around that. So, unless the RFC is structured in a way that it ends up being an actual vote (or straw poll), I don't see how it could be successful. Even then, I foresee a ton of dissent by taking relying on such an approach. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC) And I will add one more thing: nearly every grouping of NFC cases (when you discount editors arguing at each other, and not the actual policy itself) comes down to the idea of WP being a complete work verses being a comprehensive summary. And really, we are a tertiary source, summarizing topics and providing references to numerous other resources on the Internet and in published mediums that can contain all the images that people would love to include. We need to provide some non-frees to make our summation comprehensive as a standalone work, but we don't need to be the end-all guide and thus don't need as much non-frees as some believe we need. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) In that case, NO ILLUSTRATIONS ARE NEEDED. Just link to sites that have the illustrations, and we're good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia. What serious encyclopedia would ever have an article on the Pound Sterling that didn't include a single currency image?. What comprehensive summary would try to explain the development of the GUI without a screenshot of the Xerox Alto or Apple Lisa? What overview of the life of Stanley Kubrick not include a single still frame from his work? I know we've had this discussion before in other places and I'm sure you understand my point... Thparkth (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Based on Masem's premise, just above, we don't need any. All we need to do is summarize, and for in-depth info (and illustrations), link to a site that has that info. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Please stop twisting my words. I didn't say that all. (and the attitude you're taking is exactly why NFCC cases end up back at ANI regularly) --MASEM (t) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Define "some" and "limited". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC) If other wikipedias can get by without non-free content, why can't the English wikipedia do likewise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You missed my point: I agree that we should have limited non-frees as part of a comprehensive summary article for exactly the type of cases you describe, but we don't need to include every possible NFC to illustrate every single possible point that would be given in more detail in other sources. We have to be appropriately selective. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Which brings us to the nub of the problem. Who decides what the selective criteria are? you? Me? Whoever can hide from the NFCC warriors the longest (which is what I think is currently going on)? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Of course I agree with that. And of course, "appropriately selective" is - appropriately and necessarily - subjective. Thparkth (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Until the "subjective" part is dealt with, nothing will change. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps an alternative would be to draft a committee, drawing evenly from both sides of the debate, to create a new document? Yes, I know it's a long shot that enough people on both sides will agree on anything to get a document out of the process, but if we hammer something out that is in the middle ground and dosen't scare the WMF, it might solve the problem. At the very least, it might force the involved parties to stop fighting for a few months. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, and before people leap down my throat and say "that's now how we do things", keep in mind that everything else has failed. We might need a new process to solve this old problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) We're already in the "middle ground", thanks to WMF's self-contradictory "rules". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC) And that's the way to self-defeat any type of progress forward. It is attitudes like this , on both sides, that prevent consensus from forming. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The problem is that this is a behavioral issue. Either the group that I call NFCC warriors (delta, damiens, fut.proof, etc...) is "right", or those who continue to argue with them (and/or those who continue to upload fair use images) are "right". We're long past the "we need to figure out what the problem is" stage, I think. Which is where a significant portion of the animosity is coming from. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Now, I did say that arbcom won't touch NFCC. But they will touch behavioral issues, and if that is a perceived solution, then we should take up a case there, being clear we're not asking them to resolve NFCC but to resolve editing behaviors around NFCC. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That's the way I see this (as a behavioral issue). Whether or not the current arbcom can be persuaded to see it as such... I have no idea. Honestly, as much as I may talk about it here, I don't think that I have the stomach to see an arbitration case about all of this through myself. So... I don't know. Take from my opinion what you will. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC) My belief here is that the adjustment - if there is one - is actually not a major move but only a matter of whittling at the grey area and putting more examples and cases of known NFCC allowances and disallowances into the appropriate lists at WP:NFCI and WP:NFCU. I've further suggested that we add the equivalent of WP:ELMAYBE, and there's also been a suggestion to create the FFD equivalent for WP:ATA. Of coruse, we still have that grey line, which because of WP being subjective and non-prescriptive in the first place for policies, will always be there. But the more that is taken out of that grey line and put into known cases, the better off we can be. The arguments that I'm seeing - save for the extreme cases - generally float around to what degree that the NFCC#8 comprehension requirement needs, and to some extent the NFCC#1 free replacement requirement means. It is not that the whole ten points of NFCC are out of whack, its the interpretation of some that need work. But it has to be done in an environment that doesn't cause strong feelings to come out of the woodwork, otherwise it won't go anywhere. Thus, it could be that we need an uninvolved admin (possibly anyone that the arbcom wants to promote as a moderator) to simply keep the calm in such a discussion, direct arguments away from attack language. The resolution of that discussion would still need some type of input, but that's a starting point. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Fiddling around with the "grey line" isn't going to help anything, it's simply going to change the level of dissention. If the goal here is simply to reduce dissention to the point where thos who continue to dissent can be classified as being kooks or something... well, that's what it appears your goal is, and I don't think that it's very helpful. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC) No, the grey line is part of the issue but not the whole issue - but addressing the grey line will remove much of the problem. I acknowledge there's behavioral issues involved. Now, some of those would go away if we could have a reasonable discussion that comes to a fair conclusion with more explicit statements on when NFC is included, but it won't eliminate those with extreme views. But if that persists, or a central moderated discussion fails, then we have to see what can be done behaviorally to prevent repeat ANI reports. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC) There wouldn't be a "behavioral issue" if the rules were clear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC) We can try to make them clearer, and thus engage in moderated discussion to improve that, but middle cases will always be subjective. I don't think it possible to create exacting rules that either can be gamed to include images that are not desired, or will force us to not include actually good, appropriate images that we have now. We have to accept that the best solution is to minimize the grey zone, minimizing the behavioral issues, and find a way where borderline cases can be discussed without the extreme viewpoints dragging it eitherway. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Until you take away the subjectivity, you won't have fixed anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Every policy on WP is subjective. We always have arguments on issues for all the major polices. The goal is to minimize those NFCC arguments so that ANI and other noticeboards aren't bombarded by behavioral complaints. More, but not complete, objectivity, is one way to get there. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) A good way to do that would be to restore the criterion that a fair use image can illustrate a point in the article. Do that, and I guarantee 90 percent of the arguments will go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) No, that's just pulling the line to one side without considering the other. Now, in a discussion, changing the language of NFCC#8 is completely fair game to come to language that has consensus and thus will end the disagreements, even if that means people on both sides don't get their way. But I will say this: since it comes from the Foundation, we need to stop using "fair use" when we're talking non-free media. Fair use is very different and not the line we use here per the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC) "that's just pulling the line to one side without considering the other" is exactly the point that we've been trying to make. Any change to the language is going to be "pulling the line to one side without considering the other" (although I think it's impossible to not consider the other side, at this point of the debate). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC) No, again, missing the point. The current line of NFCC#8 was debated and contested as I recall (I would have to search the archives) before that language was changed out. That's how policy should develop. Since it seems like there's general disagreement about that line, maybe we need another discussion - and given the attitudes involved, having it more moderated and controlled to keep it on track. A consensus will form and possibly new language determined to replace that with. I would then expect those that feel the line has moved away from their position to respect that (eg: I feel much cover art is unnecessary but respect that consensus believes it appropriate, so don't argue towards that) and not engage in edit warring over that. If we need arbcom to mandate such a discussion and with enforcable post-implementations to prevent edit warring over the end result, so be it. But let's be clear - no one knows what the general opinion of NFCC#8 is right now because there has been no discussion on it ever since it was changed, and the only way to make a change is to create discussion to determine what the change needs to be if any. We just cannot assert that "oh, change the language to this" will be what fixes everything, without understanding where the community sits on the issue. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I can feel the love here. Accepted (mostly): There is a grey area. There are beheavior issues. The problem isn't going to go away without something being done. Options: Ask the WMF for guidance - people seem to be debating whether the WMF will accept the request, there's one way to find out... Form a policy rewrite committee - idea got lost in the discussion Ask ArbCom to apply the clamps on the beheavior issues - makes people squirmy Okay. Can we examine solutions now, or should we keep fighting about stuff that's essentially agreed on? I'm voting "examine solutions". Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'd like to hear something resembling a proposal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC) If someone wants to contact WMF for clarification, they're welcome to try, I just know historically we've not gotten much back in clarification. My proposal to go forward is to get Arbcom involved in 1) assigning uninvolved moderators (not arbitrators) to create and manage a discussion (Which needs to define what the problem is with NFCC and manage how it will be solved by the discussion) and 2) assert that at the conclusion of the discussions, any edit warring against those results will not be tolerated with appropriate blocks, etc. This is a similar situation to the Ireland naming case (which I was a moderator in selected by Arbcom) so I can see it working again, except of course that we're not tying this to any specific case, but as a matter to get around. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'd actually prefer that the Foundation not become involved in this sort of thing. The Foundation shouldn't have any real sway over content issues... there are significant and dangerous consequences to them taking on a position towards any content. If they take a position on this sort of thing, what's to keep them from taking on other issues (and then being open to legal repercussions from those positions?) I hope that nobody asks them, and if they are asked, I hope that they choose not to answer. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Given that any advice from counsel is likely to err very much on the side of caution I'd be very wary of seeking it at all if I were a fan on non-free content. FWIW I don't think this is the huge problem it's being made out to be: FFD is in general a much more straightforward place to go than most XfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Then so be it. It's their rule. They're the ones who care about it. If they expect their rule to be enforced properly, they need to step up to the plate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That is a rather odd statement. NFCC is an interpretation of what we can get away with legally. All of us are expected to be heedful of copyright law as it applies to Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The wikipedia fair use rules have almost nothing to do with copyright law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Fair use, "a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders...the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement..." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Right. That's a legal definition. WMF is far more restrictive than the law requires. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) We need to get this off of AN/I. It's neither an administrative issue, nor is it an "incident". We've started an ad-hoc RFC, here. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, well, but here it's actually seen... If you want to create a subpage, feel free to do so. Please leave a link to it here and at VP/Policy when you do. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Which is why this whole board should be renamed Wikipedia:Community forum, but people don't want to listen. –MuZemike 07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That's exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do. Anyway, I doubt that adding more bytes here is going to help with the problem, so let's archive this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.