Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive692

User:CodyJoeBibby continued

Per Atama, there is no admin action to be taken at this time. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I archived earlier discussions under WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#User:CodyJoeBibby: WP:NPA and WP:POINT, for the discussions lasting from 26 April 2011 to 2 May 2011. Further discussion continues below.... -Wikid77 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That's a shame. I had been hoping for some sort of credible response to the concerns that I expressed here. SuperMarioMan 19:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, your specific concerns have been noted, but few other admins have had time to respond now. Perhaps meanwhile you could help, using your experience in similar matters, to check this week's edits to "Osama Bin Laden" (or some other controversial article) which is taxing the resources of the active admins. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC) "Few other admins have had time to respond" - was that your reason for archiving it? Odd, seeing as this page is archived by bot. pablo 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I only archived the upper portion, beginning with concerns about WP:NPA and WP:POINT, which had been closed by another admin & hatted, and the concerns had drifted into WP:COATRACK, which is still being discussed below. I did not archive the top to stop all discussion, just to focus on recent concerns. I apologize if that has upset you. -Wikid77 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but that isn't true. You archived an open discussion as well as the part which had been closed. It's unsatisfactory to close a discussion one has been involved in, especially when it is still open. Can you see why? --John (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC) It hasn't 'upset' me at all. I just said that it was odd. And hinted that it was pointless. pablo 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC) You guys don't need to worry. I will be busy working on a whole new Wikipedia page, which may take me quite a while. It's nothing to do with MoMK, so a topic ban won't hurt me. I won't have the time or energy to engage with this interminable futile thread concerning me here at AN/I. It should be pretty obvious by now that no sanctions are going to be applied to me, but by all means continue bloviating. Ciao! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Same disruptive behavior in different articles Since this user's self-declared moratorium on editing the Meredith Kercher article, he has moved on to Italy and Perugia, attempting to create a "human rights" section in the former, and a blurb about press freedom in the latter. Both are about as clear a case of WP:COATRACK as one can find. We have an editor here with a singular obsession on the Kercher case; how long will we play whack-a-mole here? Tarc (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Please check the talk sections of the relevant articles for discussion about content, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) There are already articles for "Human rights in China" and "Censorship in Italy", so perhaps, the focus should be on creating a new article "Human rights in Italy" while also noting whatever improvements in Italy's handling of human rights following the fascist period during World War II. By noting improvements, as well as problems, then WP:NPOV balance can be sought. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As far as I could see a lot of articles about various countries had a short section on human rights issues. If they have such a section, the article on Italy can have such a section. If people don't like the alleged 'coatracking' material, i will substitute it with material about press freedom issues in Italy sourced from Wikipedia itself. I intend to resubmit the rewritten human rights section tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous. "a lot of articles about various countries".. yes, China, Libya, Burma etc i.e. countries were there is some notability/history of human rights abuses. AFAIK, no western European country articles have "human rights" sections, and for good reason. Blatant attempt to pursue the Amanda Knox obsession outside of the Meredith Kercher article. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The UK has an entire entry thousands of words long devoted to the subject of human rights in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom LOL. you might want to try the old search button occasionally. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Pay attention to what was written. United Kingdom does not have a human rights section. You want Italy to have a human rights section in order to denigrate human rights observance in Italy to advance your POV supporting Amanda Knox. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Ha ha! Italy, unlike the UK, France, Germany and Spain, does not have a separate entry on human rights. I think I'll be writing one. That might take a while though, with the considerable number of abuses in Italy. Sorry everyone, my next update to Wikipedia will not be tomorrow, as promised! I have a big job to do! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Good luck with that endeavour. However, bear in mind that, to ensure a neutral tone, a prospective "Human rights in Italy" article would have to be more than a mere "List of human rights abuses in Italy". SuperMarioMan 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Did i suggest that would be the title? Why don't you find something, anything, to do with your life other than talking to me? Maybe you could help out on the Osama bin Ladin article as Wikid suggested? That might genuinely help out Wikipedia. Why not just let me write the article and you can tear it to pieces when it's finished. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC) "That might take a while though, with the considerable number of abuses in Italy." I think that post will used in any discussion on whether anything you "write" on that subject is in good faith and is NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I can't help it if Italy accounts for the largest number of human rights abuse cases in Europe. I object to your putting the word 'write' in quotes. That is a personal attack, please see WP:NPA for guidance and desist from making such attacks, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sure the government of Belarus etc will be delighted with your article. Although, I'm not so sure many editors will have the same confidence in your "research" as they will. DeCausa (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I require you to cease your personal attacks with immediate effect, thank you. Please see WP:NPA for guidance. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC) "Sourced from Wikipedia itself"? That might not be such a good idea. See WP:V. --John (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Sourced from the approved sources used by other Wikipedia articles, then, if you insist on making a point of pure pedantry. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That wasn't pedantry but a very important distinction, which I am glad you are beginning to understand. The other thing you have to get your head around is that you need consensus at article talk to add this material, however well referenced it is. Good luck. --John (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Should I take your statement of 'good luck' as an encouragement or as a threat that you will continue to stalk me and wholesale revert any edits I make, in violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING? I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC) If you continue to make WP:COATRACK/WP:UNDUE edits about a topic that's already got you in hot water, your edits will be reverted and other actions may be occur. I suggest you broaden your scope of topic interests if you want to make constructive contributions here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) But I'm not in hot water. No sanctions have been applied despite the inordinate length of this thread. I'm as free as the day I was born to edit Wikipedia, and I intend to resume doing so tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC) You're only not in "hot water" because you pledged to back off for awhile (a pledge that you never really carried out, since you went about adding MoMK material to other articles, where you were rebuffed by numerous editors, including editors who were not previously involved with any MoMK disputes). That should tell you something. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) So as I said, I'm not in hot water, to be precise. No need to bloviate. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC) If you think this is "inordinate length" for an ANI discussion, you might want to look through the archives. We also like to warn people about their behavior before we have to block them, so you should take heed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I won't be blocked. I intend to write a whole new Wikipedia article. I'll be too busy doing that to continue responding to the petty disputes some people have with me. And a topic ban won't hurt me because my new article won't be related to the MoMK article even broadly construed. Ciao! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I hope this whole incident highlights that there are numerous topics, and articles, which people editing about "Amanda Knox" are actually discussing. There seems to be a misperception that the only issue they see is to "Free Amanda" (and Sollecito) but there are so many other issues: "pre-trial publicity", "due process" (for shorter trials), "sequestered jury" (if shorter trials are used), "falsified evidence", "rules of evidence" (how long can a negative test for blood be withheld from the defence), "police brutality", "false confession", "crime scene contamination", "RFU peaks", "systemic bias", "delayed grief", "character assassination", "human rights", "race card", "British tabloids", "geo-location" of mobile phones, "LCN DNA profiling" and why the judge believed the forensic evidence did not match Guede's version of events that he left Kercher beside the bed with the bed quilt (duvet) and pillow on the bed, without returning to arrange the scene. That is the reason many editors have rejected censorship here, because they are not advocating for Knox, they are addressing any of 20 major topics which concern millions of people. However, the Kercher case is what motivates some people to come to Wikipedia, with intensity, and I think we need to understand such energy and help to channel it into productive editing. User:CodyJoeBibby is just one, in a long line of editors, who thought to come here and write about some of those issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I read that as a manifesto (or is threat the right word?) to bring the "Free Amanda" campaign to a wide variety of articles. Transparent. I think you'll find yourself disappointed by the reaction of the knowledgeable editors who have contributed to those articles over a long period. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) If nothing else it suggests a worrying campaign of "issues" - Wikipedia is not the place for such coat-racking. We do not lead the field, we record the sum of human history. Many editors in this topic area do not seem to comprehend this. --Errant (chat!) 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) And why is this sort of blatant soap-boxing even being tolerated? I sincerely hope it's not because of which individuals support it. DeCausa (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I think that a couple of users are encouraged by J. Wales' recent interest in this case and now feel they have license to spray this kind of POV-spam anywhere that has even a tangential connection to the case. pablo 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Coatrack is exactly the right word. We've already seen Cody do just that on the Italy and Perugia, using a single incident to make broad declarations, then edit-war to keep them in place. The best thing that can come from all of this is a few more uninvolved admins to monitor the MoMK page and Cody's edits. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Wikid77 has put forward such a major proposal, the aim of which is stated to be "productive editing" but the result of which more often than not amounts to poorly-disguised POV-pushing and coat-racking of material even only loosely-related to the main subject into a host of other, tenuously-connected articles. For an example of this, check the earliest revisions of Delayed grief and its AfD discussion - it will probably cast a fresh light on why False confession, Falsified evidence and Police brutality are just some of the many other articles linked to above. I for one am not convinced in the slightest that such articles are targeted "because they are not advocating for Knox, they are addressing any of 20 major topics which concern millions of people." SuperMarioMan 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I read the policy on WP:COATRACK, and it doesn't really seem to apply to the edits i made. Moreover, even if coatracking has occurred, the guidelines say that the non-coatrack material should be preserved. Wholesale reversion of edits is not recommended. You and SMM are just hiding behind rules which don't even justify your actions if you bothered to read them. Why don't both of you just get a life and move on. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing certain people's usernames again and again. Go and edit something. Write an article. Just stop constantly posting here on this ridiculous thread! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This is beginning to look more like a case of Wiki-hounding than a thread which is honestly looking into how to ensure editors edit more constructively. If the editors at the other articles don't think the contributions are worthy, they will revert, and then Cody will discuss the changes on the talk page. As this already seems to be happening, I suggest that this topic be closed, as it is not particularly contructive.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The fat lady has sung on this thread, but i guess the hearing impaired didn't hear her. No matter. Bring the hat. We need closure. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Quite correct, Cody, there's a great deal of WP:IDHT from you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant sniping. The hat please. 86.163.195.143 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ahh, and which logged-out and/or blocked editor is this, I wonder? This probably can be closed at any time, but it certainly has provided a rich amount of material for when this invariably crops up again. One SPA declares an intent to disrupt other articles, goaded by supporters. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Another, more accurate way to look at this would be a small group of editors hounds one editor for slightly problematic edits as part of an ongoing mission to suppress views with which they disagree. I'm not saying Cody hasn't made his mistakes, in fact I've explicitly said the opposite. I'm also not saying anyone critical of Cody is part of an evil cabal (that would put me in such cabal). But this has long since passed the point of productive and constructive conversation and has moved into farsical hounding.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 86.163.195.143 is me. Not sure what happened there. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) LedRush, it would seem to be more than just a "small group of editors" who are critical of the edits made - I fail to see many administrators or other uninvolved users leaping to defend such edits. Cody, as for your suggestion that I go and "write an article", I have done, already, many times - I have pretty much written a Featured Article single-handed. On the other hand, for you suggest that there has been not a single violation of WP:COATRACK, and then order others to "get a life" when legitimate concerns are put to you, certainly does not bode well for the future, nor does it reflect well on the promise that you made to become more acquainted with policies and guidelines. Incidentally, about "wholesale reversion" to Italy, the question is whether Italy requires any form of "Human rights" section at all as a principle, a problem quite separate from the fact that about half of the edit went into WP:UNDUE detail about one incident that occurred in Perugia. SuperMarioMan 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) SuperMario, of course it's more than a ""small group of editors" who are critical of the edits [Cody] made". Hence the reason I didn't say that. I said a small group are hounding him. A larger group are critical of Cody's edits, and I include myself in that second, larger group.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I know you've written articles, SuperMarioMan. They may be earthshatteringly tedious and trivial by my (purely subjective) estimation, but they are certainly articles. No doubt about that. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC) There does not seem to be any specific admin action being requested here. pablo 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I think the original purpose of the thread was to get me banned from wikipedia, but that failed. I'm not sure what the purpose is now. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I recommend anyone who has a problem with the material that CodyJoeBibby has introduced in any article, to try dispute resolution. As Pablo said, nobody has actually asked for administrator action so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI. -- Atama頭 20:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Palliomine

New user Palliomine has wreaked havoc on palestine categories. I have a very slow connection at present and cannot revert his changes. (It relates to Palestinian rabbis in various ategories) Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they're tagging empty categories for deletion. Is this incorrect? The categories do appear to be empty. TNXMan 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect User:Debresser is behind this. He has depopulated nearly 100 pages in various Palestine categories without responding to my reply on my talk page. Action needs to be taken. Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I only depopulated what you recently created and started to actively populate without any prior discussion and in disregard of immediate protests on your talkpage. You can't push your ideas through against the will of the community. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Since we're here. Let's have it!

Chesdovi has recently created a whole group of "Palestinian" categories. He continues to create more of them and to populate them, despite the fact that 1. This term is controversial 2. He is replacing another term with his new term, and splitting up existing categories. 3. All of this without seeking prior consensus, and 4. in disregard of the protests of two editors on his talkpage, each of these editors with several arguments

I also agree that action has to be taken. And that action is that Chesdovi should be admonished to desist from creating and populating these categories he created until he can show consensus, rather than protests. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has acted wrongly in this case. If he felt certain categories were controversial, he should have raised it at category disscusion page, or the like. Without coming to an amicable solution, he proceeds to depopulate tens of pages, the vast majority which had been under that category for a number of weeks. He has not responded to clear proof that this term does exist in acdemic circles. His claim that the term Palestine did not exist in the 13th century is nonsensical. I have not "replaced another term. Most acuartely, i have sorted rabbis who lived in ottoman and british palestine in centuries to be onisten with all other such cats. He has want also to delted Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. Wholly unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

since this disscussion has started, Debresseer contines to enforce his edits. [1]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So do you..., so let's not go there. The difference is, you are the one trying to change things and introduce new terms. So you should show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first protests on you page are a week old. Why do you continue making controversial edits? All these categories are your idea, replacing the term Land of Israel and splitting up Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. You're just pushing through your ideas, and can not accept the fact that the community sees them as problematic, and thinks you should refrain from doing so unless and until you can show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First thing first: How do you justify depopulating over 50 pages without seeking the communities consensus if this is so controversial. I spent a long time creating and populating many pages and you come along and revert all my work without a conclusion to the matter. That in itself deserves investigation. Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I told Chesdovi one week ago that unless he could find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I was gonna restore the original category, one week has passed, and he has still not added any sources, so the removal of the categorys is appropriate. But he provided one source at his talkpage for one guy, so at that article the Palestinian cat could be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that even there the best thing is to use the naming system that was in use till Chesdovi made his whole new category system. To avoid misunderstandings and controversies. After all, we have no obligation to use the specific wording of each and every of our sources. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I do not obey you sd. Its your opinion against mine. You have no right to wilfully decat over 50 cats based on some irrational demand of yours. We don't need to cite each and every word. If a person has lived a significant portion of his life in a palce, he automaticaaly can be categorised as beloning to that place. Palestinian means "of Palestine". Not member fatah or Hamas. And it applies to all those people I added. I am backed up by a plethora of academic works. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old. If no sources calls those specific people "Palestinian", then you cant ad the cats.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"misunderstandings and controversies. "? Pls elaborate Debresser. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We have Land of Israel. We have explanatory combinations like "Ottoman and British Palestine" (which could be split, of course into Ottoman and British, or even per century categories). Even if during some time the land was called "Palestine", we should disambiguate that. But in this case you are simply wrong. Because usually somebody born in Germany is also an ethnic German. But in this case none of these rabbis and other Jews was an ethnic Palestinian. Somewhat like Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. So here we should be more careful with how to name our categories. All this is obvious and has been explained to you for a whole week on your talkpage. And you refuse to recognize that your edits are controversial, and that is what WP:ANI needs to explain to you. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DBRSR; Acc. to ur reasoning, we should have no German rabbis as thery are not "ethnicly" German. They are ethnicly Jews! Your reasoning if flawed. You yourself have revealled that you are confused. You agree when it comes to Israeli Arabs and Jews that they are both Israeli. So why can't you agree to have Palestinian Jews and Palestinain Arabs? AFAIMC my edits are not controverail. Why should they be? You have never expalned that have you? Have you? NO! Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here, since you are repeating my arguments now. Anyway, the problem here is not so much the content discussion. That has been going on on your talkpage, and today a little on mine. The problem is that you continue to create and populate controversial categroies, while two editors have expressed arguments for their objections against your innovations and changes. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you just admitted to being a sock of Palliomine? Stop wasting my time and trying to wriigle out of the subject at hand. It ALL about the content. The content you want censored. expalin why we cant use the word Palestine to describe people who lived there in the medieval era. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is about content, then you have quite a few arguments against it in this section already. But let's take an example, to amke the point. I was almost shocked when I saw Nachmanides being called a "Palestinian rabbi". Of his 76 years long life he lived only 3 years in the Land of Israel!! Not to mention that the Land of Israel was then under Egyptian Mamluk rule, so he actually should be called an Egyptian rabbi! Chesdovi, calling Nachmanides "Palestinian" is absurd! Sorry, but it really is! Debresser (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, this point has been made by Supreme Deliciousness on Chesdovi's talkpage. The real problem here is Chesdovi's unwillingness to see reason, or to at least accept that his innovations are controversial and contested. He should refrain from them unless and until he will get consensus for them. But he won't, obviously, so he decided to push them... Debresser (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why these edits ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) should not be seen as a violation of WP:POINT? I have rolbacked them, and recommend Chesdovi for a 24 hour block. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Now we are getting somewhere. Having now made you see sense with regrd to the fallacy of this cat indicated "ethnicity", you are beginning to come round that a person living in a region attains that regions label. If the Egyptains ruled Palestine at the time would not make a difference, since the region was known as Palestine notwithstanding. So you agree that living in a place bestows upon you the designation of that place? Many sephardi Jews in aragon were not ethnic aragonesse, but they are called aragonses Rabbis. The fatc that you had an issue with Ramban could have been solved instead of going on your palestineophobe crusade. Chesdovi (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because of Wikipedia:REICHSTAG, and that is why I recommend you be blocked for 24 hours. You have proven the issue is first and foremost behavioral for you. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me why MM Schnersohn can be called an American Rabbi, But Issac Luria can not be called Palestinian? You should have been bloked long ago. Chesdovi (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have explained that earlier in this section. You seem not to have understood it, as I mentioned above as well. Your Wikipedia:REICHSTAG behavior was a mistake. I'll see you tomorrow (or after 24 hours). Debresser (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

well you better had think how to explain yourself much better, b/c s far as i'm concerned you have wasted hours of my time without giving acceptable rationale why you 1) saw fit to depopulted over 50 pages beofre the discussion had come to and end 2) cretaed a new account to deleted the empty cats. 3) cayy on revrting afte you had strted a discussing th matter here 4) explained why Mediveal Jews in Palestine is not a worthy category. 5) hy there cannot be be something calle da Palesting Jew.. etc. Chesdovi (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit, in which you call the greatest Jewish kabbalist who ever lived a Palestinian, and use the edit summary "Yup, he's also Palestinian. Debresser, You daven using nusach Palestine! Have I sent a shudder down your spine? "Palestine". Oi vey!" makes me doubt your capability to edit Wikipedia objectively. That was a sick edit, which no doubt would offend many, and rightfully so. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Break

These are all אֶפְרָתָה (talk · contribs). The following are  Confirmed matches:

• Palliomine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ram it home (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigpudd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bustermccrabble (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pheochromocytoma (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigg gee ben (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anglesey in North Jerusalem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dodomain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palaeoperenethis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomtwiles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Shoukii (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Da da manny 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Safe for the surfaces (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Both primary disputants topic banned for 72 hrs

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.

---

Both primary disputants here (Deb and Ches) have edit warred and disrupted unacceptably, along with actions of the sockpuppeteer which escalated the situation. Both are topic banned under ARBPIA for 72 hrs to enable the situation to calm down from the current pointless head-butting. Notifications on their talk pages and the arbcom case logs to follow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban accepted, but I'd like to argue the following. I knew nothing about WP:ARBPIA, and simply have a very specific dispute with a user here who has been making undiscussed reforms and doesn't want to postpone his actions until after reaching consensus. Doesn't seem completely fair to me to ban us from other articles. Perhaps you'd reconsider and narrow down the ban to only the specific categories involved. I think we are both editors without a known history of edit warring in this subject area, and that this is overkill. Nor, on a more personal note, does it seem fair to me to treat the aggressor and the defender in the same harsh way. Note on Chesdovi's talkpage that he has been blocked a few times before for edit warring and problematic edits in connection with WP:ARBPIA, while I don't even have a warning on mine! Debresser (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You can appeal at WP:AE. I suspect that lack of prior warning may be sufficient grounds. Or it might not, they change the rules all the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for the suggestion. I have asked for the banning admin to look into it again. In addition, I really have no interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and hold that the present disagreement is not really related to it. The connection was made by the banning admin, perhaps without sufficient consideration of the nature of this disagreement. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I take this back. I wasn't aware Chesdovi had been banned and blocked several times before in connection with WP:ARBPIA. This, however, is all the more reason not to treat me the same way. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser caused the problem here. He depopulated over 50 pages and nominated numerous categories for deletion before a conclusion had been reached on a disscusion at my talk page. He first seemed to be amblivient to the new categories, and then did a mass edit before disscusing the subject at length. Cats should be discussed at the appropriate page. His mass-edits were a massive POV violation which has cause massive disrutption. The case of Ephrata and his sockpuppets is not know to me, but i am highly convinced that Debresser created a new account to nominated the cats he deopoluated for deletion [8]. Can someone look into this please. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited with any other than my main account on any Wikipedia project. Apart from when I accidentally forgot to log in. I have no problem with any admin checking this, since I find the accusation made above slanderous and highly offensive. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Palliomine is not Debresser. TNXMan 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to report that Chesdovi has been making personal attacks, insinuating that I am a fanatic zionist, and a right-wing zionist, and in the latter post also suggests I might be a sockpuppet (as he did on this page as well in this and this edit). He also calls my edits a "massacre" and a "crusade". I find all of these highly offensive, and indicative of the behavioral problem on Wikipedia which he has so amply demonstrated by pushing through his "Palestinian" categories. I can't help but feel myself victimized by this editor and the topic ban against me, and have approached the banning admin to reconsider. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In this edit Chesdovi clearly states that he will not seek consensus, but will continue to edit war. I really think that treating both of us the same way is rather unfair. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You behaviour is audacious at the least. You think you are the teacher round here. You did not keep on discussing the matter before you carried out a mass-revert and category deletion nomination. Thats what i call acting without consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After two editors tried to persuade you on your talkpage for a week to stop creating and populating controversial categories... Debresser (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You intentionally misconstrue the events, Rabbi Debresser. After having reconstructed the events as they unfolded, I can report the following:

• 02:31, 24 April 2011 - The last instance of me removing "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine" before you protested.
• 06:17, 24 April 2011 - You leave me a message about it on my talk page.
• 09:30, 24 April 2011 – SD posts.
• 13:38, 24 April 2011 – I respond.
• 21:04, 24 April 2011 – SD posts.
• 13:51, 24 April 2011 – I revert edit by User:Davshul in connection with this issue.
• 21:50, 25 April 2011 – You post.
• 00:30, 27 April 2011 – I respond.
• 06:02, 28 April 2011 – You post.
• 09:50, 28 April 2011 – I respond.
• 07:48, 29 April 2011 – You post.
• 00:12, 1 May 2011 – You post a suggestion.
• 00:18, 1 May 2011 – I ask for your rational.
• 00:25, 1 May 2011 – You respond.
• 00:28, 1 May 2011 – You then embark on mass depopulation exercise, a mere 3 minutes after making your last post. [9] with the strange summary: "Per User_talk:Chesdovi#Question." I see no conclusive conclusion to the discussion, How did you? This first phase ends at 01:28, 1 May 2011, after removal of cats form around 30 pages.
• 10:16, 1 May 2011 - I respond to your previous post.
• 10:24, 1 May 2011 - I revert cat remaoval at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra.
• 10:26, 1 May 2011 – I try and save "Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine."
• 10:34, 1 May 2011 – You rv my edit at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra.
• 10:41, 1 May 2011 – I revert another cat removal by you at Daniel ben Azariah [10]
• 10:48, 1 May 2011 – I add cat to Nathan of Gaza.
• 10:53, 1 May 2011 - I create New cat "Palestinian Geoanin".
• 10:53, 1 May 2011 – I rv cats.
• 10:59, 1 May 2011 – I rv cats.
• 11:03, 1 May 2011 - I Contest deletion of "Category talk:13th-century Palestinian rabbis."‎
• After a few more edits at 13:51, 1 May 2011 the next message you leave me is a “Warning.” You then resume reverts to 100 pages without further discussion. I subsequently made one or two re-adds and proceed to add citations for Palestinians. It is only then that you continue with the discussion. After I respond to your Warning you state: “Well, you can't create a whole group of categories, using a controversial term, then substitute existing categories with your categories, while this is being protested on your talk page.” To that I would say, while ithe issue is being discussed, you should not go ahead a revert over 130 pages without my response. Without consensus. And you feel "victimised?" The cheek of it. Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This proves my point. That you continue to create and populate controversial categories even after a week of discussion on your talkpage, where two editors try to argue you out of it. In plain English, you push through a non-consensus category structure. And that after some five blocks and bans, as is testified to by your talkpage. You are a disruptive editor, and you should be permanently banned, and your edits in connection with this subject reverted.

Since the original banning admin hasn't seen fit to return to this thread for over 24 hours, I call upon any admin to reconsider this case. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to “argue me out of it” is just not good enough to justify your rampage. You cannot force you edits upon other without reaching a solution, agreed with by all involved. I have made more headway with the other editor who had conceded that as long as Palestinian is cited, that's fine. You still ignore that editors and continue to revert! Are you in charge here? There were over five categories you nominated for deletion. How did you go about that? By starting a discussion at the Category deletion page? No! You instead emptied all the pages and them nominated the cats since they “are empty”. How strange. They weren’t empty a few hours ago? What happened here? A major disruption occurred. You are the culprit. No question about it. I can not be culpable for reverting a handful of pages to tell you I’m not accepting your edits, when you refused to continue discussing the matter. After I had indicated I was unhappy with your changes, you still ignore me and go ahead and revert over 100 more pages. That is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 3 May 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.

Tendentious editing, POV pushing, and ownership by Barnstarbob

Barnstarbob (talk · contribs) is being very difficult at Chevrolet Vega. He was brought to this page a couple of weeks ago, but his behaviour has not improved and he continues with tendentious editing and presumed ownership of the article. If anything it has got worse. I have tried to improve the article, but many of my changes have been reverted. Today 842U (talk · contribs) made a series of edits which started to address the bias and reduce the trivia that was present in the article. Now Barnstarbob has reverted those edits (multiple times) and refuses to engage, as I have asked him to do, on the article's talk page to explain why he thinks 842U's edits are wrong. Instead he states all the current content was approved by other people implying that we have no right to make any changes. I'm not going to revert him again because I may have already tripped 3RR, for which I apologise, but I would ask that someone take a look at his actions and consider what can be done to help. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update - he has once again reverted - making it four straight reverts in a row, and once again has refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard telling who's "right", content-wise, but Bob has reported you and another user at the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been two discussions of which Biker Biker and 842U have not participated in. One two years ago, AND one started by 842U in a Project discussion recently, but he DID NOT participate. Any of the suggestions, deletions and changes made by any User were NOT reverted by me during that discussion. Biker Biker however has made several deletions and changes (only recently) of which I have not reverted as well. However three sections, the Lead, Problems, and Reception were totally changed by 842U after they were approved and judged neutral two years ago and in the recent projects discussion. These three section edits were reverted by me to the former. My work and research used in the three sections was deleted in these three sections AFTER the discussions they did not participate in and were judged neutral and complete. I have followed ALL suggestions in those discussions before making any major changes to the article and have not reverted any of those Users changes during those discussions. 842U is making major changes to the article after the fact. I reverted those major changes and Biker Biker reverted back to 842As changes. Again, The two Users did not participate in ANY of the discussions regarding the article's content, size, or neutrality. 842A is exhibiting Ownership as he deletes complete sections and ignores the discussion suggestions and outcomes, with Biker Biker recently reverting back 842Us major changes as well. More than two Users have concluded the lead, Problems, and Reception are proper and neutral and do not require complete changes or deltion of the material. (Barnstarbob (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Baseball Bugs - thanks for pointing out the edit-warring entry. I have added my side of the story there including the four reverts done by Barnstarbob - thus tripping 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You may want to retract that "thank you". It's hard to tell from the reverts just what's going on, as a lot of it seems to be reshuffling of the same info. But I detect that the OP here is trying to promote a more negative view of the Vega (which was pretty much of a "throwaway car", as I recall) while Bob wants to present it in a more positive light. In short, it's a content dispute, and the main players here are all guilty of edit-warring, when they ought to instead take it to some sort of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of dispute resolution is in order. It wouldn't hurt for Barnstarbob to have a look at WP:Consensus#Consensus can change, though, especially if he's citing discussion that took place two years ago as support for "his version" of the article. It may be time for another discussion on the content to see where consensus is now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion started by 842U was recent and he did not participate, and did not like the outcome and proceeded tp make major changes after it was discussed and determined no further prunning was needed. But he just does what he wants.(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

The current opinion is the article is neutral and there are no ownership issues then or now on my part. There have been two Users that have accused me in two years, including you, of which it was determined these were false.842A', You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. Your sole contributions to the article - non-automotive sourced criticism, was not deleted, nor were any other contributions from any User. I've added much automotive press sourced criticism past and present from 1970-2010, and reverted the deleted praise to keep the article neutral. If anyone is looking to render the article non-neutral or one sided its 842U.

A sampling below from the WikiProject Chevrolet Vega Discussion 842A initiated to accuse me of ownership, but did not participate in, concludes there is no ownership or conflict of interest issues on my part. In this sample it is clear by my working with other Users and the User comments below, the original accusations by 842U are false, and currently Biker Biker's discussion here is nothing more than frustration of his inability to OWN the article making major changes without discussion or approval by anyone first.

• Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them. TREKphiler 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

And current discussion on Vega page -

• I do feel that Barnstarbob has managed to lose most or all of the ownership issues that were previously problematic. He is still a bit hotheaded at times (as correctly stated in the previous section), and I would suggest endeavouring to remedy this. Nonetheless, I think that these problems are best dealt with on Barnstarbob's own userpage and not here on the Chevy Vega page. I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours:  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the admins who have pointed out that this is indeed a content disput. The way to achieve consensus about content is by discussion, which Barnstarbob is steadfastly refusing to do, instead he states again and again that the page was "approved two years ago" and thus doesn't need chaning. As stated here consensus can change and that needs discussion not reversion. My beef is not about the article, but about Barnstarbob's behaviour in this content dispute and his refusal to play fair - which is why I have brought him to ANI. I welcome discussion, have invited him to discuss, but he won't. --Biker Biker (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was discussed in a lengthy discussion in Project Automobile RECENTLY of which you and 842U did not participate in. Had you participated you would know it has been determined the article no longer needs MAJOR pruning, or constant lengthening of the lead, or deletion or major changes in the sections, of which you have tried and failed to do on your own against the discussion outcome. I've tried to explain, but all did was start this accusation discussion, probably out of your own frustration of not getting your (own) way... Your editing including the External Link deletions and other changes were not reverted (excluding your deletion of the five gallery images) AS no MAJOR changes or deletions of the sections are needed or necessary according to the opinions expressed in the recent projects discussion and the recent article talk page. (i.e. "which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours": User:Mr.choppers) My conclusion for what its worth is 842U doesn't care about those discussions based on his persistence of constantly making MAJOR changes to the article, and Biker Biker hasn't read the discussions at all. Stop deleting the discussion approved, careful, neutral work made by other Users either from their suggestions or actual contributions.

another discussion example...Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But 842 has continued to completely change and lengthen the lead paragraph every few days, still ignoring other Users in previous or current discussions. 842 has been warned to stop framing criticism with HIS opinions. (reserved for reputable sources in Criticism) and now Biker Biker... the Problems section, as added by User suggestion to remove a neutrality flag, lists facts of the cars issues or problems in a separate section. It also is not reserved for 842Us or any Wikipedia User's opinions. This is not a web blog. The car's problems are presented with facts from referenced reliable sources. The fixes over the car's seven year production run are noted there as well as part of the article's factual and neutral tone. The Reception section lists all verifiable Praise and Criticism, both automotive and non-automotive sourced, past and present. As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia Users are not to express their opinions of the subject of the article, rendering it biased or non-neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

For the last month or so, using the discussion page to cite the plethora of sources that encapsulate the Vega's legacy as a promising but seriously flawed product, I've tried to introduce information to the body of the article and to the lead. These edits have been continuously reverted by Barstarbob, previously Vegavairbob, despite all efforts to discuss the lack of balance in the article, as well as the article's reliance on promotional material from the manufacturer, his own photographs as well as photographs, photos of his own cars as well as bloated fancruft (a whole section on the article on fake wood siding application, but where is the ongoing damage the Vega continues to affect on General Motors reputation with small cars?). Most recently, the discussion page reflects Barstarbob's contention that books written by historians as well as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics are somehow not worthy of being introduced into the article. Barstarbob has spent the last weeks discouraging edits, has attacked me personally, and has used a machine-gun approach to editing the article -- basically to protect his singular viewpoint. He insists on burying any information of substance about the car's broad legacy. Taken individually, these problems (i.e., the photos of his own cars) aren't egregious. But taken together, Barnstarbob is owning the article, trying to shut out any other points of view besides his own. He is essentially using the article to grandstand for the Vega – in an especially narrow, minutely-focused manner.842U (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying everything to get Barnstarbob to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page but he continues with his endless cycle of reverting other people's work. He has gone 3RR yet again today on some changes that I made and despite me starting a thread on the talk page he just ignored it and reverted my change. Please help. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He has also just gone 3RR on the lead section despite my appealing on his talk page as well as the article's talk page for him to engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This post on his talk page, not on the article's talk page demonstrates his WP:OWN approach, refusing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page saying it is pointless. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a longstanding problem for Bob. I came across it a good six months ago, & AFAIK, nothing has changed. The apologist tone he's adopted (& insisted on) for the page is beyond POV. His unwillingness to accept even quite small changes to even page appearance (never mind content) without conflict is extreme.

I also find it odd he's changed usernames three times now. (Suspicious minds might think he's trying to hide something.)

I should also note I have a strong preference for early & long blocks for all forms of bad behavior, so judge my attitude accordingly. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources at the White Latin American article

The White Latin American article contains the following statement in the lede:

"Composing about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic group in the region.[24][25]"

As I have pointed out in an edit summary [11], neither source cited refers to 'white Latin Americans' as a unified ethnic group. Lizcano [12] refers to 'Latin or Iberian' ethnicity in the English-language abstract, and from what I can tell via Google translate, makes no claim that there are unified ethnic groups crossing national boundaries - the article is however in Spanish, and I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the language will check this. The CIA Factbook [13] likewise makes no claim that 'white Latin Americans' is an ethnic group - though I very much doubt that the Factbook could be considered WP:RS on this subject, given the disparate reporting regarding ethnicity, and the total lack of any indication of sources. The statement that 'white Latin American' is an ethnic group is therefore WP:OR, and the figure arrived at is WP:SYN. Rather than responding to my comments, USER:SamEV has chosen to slap an edit warning template on my talk page: [14]

I consider SamEV's actions to be in breach of the expected standards from editors, and given his refusal to answer my objections to the above sentence from the article lede, ask that appropriate action be taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the above to remove the <ref></ref> tags. They don't work well on noticeboards like this, especially if multiple sections use them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

About Lizcano's paper I give you an analysis of the paper done in:[15]

Lizcano text is very generally used to support assertions that are central. The source is poorly used, poorly referenced, it does not indicate the precise spot where Lizcano says this or that. Moreover, Lizcano is talking about people "ethnic" (culture), and he often say "independently of skin color" when referring to any of the ethnic groups ('white or not). Speaks about "white" only when referring to statistics of population, but before anything else speaks of "criollo" in the sense of European (culture) transplanted in Latin America. Lizcano, never made ​​explicit what is the method by which concluded that the minority criolla population is the largest component of Latin America.

As the paper is in Spanish, it's easier to believe it says something that does not actually say. Be manipulated very easily. I apologize for my English. Best --Jcestepario (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As I suspected, it seems that Lizcano is being misrepresented. As it turns out, other contributors have reworded the lede to the extent that the edits made by SamEV are moot, and given his lack of response, I can only assume he is either unconcerned about the article, or has accepted that my objections to the original text are valid. On that basis, unless he attempts to revert to the earlier POV-pushing version of the article, I'm prepared to consider the issue closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In this article[16] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, it's very unlikely any admin action is needed here. Perhaps you should find a suitable WikiProject to continue this conversation. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Osama bin Laden

I changed Osama bin Laden from semi-protect to full protect. I have had comments on my talk page for and against that action. Feel free to revert this action but I couldn't revert vandalism of the semi-protected page faster than the edit conflicts were happening. Rmhermen (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I had made the suggestion on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's too late to protect him. He gawn, bye-bye. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Admins needed at Osama Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden is dead and the article is locked down the sheer volume of Edit requests is swampin the talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As of 8:10pm (PDT) the "official" announcement from the White House hasn't been made. CNN and Fox are quoting "unnamed sources", and have engaged in speculation before that turned out to be inaccurate. Suggest leaving the article at Full protection for at least 3 hours until something a bit more definitive comes out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prodego unprotected it but has taken no action to remove the false information from the article. After ten consecutive edit conflicts trying to remove the "fact" that Obama had a press conference and announced this already (which has not occurred yet but is still in the article), I wash my hands of the matter. At least someone managed to get the I love Chooee. removed. Rmhermen (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama is expected to address the nation at 03:30 UTC (about 5 minutes from now). –MuZemike 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Admins aren't super editors - there is no reason to restrict that page to editing only by admins at this time. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes also needed on Death of Osama bin Laden, as I doubt this is going to be deleted. –MuZemike 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has also been semi-protected for a bit. –MuZemike 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

President Obama is on TV now confirming it - however, obvious care should be taken with the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe also semi-protect "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in case of an attempt to redirect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEANS much? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late Really shouldnt give people ideas Bugs The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

...and nothing of value was lost. God, I've always wanted to say that... HalfShadow 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing of value was lost." I wouldn't say that. Osama will make good fertilizer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We may also want to protect "America, Fuck Yeah", as an article might be created from that redirect (I know, heaven forbid we (re)create new articles, WP:BEANS be damned). –MuZemike 06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to repost it below - I'll comment here. I do think protection will be needed there for a while, there will be a lot of people trying to edit and it's no easier getting edit conflicts through on an active article than an active talk page. On the talk page, we can at least edit in a section and not affect the editing for other users elsewhere, so that seems the best bet right now. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Per the precedent of Death of Michael Jackson and the WP:SNOW, I closed the AfD for Death of Osama bin Laden. I gave some further explanation on the nominator's talk page. Fences&Windows 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also need eyes on US Navy Seals, Delta Force, and other USSOCOM related articles. May want semi or full protection on all of them too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I say keep all'em articles protected until we see a Long Form Death Certificate, that doesn't have no fuzzy print on it. Let the "deather" movement begin!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long while: Count me in! :-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

US Navy Seals semiprotected for 1 hr after ongoing foo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Too late, the term "deathers" is taken. [17] Ironically they are likely to be the same people as the "birthers"--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group semiprotected for 3 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC

Hah! Wikipedia is protecting the Navy Seals! Take that Marines. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In other Wikipedia-related business, we should go back to full-protection, as Spork4beans (talk · contribs) intentionally busted autoconfirmed to vandalize the article. –MuZemike 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death date

Since it appears that Osama died on April 29th in the morning when the operation was undertaken, it would be helpful if some people could keep an eye on May 2nd, since IPs are probably going to try to keep adding that as his day of death (I already reverted once), when that is just the date that his death was announced. May 1st as well, it seems. Silverseren^C 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, but the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, in a statement dated May 2, that "Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the surroundings of Abbotabad in the early hours of this morning". So, it appears bin Laden did die on May 2 (where did April 29 come from?). They're not vandals. -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect people are getting their time zone conversions wrong. From what I've heard, it sounds like it took place around 12:30am or 1:00am on May 2nd (very early morning). ← George ^talk 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see my confusion. The article says that Obama decided to make the raid on April 29th, but it apparently wasn't actually done until May 1st, which the article doesn't say, but the sources do. Now, the question is, are we going by May 1st here or May 2nd there? This needs to be decided, because his death is being added to both days. Since Obama gave the announcement on May 1st here at 11:30 PM that Osama was dead, are we going by that? The Death article itself flip-flops on dates. Silverseren^C 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a discussion for ANI. But if it's clear it was 2nd May at the place he died then that's what we go by for the date of death (if it's felt that's needed for the article). The date at the US when he died is irrelevant for his date of death even if it was their forces that killed him although there's nothing wrong with also putting the time and date of the annoucement by Obama of his death (but the date/time of the annoucement shouldn't be confused with when he died). Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I made this section is because his death is being listed on both the May 1st article and the May 2nd article and it should obviously be on only one. If we're all agreed on which one it should be, then we need to take it off of the other one and make sure it stays off. Silverseren^C 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to have this discussion here particularly since it may take a few days to resolve yet that doesn't mean there will be many comments (meaning we will have to keep this open) and it will likely be missed by many who can contribute (not thinking they have to check out the ANI for what is a local issue that doesn't require administrative attention) and in the future anyone who wants to see how the decision was reached isn't going to find it in the archives because the discussion was at WP:ANI. Instead this discussion should either be at the ObL article (where there are already multiple discussions) or start a discussion at May 2nd (or May 1st) and linked to that discussion at May 1st (or May 2nd). Note that asking people to keep an eye on the articles here doesn't mean the discussion or where to list the death has to be held here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure in which place it should be had though. I feel like if it is done on the Death page, it's just going to be drowned in all the other discussion sections that are being made there. Silverseren^C 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Now his death is listed on both pages. This is not optimal. :/ Just one of them needs to be chosen. Silverseren^C 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue seems to have been resolved once the sources got their facts straight. It was announced in the evening of May 1 in the US, but it had happened in the early morning hours of May 2 in Pakistan. So the answer is, "May 2, local time". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, but we still need to keep an eye on May 1, since IPs keep trying to add it in. And i've submitted a request for protection of May 2, mainly because a bunch of IPs keep trying to add in Voldemort's death, but also because people keep trying to remove Osama from it. Silverseren^C 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Unless the movie came out early, I thought Voldemort's death was scheduled for July 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • According to the Harry Potter Wiki, he did die on 2 May; it's been quite a while since the last time I reread the series, so I didn't remember by myself. What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, you're talking about the books, I suppose. The final movie is coming out July 1. I'm assuming the bad guy gets killed off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Ah, I didn't realise that. Order of the Phoenix was so far from the book that I became disgusted and haven't seen any of them since. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bizovne reloaded

Some of your might already remember Bizovne from my previous report. He was the one who started posting me some (un)kind notes on my talk in Slovak. Since some editors were dying to learn its content, I took the pains of translating it. This translation also includes the post Bizovne has made via his IP account since. IIRC he was warned (and blocked for 48 hours) for breaking WP:NPA before, but obviously he doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all. Also, since his IP account has been blocked for a month, he has obtained another one by going to a public library in Košice. Though the IP is completely different, the user's obviously the same, evidenced by the fact that he not only replied to his old discussion with the new IP address, but also posted a brand new thread on my talk page. Let me translate it for you in a hurry:

Hungarian fascist CoolKoon

Hi CoolKoon, I think that the English Wikipedia isn't the right place for pushing your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian opinions. Stop propagating the cooperation of Hungary and Hitler's Germany during WWII. You fascism has no place on Wikipedia.

I think that he really DID show a LOT that he doesn't want to be civil with Hungarian editors (especially myself) and that he doesn't regard them high either (evidenced by his edit logs: [18], [19] and [20]). He also seems to be a master of the Good hand, bad hand sockpuppetry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

193.87.75.82 has been blocked 60 hours for that above remark. Bizovne has been blocked 1 month for harassment and socking. –MuZemike 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that there was already a WP:AE request open about him, where yet stronger measures have been contemplated. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

closing irrelevent tangent. I think we all learned something today. Back to the main point of the thread.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How, pray tell, have you gotten away with that user ID for 4 years? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Assuming "Koon" rhymes with "Coon", that's not an acceptable username in English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Because it rhymes Bugs? Why don't you ask CoolKoon about his name?Fainites barleyscribs 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) "Coon" is a synonym for "Nigger". It's not acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Unless it is, you know, his name. I can find dozens of real articles on people with that actual name: [21]. In general, AGF applies here as anywhere. We don't block every accidental string of characters which may rhyme with an inappropriate word. There are usernames that are perfectly fine, which also contain the string "shit" or any of a number of other clearly inappropriate names you can imagine. Are you claiming that David Koon Matthew Koon should be ashamed of their surname? --Jayron32 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC) @Bugs. I know very well that is what it would mean to an American editor, and most UK editors would be familiar with it too. However, the tone of your remarks makes assumptions about CoolKoon, a Hungarian editor, which may well not be justified. Don't assume every user of English as a second or third language is fully au fait with out-dated US slang. What does "assuming it rhymes" mean anyway. What are you going to say if he says it's pronounced Ko-on? Or it's a misspelt version of Colquhon from his Irish Granny?Fainites barleyscribs 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Better watch out for this article too.Fainites barleyscribs 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Or what about those whose first name is "Adolph"? For example, the stigma didn't seem to affect legendary basketball coach Adolph Rupp much. –MuZemike 23:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Whoa, whoa, take it easy, Baseball Bugs. The fact that I can understand English (and speak it a little bit as well) doesn't mean that I know/understand every single slang term used by the British, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Aussies, or Indians. I don't have all day for watching B- and C-grade American (especially ghetto-related) movies where I could pick up these terms either. And besides, I chose this nick for the fact that it DOES in fact relate to my name. I prefer not to publish that in WHICH way it does though. If your curiosity is still left unsatisfied, feel free to send me an e-mail about it and I might even reply (except if you ban me for my nick.... - sorry, I though that you're an admin; thank God you aren't....). I'd also like to thank the rest of your guys for cooperation, support and assuming good faith. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't accuse you of bad faith. On the contrary, I assumed you were not a native speaker and wouldn't have known. I just wanted to know how come nobody in 4 years caught the obvious (to a native English speaker) racial obscenity that your username happens to sound like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) For further info, see the Coon article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Guess what, I would've chosen this nick even if I WOULD'VE KNOWN what does "coon" mean at the time, because it relates to my name. I also think that PC is BS and people who get easily offended for "inappropriate word usage" (e.g. oh! Jesus! He used the F-word! And now the C-word! And the S-word! etc.) should really get stuffed, especially when they're offended at terms which are used without any malevolent intentions. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The word "coon" has lots of meanings in English - the most obvious one is Raccoon. There are a lot of people called "Coon" - for example Gene L. Coon whose name used to appear on the credits of the 1960s TV series Star Trek. If you want the word "coon" banned, Wikipedia is not the place to start. By the way, what are you going to do with the many people whose family name is Coon, Koon, or Kuhn? Will Wikipedia be allocating new approved family names to them?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC) If it's actually his name, then so be it. The illustration in the Coon article is what I immediately thought of when I saw the name "CoolKoon". An unfortunate coincidence, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have hatted the discussion on the username as it appears to be a case of misunderstanding. The discussion over the behavior problems alleged before we went on the little side trip can continue below. --Jayron32 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Crosstemplejay continued gross abuse of the minor edits check box

User:Crosstemplejay has been marking almost all his/her edits as minor, when, after checking, many are clearly not minor or even close to being minor. The user was warned by another editor but has persisted. This behavior raises red flags as to "why". The only reason I can see is to hide the content of his edits from other user's watchlists. Safiel (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I accept the mistake, overtime, I had not realized it. My intention has never been to hide my work from others as you can see from my usertalk, I regularly seek help from more experienced editors. I will not repeat this mistake anymore. Thanks for the corrrection Safiel.--→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ok. I suggest you peruse this policy, Wikipedia:Minor edits It provides the guidelines as to when you can and cannot use the minor edits check box. Safiel (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks Safiel.→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 23:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another n00b and NexCarnifex

NexCarnifex (talk · contribs) came onto IRC and asked for help dealing with another user, the aforementioned Another n00b (talk · contribs), after he "spammed" Nex's userpage. After a quick look, the edits in question - [22] and [23] - are less spam and more outright vandalism. According to Nex, the vandalism was provoked when Nex added an image to an article ([24]), which he objected to because the image was "obscure creepypasta". From the looks of it there's not been a whole lot of discussion between the two, but it still doesn't justify the vandalism to Nex's userpage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User has been notified, but on his talk page he admits that he did it "for the lulz", so my warning bells are already starting to move. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This was intended to be humourous, as he persists in uploading this shock image, even though it is not appropriate or notable enough for wikipedia. - Another n00b (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Homorous or not, it's still vandalism. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so adding to a user's userpage is worse than uploading un-useful, junk onto commons?? I object. - Another n00b (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Both appear to be edit-warring on List of Internet phenomena -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not even the "original" image so it has no legitimate use. Tagged for deletion as an unused non-free copyrighted file. Fences&Windows 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing from archive as the original reason I brought this up to AN/I (Another n00b vandalizing another user's page) was not dealt with and there appears to be evidence n00b is refusing to disengage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Beepoppab making legal threats over List of hub airports on his talk page.

I originally reported it in WP:AIV, but I was told to take it here by User:Daniel Case. What was thought to be a edit war by many parties including myself at List of hub airports has since turned into deliberate vandalism and personal attacks [25], trolling by deliberately putting in a additional incorrect entry [26], personal attacks [27] and legal threats. [28]. Warnings were provided [29], [30] and this recent one for the legal threat [31]. We have explained why his edits were reverted via the edit summary, but the user concerned has resorted to name-calling, trolling and legal threats (diffs are already provided above). Is everyone involved in this (including myself) in the wrong here? Sb617 (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick note about the article involved in this case, and it's complete and utter lack of reliable sources - dare I BEBOLD and remove all unreferenced information? Methinks I'll wait until this other issue is resolved first... GiantSnowman 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Beepoppab indefinitely for the attacks and legal threat. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some help at AIV, please

Resolved

 – The primary offender is now blocked, although there's still a backlog if anyone's interested. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We've got IPs running rampant for about a half-hour now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding copyvio

I've had to remove many paragraphs of text, from 2009, that User:Hookey-rox has copy and pasted from another website, both in articles he has created and edited[32][33][34][35]. He created another article last year (Acton Football Club) which was deleted for being a copyvio and he was informed on this on his talk page. From that point on, at the very least, he knew not to copy text from other website yet, despite continuing to edit, he was happy for all his previous undetected copyvio to remain in his articles. So, do I give this clown another warning or can someone here just get rid of him? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps invoke WP:CCI? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been apprised of this thread, at least. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

• 125.162.150.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith"[36] and "harassment" [37]. The IP address has now received 4 warnings [38]. Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf _hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because Safari 4 (!) doesn't sort them properly. Jack puts the endashes back per MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired"[39] and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

either undermines the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. Silverseren^C 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit? Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further. If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done. Right now it looks like he is socking around a block. Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like. Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please. Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying. --Jayron32 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.

@Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account. Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed? This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked. He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is. However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).

Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.

Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is. Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4". Eleven words. Easy to understand. We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution. Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess. From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? (Answer: No) Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't. And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix". Satisfactory, rather than ideal. If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See [40] RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there. Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going. I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong. I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. This is *Merridew*?! And the IP is accusing me of "dogging" his edits? Absolutely unacceptabe. First, if that's true, then some of the responders here are WP:INVOLVED and have failed to note their involvement. Second, Merridew has a long history of abusive editing, including arbitration cases for targetting a user and for abusive editing from multiple accounts. If Merridew is still doing this, it's more than past time that Merridew was banned. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved here wrt to past disagreements and who did what to whom and when, so I'm ignoring all of that. What I see here is a positive attempt to improve a table in an article, which caused a minor technical problem for an old version of a browser, and which was quickly fixed once the problem was properly explained and understood. Besides that, I see hints of people trying to restart old arguments and settle old scores, but none of that seems pertinent - now that the technical issue is sorted, is there anything of actual relevance that needs admin action here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • First, the technical issue has not been fixed on all involved articles. Second, the issue here is the IP/Merridew's targetting of my edits, and the IP/Merridew's accusations of harassment and "bad faith". Merridew has a long history of targetting other editors. If the IP is, indeed, Merridew, then the IP is continuing to edit without disclosing clearly who he is and the associated arbcom sanctions. The IP should be blocked at this point. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, regarding the technical issue, now that a fix is known then surely it just needs to be applied to the relevant articles, doesn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Two fixes have been known for months. If the IP is indeed Merridew, then the IP is well aware of those fixes, and has knowingly not implemented either of them. The IP undid my fixes, and, indeed, appears to be systemaically undoing my edits. The IP has not opened discussion, and shows no interest in opening discussion on this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's not anybody else's individual responsibility to implement the fix - now that a fix is known that will enable to table to be sortable in the problematic browser too, why not just do it instead of all this bickering? If there is still a dispute about the best fix, go discuss it on an appropriate article page and decide by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, and as far as I can make out, the *user* JackMerridew is not blocked or banned - the *account* was blocked, but only because it was compromised. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • When an IP knowingly removes a fix for a problem, that IP's editing is not good. When this is part of a pattern of targetting users, and with refusal to discuss the issues, it is WP:DISRUPTive editing and the IP should be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post some diffs of this behaviour. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance [41] [42] [43], [44]. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so will the fix detailed above by RexxS make the standard "dash" version work in Safari 4, yes or no? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the IP doesn't want that fix [45]; also notice the abuse in that edit. There are many other disputed changes involved in the IPs recent edits. If this is, indeed, Merridew, remember that Merridew has a history of targeting users. One lead to arbitration; there is also [46] and [47]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, those 'fixes' for a dead browser are unwarranted. We don't support telegraphs or Campbell Soup Cans, either. If such a fix is centralised, mebbe, but snotting-up thousands of articles to accomodate a tiny number^{(an ever-diminishing#)} of users is just going to make a mess and impede editing by editors who know nothing of this faux-issue. You "dispute" anything I've tried to do, and don't discuss in good faith; that's harassment. You've ownership issues, too, mosty re hottie celebrity bios. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How about some diffs of the discussions you opened on this topic that the IP refused to join? Or some diffs of him targetting users? These are serious accusations, and you are calling for a block, so please post these diffs too. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP has accused me of harassment. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs to support that very serious accusation? In any event, [48], and the IPs response was [49]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was you making a pointy and sarky comment, and the other guy removing it. What you are being asked for is some evidence of *you* or someone else actually starting a discussion on the relevant issues and the other guy refusing to join in - not evidence of your demanding that he start it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the technical issue, please stop evasively poking sticks at the other guy and just answer the question. If you have a content dispute (which is what this is) then show us where the discussion took place and show us your attempts to resolve it. Where were the alternative fixes discussed? Where was it decided not to go with RexxS's fix? Where was the discussion held that resulted in a consensus to replace the standard "2001-2006" format with "2001 to 2006"? Where was the impact on Safari 4 users discussed? How badly does it affect them? Does it just make that column sort wrong or does it screw up the whole table? Where was it decided to go with a non-standard date format to fix a sorting problem that only affects less than 1% of our readers? That's what you should be doing - discussing this on its merits, not arguing back and forth just because you don't like each other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP chose to re-revert rather than discuss, contrary to WP:BRD. The IP then continued to make disputed edits to multiple other articles, also without stopping to discuss. On the technical issue, see Talk:Ursula_Andress#Accessibility_and_dates, specifically near the end where RexxS said: "I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser." Nevertheless the IP did [50]. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:BRD is only an essay, and you're still not presenting us with what was requested - evidence that *you* tried to discuss the issue and the other guy refused to join in, and so support the accusations you are making against him. (I had the comment below ready to add when I got an edit conflict, so I'm going ahead with posting it as it was - if you genuinely wish to solve this problem rather than just carry on fighting with someone you don't like, I hope you will respond positively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I opened discussion on the IP's talk page. The IP did not engage, and has not engaged. Instead, the IP has accused me of harassment and continued to make the same disputed edits. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs supporting that very serious accusation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looking back into some of the history of this table sorting business, I came across User talk:Gimmetoo#Yvonne Strahovski from back in September 2010, where Gimmetoo was plainly and simply asked to explain what he saw as the problem. But he responded just as obtusely and tendentiously as he is still doing today, steadfastly refusing to just clearly state what he meant. I apologize if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but what I think I'm seeing is a long-running personal feud rather than any genuine attempt to make Wikipedia better. Gimmetoo, I think you need to put up or shut up - start a discussion explaining the technical problem (not other people, and not your feuds with them, but the technical issue itself), and offer constructive suggestions for a solution so we can discuss it and get a consensus - I'm a Mac user myself, and one of my old machines still has Safari 4, so I can help technically -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And in the light of the above, how about we stop the "It's all his fault" game based on selective quoting, and instead start a brand new attempt to solve the technical problem with table sorting and get a consensus on what to do? Then it will be sorted (pun intended, sorry), and we can all leave the playground and get back to making Wikipedia better. How does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing, this issue here is abusive editing. The technical discussion has been had before, at for instance Talk:Ursula Andress. The IP editor is not helping. Technical issues could be discussed again if the disruptive editing by the IP is stopped. But if this IP is indeed Merridew, then there is another facet; Merridew has picked on editors before (see prior arbcom case, prior ANI) and has picked on me in the past. That needs to stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again I would like to call for some recent diffs giving examples. All you have here is some diffs of six-month-old ANI reports and references to a ban that was lifted in 2008. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo, I have no previous interaction with this dispute, so I hope you don't mind me being open and honest here when I tell you that what I see is egotistical dickishness all round - I see each of you just trying to win a willy-waving contest, and little or no willingness from anyone to actually get together and solve the underlying problem. The arguments on this technical issue and the related fallout have been going on for at least 8 months as far as I can see, and I think the only way forward is tackle the issue itself is in one consensus-driven discussion that involves more than just the same three or four people - and not one that excludes any specific individual you don't like! I honestly don't think you will succeed in making this a one-sided accusation of abusive editing, because I see just as much dickishness from you as from anyone else - and again, that's just an honest observation. Basically, I'm offering to help solve the underlying problem, and if we can get a consensus about that then there should be no basis to any further arguments. But if all you're interested in is kicking shite out of each other and don't really care about Wikipedia itself, then I'm afraid I'll be walking away and leaving you to it. So come on, why don't you take a major constructive step and agree to join me in a civil discussion on the technical issue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing, I have been attacked by the IP in edit summaries, and in comments on this very thread. Are you going to do anything about that? Are you going to block the IP if there are any further abusive edit summaries or attacks? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My offer of assistance with a discussion on the technical issue still stands, but I thought I'd made it clear I'm not going to take sides in the dick war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can get that editor to discuss civilly, fine, but whatever I may or may not have done in the past does not mean that I have to be subject to never-ending abuse from that IP/Editor. If you wish to support and enable the environment such editors foster, that's your choice. If this IP is Merridew, then Merridew was under restriction to edit only from the Merridew account, though apparently the editor indicated a week ago intentions to disregard the arbitration motion [51]. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at quite a bit of this going back some time now, and I have to say I've seen bone-headed stubbornness that would be the envy of a Triceratops. So no, it is absolutely not a case of my allowing the other guy to carry on being abusive - and if you stick with the "I'm 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong" attitude, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. If, however, all sides are prepared to discuss the problem openly as members of the same Wikipedia team rather than slugging it out like street brawlers, we might actually get somewhere. It's getting late where I am, so I'm going to get some rest - and tomorrow I'll find a suitable place for a discussion of the table sorting issue where we can hopefully get a consensus on what to do (and I've already downloaded copies of Safari 4.0 and 4.1 for comparison purposes). And I suggest you get some rest away from this dispute too - it is, after all, not real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

tldr

There have been discussion attempts w/gimme since about last August; they never go anywhere. This didn't even start with the sorting or dashes; it was citation templates at first. Gimme has decided to take-on Merridew, since no one else has the "guts" to; said so last August or so.. Discussions with him never go anywhere because he's not acting in good faith; his intent is to pin my ears back and thwart whatever it is I'm trying to do. WP:HA-101. I LOL re his feigning to not have realized that I'm me; [52] [53]. He's seen this before. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes more accusations of WP:HA from the IP. Ironically, the IP notes a "toxic environment"[54]. Since User:Boing! said Zebedee seems reluctant to do anything about these sorts of comments, is there any admin who will do anything to encourage the IP to contribute without creating and expanding that toxic environment? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• This editor was previously banned for repeated bad behaviour and this ban was only relaxed upon some strict conditions which are now being breached. The ban should therefore be reinstated. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver Seren accuses Jack of incivility

I suppose in order to have people actually discuss on the ongoing incivility that Jack is exhibiting, I need to make this a subsection, since people just ignored my comment and keep going on about Gimmetoo's incident (not that your incident isn't important). So i'm just going to re-copy what I said above here so people can actually comment on it.

"That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page."

Jack has been extremely uncivil to multiple people over the past few days. I strongly advise you to look at the discussion in that SPI report. Silverseren^C 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of incivility would be here. This led to an edit war with Qwyrxian who thought it was an unconstructive comment, though Bishonen ultimately kept it. Ultimately unimportant compared to the stuff above. Silverseren^C 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[Embarrassed, Bishonen hastily updates her Safari 3.] I "ultimately" kept it, Silver Seren? What does that mean? I wrote to Qwyrxian to stop reverting the IP as soon as I saw the edit war on my page. By then, however, Nikkimaria had already asked Qwyrxian why he was so insistently reverting the post on my page, which didn't look anything like vandalism to her (or to me), and Qwyrxian had already realised that he'd made mistake and apologised nicely to the IP.[55] And this you describe as "further evidence of incivility" (by the IP, not by Qwyrxian), and hint that the edit war was the IP's fault, not Qwyrxian's "who thought it was an unconstructive comment"? Yes, well, he thought so until he realised he'd made a mistake. Then he very properly apologised. You didn't think that worth mentioning, I guess. Silver Seren, your post about my talkpage is completely misleading, in a particular direction, which makes it uphill work to assume the slightest good faith of you. Clicking on your other diffs makes your "extremely uncivil to multiple people" look ridiculous, too. (And you feel impelled to let us have your text twice? What's that about?) I encourage everybody to click on those diffs and form their own opinion. Silver Seren, please go read WP:BATTLE. Slowly. Carefully. P.S. I have changed your header to a more neutral and truthful one. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Um...that comment wasn't meant to be an attack on your or to say anything about you either. It was meant to point out that Qwyrxian's trying to remove the comment was a little pointless (because I was sure someone else would have pointed that out if I hadn't said it myself). That, however, doesn't change Jack's incivility in the comment directed toward this ANI discussion. I apologize if I upset you, I never meant the comment to be negative toward you at all. I've gone ahead and removed it, so there isn't an issue. Again, I apologize. Can we instead focus on Jack? Silverseren^C 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Thank you, but it's a misdirected kindness to remove the words I quoted, as it makes some of my reply incomprehensible. This is something you should never do in a discussion. Please put them back. What you should do if you regret something you said is cross it out with the <s></s> code. Please don't bother to cross out anything whatever on my account, though; I didn't think you said anything about me, so we're in agreement there. I merely thought the "ultimately" comment was somewhat contributory to the misleading way you described Jack's role on my page. And I see you now (as a counsel of desperation?) suggest he was being incivil towards ANI on my page. Wow. Good job you can't see what people say about ANI on IRC, you'd probably faint. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

I added it back in, as you've asked, but struck through the entire comment, since it is unimportant compared to the diffs I have at the beginning and below. I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to direct this away from Jack, but can we please focus on the comments that Jack has made and I have linked to above and below? Silverseren^C 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And let me just add that Jack making comments like "another “anyone” hauling out one of the usual wiki-weapons. all part of teh toxic-wiki" and "wp:boomerang 4 teh trolls ;)" is not helpful at all and is what I mean by incivil. Silverseren^C 23:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention "you're not trying hard enough; you should be asking me to assume good faith, pointing out some of teh diffs on your list-of-bad-acts, that I call you a troll and an asshole. that's the wiki's core problem; it's open to all and fails to remove the likes of you." Silverseren^C 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver, I'd have thought you'd learned your lesson about jumping in feet first by now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, I know that we have past disagreements, Elen, but trying to redirect this onto me without addressing the topic of the section is rather unhelpful. Silverseren^C 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. → User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#31 –MuZemike 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren is simply an ARS partisan who's taking shots at an ARS critic. Mostly this is left over from my sorting the A Nobody issue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (sorting problematic editors for seven years;)

Have I ever really interacted with you, Jack? If so, it's been a long time since then, since I really don't remember you at all. The only reason i'm making this report is because of your hostile actions and words toward myself and others, nothing more than that. Silverseren^C 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This shite count? I'll have to look into whatever Elen and Bish are on about; Mike seems to see it, too. hint: flee. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case there was any lack of clarity, I was wrong (and admitted as such) to revert the IP's comment on Bishonen's talk page. I mistakenly thought I was seeing a pattern of disruptive behavior by an IP editor(s) across multiple pages via Huggle (there was a multi-page attack allegedly from the GNAA going on at the same time); this was compounded by edit summaries that appeared to confirm bad intentions. However, after the issue was raised on my talk page and I looked more carefully, I agreed that I was mistaken to call the edit vandalism, and apologized on my and the IP's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You really need to not be so aggressive with the Huggle-matic. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• *sighs* This is why I dislike starting sections on ANI, because it's just like lighting a lamp to all of the editors that dislike me. I notice that no one responding to this section has yet to actually address anything in regards to Jack or the diffs I presented. Silverseren^C 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you dislike it, and are unable to fathom what causes the WP:BOOMERANG effect, maybe you shouldn't do it. Funny how often we get this on ANI: Stop talking about me, we're talking about that guy ! See WP:BOOMERANG: "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Compare your experiences in the Noleander RFAR case, which I suppose is what Elen is referring to above. Bishonen | talk 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Except all of you aren't specifying anything that I did wrong, you're just insinuating things about me. What exactly have I done wrong here? I'm not the one that has been making comments like Jack has above. Tell me straight off, what exactly have I done wrong here? Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what you're doing wrong here; a) you're being a civility-prig. When I criticize editors, people take notice and teh subject usually fares poorly over time. b) people look unfavourably at editors doing the pile-on to an ani-cluster-fuck thing, which is what this little sideshow amounts to. ANI magnifies one of the wikis major problems; it offers a platform to anyone who wants to play the talk-like-an-admin game. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean, you're the one making comments like this. Silverseren^C 09:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack is a strange duck, he can be tough to handle, but he does good work. I have nothing remotely good to say about Silverseren, and plenty of bad things to say about him. However the greater point here is that this is an incredibly stupid situation. After what must be months of this battle playing out, the proper solution would have been to hold a binding RfC on the sortable tables issue, (another one on color use is in order as well), and then whomever's edits were going against said binding RfC would be warned then blocked. It should never have gotten this far. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The RfC on colour has been had; twice, actually. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you show us where the RfCs on the tables were held? (I'm planning to start a new one, so the old ones would be very useful). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 5
• Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC

the first ranges over a bunch of issues and is about a quarter meg ;) The second had a pretty wishy-washy close. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. What are you talking about with sortable tables? Is that Gimmetoo's thing from up above? I'm not involved in that whatsoever and know pretty much nothing about it. I made this section to discuss the incivility Jack has been showing toward multiple editors. Silverseren^C 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problems (caused by all sides - this is not one-sided) all stem from a disagreement about sortable tables -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not about tables, or sorting, or colour, or cite templates, specifically; it's about my having been critical of a lot of poor users and poor editing over years and they and their friends endlessly nip at my heels and oh-so-much want to see me dinged. The mob loves to have a user offered up on the pillory. Wiki is a blood sport, with live targets. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Doc9871 involved in this dispute? Is that why Jack was bad-mouthing him in the SPI case? If not, then I don't see the relation at all between Gimmetoo's incident and mine. Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you mention him first here? You notify him? The moar, the moar toxic ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables RFC

I'm planning to start an RFC on the sortable tables issue, which seems to be a long-simmering cause of aggravation. It's a content dispute, so it's not something to be fixed here at ANI. But as the main protagonists seems to be present here, if anyone knows of any previous RFCs or other attempts to get a consensus, would they please provide some links. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mean to say, RexxS has provided what seems like a good basic summary of the technical issue, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Table sorting and ANI (though if people want to add to that, please save it for the RFC itself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is needed; WHL's the only one who was strongly against sorting and she folded. This is about editors harassing me and that the AC's left old sanctions gathering dust for years. Moar broadly, it's about the extreme toxicity of this project. It's not getting any better, either. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have you saying it's all about other editors harassing you, and others saying it's about you harassing them. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere with the two sides just sticking their fingers in their ears and butting heads - frankly, whatever the origins of this dispute, you're coming across as bad as each other right now. If at least part of the root cause is disagreement on a technical issue, then resolving that technical issue has to be worthwhile, don't you think? Otherwise the headbutting over it, which has been going on for at least 8 months, will not stop. Anyway, thanks for providing the links above - I'll read them later and see where they lead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On first glance, the two previous discussion you linked to above seem to be wide in scope. The specific disagreement here is about whether to accommodate Safari 4.0 in table sorting, and if so, how, as that seems to be what people have been edit-warring over. But it's all useful, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I referred to colour RfCs, and you asked after table RfC; the one at ACTOR is both, and huge. It got into sorting rather late-on, and gimme was not involved in any of it. He came in a bit later and is reverting my on mere newlines (horizontal format of table, which is necessary for adding proper scope attributes to the headers). And anything else I do to his articles.

A much more important issue to settle would be the citation templates and list-defined references one.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good too - if we can define the problem clearly (as a technical issue rather then a "He did, he said" spat) then that might also be productive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet more accusations from the IP, contributing to a "toxic environment", yet no corrections, no warnings, and no demands for diffs from anyone. Fascinating. The technical issues pale in comparison to behaviour of the IP editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I've started a draft RFC at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC - please make any comments at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC. Please do not start any discussion in the RFC itself yet - I just want comments about any errors or omissions that should be rectified before it goes live. Actual discussion of the issue itself should wait until it's live. (And please note that any personal attacks or incivility at this stage will be removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting another editor's comments

Resolved

 – Relevant comment refactored into main discussion 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs)

Could an independent admin please assess whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [56] [57] [58] [59] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not again, TT your presence at multiple such locations and similar situations is clearly a pattern of little benefit to the content of the project and something that multiple users have recently been pointing out to you to give up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [60] [61] [62] [63] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not again indeed...it's been looking like every time TT gets involved in a thread it becomes about his conduct rather than the original subject. drama. drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [64] [65] [66] [67] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I promised to stay away from you but I'll keep this brief. An uninvolved administrator (User:Casliber)did assess whether the comment should be included or not and they concluded it should not. [68] Bob House 884 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it met any of the criteria, Bob? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I figure that the editors reverting here don't feel it fits under TPO as it's a POV editorial at the top of the heading rather than a bog standard talk page comment, Avanu's point might be relevant to the discussion section but to put it in the 'resolved' box gives the impression it was the consensus reached in the discussion. Perhaps this is an issue you should take up with one of the two uninvolved administrators who have already reverted you. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have answered the question, but since you're not an uninvolved administrator, it matters not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't answer your loaded question, I did give a perfectly valid response though which you have chosen to ignore. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[ECs]To me, it doesn't seem to fit the criteria and therefore wouldn't need to be deleted. However, I think that both sides on this issue are pushing too hard seeing as this is a marginal comment that is neither needed, nor does it detract from the conversation. I could live with it either way and it seems that the editors involved are fighing over nothing. It's best to just ignore this.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, an edit war over the "resolved" comment on a WQA thread about a user's comments on a now-withdrawn AN/I request for intervention on the Mexican American War hyphen-dash battles. I don't think it can get much lamer than this. If Avanu agrees to withdraw the "resolved" comment that people are fighting over, I think this can go away quietly, can't it? Avanu, you want to help everyone out and do that? 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's done it's gone. Avanu closed it and two admins (not just Casliber) closed it. TT's just digging for drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to add more drama by making multiple accusations of drama on one discussion. Once should be enough, thank you.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DeCausa, I guess you already know this, but each time three or four people pile into every thread I start and say, "You're just creating drama" – that's the drama. If there weren't allegations flying round, and fingerpointing fingers being pointed, there would be significantly less of a problem. Well that's what I think, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like every time you accuse me of creating unnecessary drama by actually making you back up your image speedies in an FFD?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to intentionally disrupt this thread with irrelevant crap then I'm obviously not going to engage with you, other than to ask how you feel the FfD you refer to is going? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TT, You mean like going close to but not technically over the 3RR rule and hoping an admin will not interpret the reverting literally? And this showing you're fully mindful of calling 3RR on others. Looks like gaming the system. Just like borderline comments. All this teetering around but not crossing bright lines needs to stop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous. If I went round inserting irrelevant needling drivel into threads, I'd be warned and reverted the whole time. Why do you feel you can and have to do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, um, actually, you do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My view was that the comment could be seen as a veiled or not so veiled negative reference to the outcome of the discussion. Given the ongoing bickering, it could be construed that a comment might lead to a continuation of bickering elsewhere. Hence it could be seen as disruptive/tendentious. Hence removing it would facilitate folks ending the thread. We need to be more proactive in removing borderline comments in situations of ongoing acrimony, which can (in the circumstances) be seen as disruptive, with folks keen on getting the Last Word in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I initially had a "where would this stuff wind up" concern at the MfD, later weighing in to delete, and now even more convinced now that WQA is a frivolous dumping ground for petty squabbles. Someone files a complaint, it doesn't get much traction, so filer closes with a "I'm taking my ball and going home!" style msg? No... Tarc (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, having seen him over the last few weeks at various venues, TT is now going beyond being just an opinionated editor, and is simply becoming an out and out source of constant griefing - far beyond what is warranted in any of the actual specific situations, descending into completely off topic TT-focused drama in every case (and yes, I do see the irony, but enough is enough). This disruption's been been toleratd for far too long, if he's ever been the subject of attempted corrective action it's clearly not worked. Normally the correct procedure would be to file a user Rfc, but, that's a voluntary process where there needs to be willingess on the part of the user to listen and self reflect, and in all honesty, who here thinks that would be anything more than a giant patented TT-syle wikilawyering clusterfuck? Come on TT, just knock it the fuck off and start acting like a normal person. I honeslty think you won't even be able to help yourself from responding even to this comment with some form of condescending wikilawyering side-stepping bullshit. Wikipedia is not therapy, and whatever it is you get from all this, it's not benefitting the project one bit, so I for one would rather you were given a temporary relief of your ability to do so, until you can come to some sort of self realisation, or permanent if you can't. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And what's your opinion about the deletion of the comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say no one (or few) give(s) a fuck but there is significantly greatrer concern about you. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well rather than grumbling in an irrelevant thread, could I suggest that you either start a new thread here, open an RfC, file for arbitration or just plain cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As above, I can honestly say I couldn't give a fuck about it. Had I given a fuck about it or considered it remotely relevant, I might have included something about it in my post, because, and here's the deal TT, I'm not a fucking moron, and when you ask the same question to what? four different people in this very thread, you can safely assume it's been logged in my brain as a concern of yours. As said, if I remotely thought it was worthwhile, I'd start an Rfc myself. But even now with this 'cope' crap, you make it screamingly obvious what a pointless exercise that would be. But, as you say, if you want me to go through the formalities just so we can get to a venue where such behaviour doesn't go over so well, I probably would, in return for said correction. It's not like I'd have a long wait for a certifier, or even need to look anywhere beyond the ANI archives for evidence, and as long as I switch my monitor to monochrome to avoid the deliberate choice of colour scheme, your talk pages too. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I apparently started this drama [[69]], I'll say that my AGF reading of the Avanu's closing tag didn't interpret it as snarky. 1) WQA is voluntary and 2) nothing good was coming out of the thread. Gerardw (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am unsure what this report is really about. I removed the coment because it seems obvious that while an editor posting to Ani is allowed to close his own thread when the issue is resolved, that doe snot mean that he is allowed to take this as an opportunity to take the last word. I removed the comment once, two other admins also removed it. I don't see what the basis for any further action or discussion here is.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the original filer and some other editors don't see a problem with the language you removed.LedRush (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes that an issue? If three independent admins found it to be problematic, it cannot be said to be obviously unproblematic and the decision to keep or remove would be a judgment call. Of course if a larger consensus determines that the comment should be reinserted then that can be done, but honestly don't we have better stuff to do than make a large scale discussion out of this tiny issue? ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

Does this [[70]] work for everyone? (Anyone?) Gerardw (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm presumably not allowed to mark this thread resolved even though I started it (!) so if someone else would care to do the honours? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have no problems with that solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Better is good. Not sure how to interpret the sigh, though. Seems a bit snarky to me. Gerardw (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread, and I'm super confused why it even was started. How is it 'snarky' to say that Wikiquette thread was not providing a positive outcome? The whole goal is to help two editors who have had an issue. It isn't about winning or losing. As far as I could tell, the tone of the discussion was very opposed to reasonable discussion -- "childish", "forum-shopping", "Maybe you should just drop the entire thing, including this WQA". So, I took the advice. That kind of situation doesn't produce anything positive. -- Avanu (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bahamut0013 using admin tools as an involved user

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

Resolved

 – WP:TROUT for dinner washed down with a cup of WP:TEA is a good prescription for moving forward. Bahamut0013 has learned a lesson. Nothing else to do here except make people get defensive and then get offensive. --Jayron32 20:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Bahamut0013, an administrator and member of the Audit Subcommittee, has got himself into a bit of a pickle in an editing dispute on List of characters of 8-Bit Theater with User:Δ (Delta). Delta removed a series of fair use images from the article, with a rationale that involved WP:NFLISTS, part of the fair use guideline based on the 2007 Board licensing resolution. Amongst other things, this resolution emphasises the smallest possible use of such images, with the associated policy particularly noting that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Given that the article in question contained multiple images illustrating the same or similar things, Delta's actions seem fairly reasonable; Bahamut, however, did not think so, and the two proceeded to edit war over the question of including the images. This edit-war was finally brought to an end when Bahamut fully protected the article, preventing anyone except admins from editing it. This seems, to me, to be completely inappropriate; Bahamut has used his admin tools in a dispute he was involved in, edit-warred (although this is a relatively minor concern) and prevented almost all users from editing an article in order, apparently, to prevent disruption from one specific user, something our policy advises against.

I proceeded to revert this protection, and warn Bahamut that his behaviour was inappropriate. He chose to follow up by informing me that I could "take that self-righteousness and shove it...I won't be talked down to by a man who defends a bully". This is not the first occurence of him making questionable comments during this dispute - he also argues that he's a "well-respected editor, not some floozy, and you shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin like this", which to me smacks of using adminship as a club and as something which implies some superior role in the community - two things the tools are specifically not to be used for. Following my unprotection and his rather blunt message to me, he was repeatedly told by several other users that his actions were problematic; despite this, he refuses to accept that any of his actions were incorrect, instead defending himself by saying that he didn't even investigate whether Delta had legitimate concerns before edit-warring and protecting the page.

Note that this matter is also under discussion at WP:AN/EW; I don't see this as a conflict, in that that entry discusses the edit-warring on its own and isn't tasked towards the wider issues. I would instead like ANI to take a look at this, and in particular confirm whether:

1. Bahamut's actions were inappropriate given his involvement with the article;
2. Bahamut's actions and comments were not to the standard we should expect from administrators.

Ideally I'd just like him to accept, if consensus turns out the way it has so far, that his actions were utterly wrong, and to agree not to do such arbitrary and inappropriate things in the future. Given how "I'm in the right, whatever you say" he's been so far, however, I accept that this may not happen, and am prepared to press for voluntary or forcibly removing his userrights if this sort of lack of clue continues. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've also just discovered that despite his claims that he's completely uninvolved, he uploaded the files under dispute. I honestly can't see how claims of uninvolvement can be taken seriously at this stage. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that Bahamut's actions in this in so far as using his administrator tools and his reaction to people's commenting on their inappropriate use needs to be considered separately from the edit war in which he was involved with Δ. I think it very likely that this thread will devolve into a dispute regarding all of it, but it must if at all possible remain focused only on Bahamut's administrator actions and response. With that said, I am not troubled that Bahamut made a mistake. Administrators are not expected to be perfect. I am deeply troubled that Bahamut refuse to acknowledge that (a) he was directly involved, (b) used his administrator privileges in an inappropriate way and (c) continues to defend his actions as just. The last is what makes this the most troubling of all. If he can not and will not accede that he made a mistake and affirms that he will not abuse his tools in this manner again, I see little choice but to strip him of his tools. I don't WANT that outcome. I would prefer that Bahamut walk away from the dispute for a while, cool down, and then see the logic behind what multiple people have been telling him and return to being a normal productive contributor here. So far, that isn't happening. I am deeply troubled. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been following this closely, but haven't actually commented anywhere yet. I feel it's worth noting (very briefly) that I agree with the above (Ironhold's comment, as well as the various comments by Dirk and Hammersoft), and believe that Bahamut0013's actions have been in clear violation of what we expect from administrators and, indeed, users. He has been uncivil, edit warred, used the tools where he is involved, used protection incorrectly, used his admin status and ability to block to threaten others, and broken our NFC guidelines - and despite all this, still insists that what he's doing is ~"dealing with a disruptive user." - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Bahamut to take a step back and give himself some time to cool down, in hopes that he can look at the situation more objectively. I think article-wise the issue has been resolved, so it's really a matter of the dispute here between the two users and Bahamut's use of admin tools. I agree with all above that Baha was involved. I've tried to explain this in clear terms to him and I hope he comes to understand. I also want to say that I believe Delta/Betacommand should have handled the removal of the images in a more productive manner by utilizing the talk page before this escalated into an edit war. Preferably explaining the removals on the talk page before or after the first edit. That very well may have prevented this entire SNAFU. Hopefully this can be resolved without the customary multiple venues and pages of commentary. Lara 15:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Bahamut0013 keeps defining Delta's edits as 'disruptive', and is using that argument as a reason for repeatedly reverting Delta. However, Delta's actions are, albeit unclear, part of policy and guideline, they do not fall in any form under any form of disruptive editing, vandalism or similar. In fact, it is the way similar situations are handled, strongly disputed inclusions are first removed, then discussed and may, eventually, return (that goes for unreferenced material, that goes for possible copyvio material, it goes for disputed external links and similar). The fact whether Bahamut0013 was the original uploader of the images, or did edit the article in question in the past is not even in question. Using admin tools in such a conflict was inappropriate, even reverting Delta repeatedly was inappropriate, and several editors, friends and others, have asked Bahamut0013 to reconsider his actions. That was met with more strong words from Bahamut0013. It should be noted, that several other editors have performed similar actions, reverting Delta's edits where Delta was removing excessive (I know that is just the word which causes this dispute) multiple instances of non free media - I note here that also those actions are inappropriate.

I agree with what Ironholds, Kingpin, Hammersoft, Jennavecia and others have said in this regard, and also here I ask again Bahamut0013 to reconsider his actions and words. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the article's edit history, I don't think either editor is blameless; both were edit warring. But Delta really got things off on the wrong foot by removing all of the article's images,[71] which isn't what his edit summary said he was doing (he said he was removing "overuse," not all use) nor is that even arguably supported by any guideline, policy, or essay here from what I can tell. That Delta believes (whether right or wrong) that his interpretation was correct obviously doesn't entitle him to act as if he's more of an authority than anyone else on the matter. As he has in the past with NFC, he took a more extreme step than was necessary, a step that happened to be the easy way out (removing all images rather than discussing, or determining himself, which ones actually constituted overuse). He then should have discussed it instead of repeatedly reverting the restoration without further comment, when Bahamut's edit summaries were expressly calling for discussion. There was no urgency here, so why couldn't Delta have taken it to a talk page?

That said, the article didn't need to be in Bahamut's preferred state for him to start discussing it either, and he certainly shouldn't have protected a page that he was involved in (yes, he did upload at least some of the images that were removed). But I do see Delta as having first done the wrong thing, and it's symptomatic of an enforcer mentality, one contrary to a collaborative environment, that has been commented upon at ANI many times in the past. I don't know whether Bahamut's conduct is part of a larger pattern with him or unique to this incident. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Postdlf; Δ's actions in so far as removing non-free content may or may not have been wrong. I would be happy to debate that elsewhere. Same goes for his actions in continuing an edit war. But again, I think it very important that we focus this thread only on the use by Bahamut of administrator privileges and his subsequent response to multiple parties who admonished him on inappropriate use. That is the point in discussion here. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)@Postdlf, I suggested that if material (of whichever form) is under dispute, that it than first gets removed, then discussed - Delta can not be expected to examine all these situations and decide what to leave, he would need to discuss the disputable inclusions .. as he could not discuss which ones to remove (leaving the overuse for quite some time), the proper action is to remove all, and notify interested editors to start a discussion which could lead to re-inclusion. Hence, IMHO, there is nothing wrong in initially removing all when an editor can not make the decisions which to leave. This now is again NFC, for copyvio we do the same, we do not try and see whether maybe some pieces are fine, we delete all and then after discussion include what is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• I believe that Delta should have posted a message to the talk page explaining his removal of the images. Of course, BlackKite already went through this with Bahamut over a year and a half ago. Lara 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay, my first controversy... I'm so enthused. </sarcasm>
Look, I got ahead of myself, but the case in point is that even though people will disagree, I didn't consider myself an involved editor. I've said it several times now, and it seems that people won't believe me if I say it again, but I feel the need to do so anyway, if only to keep my name a little less muddy than it has been. I saw it as an admin matter, not an editorial one, and I took actions that I thought would deter a troll from disruptive behavior. I was wrong in that perception, but I still want to make it clear that abuse was never my intent at all. My anger level was negligable until I got that reprimand from Ironholds, whom I still consider a friend, and it was starting to peak until Lara made an appeal a few minutes ago. I'm still angry at what I consider other editors defending a troll and bully, and disregarding what I said to do so, but I'm calm enough to be civil now that I see that appearances don't look good for me. I thought I was defusing an altercation, and while I realize now that I'm not going to get any supporters, I still maintain that I acted upon good faith. So go on, ANI, judge away, just be quick. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I here read correctly that you consider Delta a 'troll and bully'? a) did you read what I wrote in full during this incident, and b) have you read WP:NPA? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bahamut, to me the most important questions here are 1: Do you understand you made an error in protecting the article because you were involved (regardless of what version it was protected in)? 2: What would you do in future similar disputes? If someone were involved in an edit war with you (or, really, anyone else) on Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, would you protect the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling Delta "an evil troll" (on your talk page) and a bully really isn't helping your case, Baha. Also considering him editing an article that you have been involved with to remove images you uploaded (a situation that you've already been informed was a problem before) to be an admin matter is also a serious reason for us to be concerned. It's really unfortunate, but you seem to be incapable of understanding when it's inappropriate for you to use your admin rights. Lara 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just a comment having had a look over this. Yes, I think Bahamut was involved and shouldn't have used admin tools, and a few unwise words were slung around. But it looks like it was done in good faith, though in response to getting a bit stressed and reacting rather angrily. But people get stressed and over-react, and Bahamut is no more superhuman than the rest of us, and I see he's listened to words from people who have offered advice and is calming down. I think the important thing now is for all to calm down and don't stomp on him too hard for having made an honest mistake while trying to help the project, and move forward constructively -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft's note on my talk page took me aback. Suddenly, I realize that I was the one who looked like a bully. So, yes, I apologize for going overboard. I got caught up in the feeling that I was defending the wiki and righting wrongs, when it seems that I had overstepped my bounds. I still want to fight the good fight, but I don't that fight is with anyone here (try not to interprete that literally, I don't like fighting much at all, despite my profession). I'll try a softer touch the next time anything seems out of kosher. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, Bahamut0013 is going to get royally burned here, and probably rightly so. But let's get a few things straight - NFLISTS is not the word of the Foundation or of our EDP. It is the supposed en.wiki community wide consensus on usage of non-free content in lists. Although if you'll believe that you'll believe anything. Frankly, I'd rather attemp to consensus build in a nationalist dispute than debate it with the tiny cabal holding sway over NFC, most of whom are not shy about their true beliefs - Wikipeda should contain no fair use whatsoever, and the name of the game is how to 'interpret' the EDP to achieve this. No, let's not pretend anyone in the wider community has ever been able to debate NFLISTS against any sort of logic or primary EDP reasoning - anyone that tries will be succesfully eliminated by attrition through some frankly very artfull and well rehearsed WP:TE. Anyone who sticks around, will soon observe there is an NFCC playbook in action. If people want to know who's 'right', or at least who might be close to being right as far as a wide consensus goes, forget NFLISTS, go read the EDP and then compare the article versions. Clear your mind of any ideological pre-conceptions, and simply read and look. Barely half what has been removed could be considered to have violated the actual EDP by any reasonable interpretation. NFLISTS and anything else decided by 'consensus' in this area contains the sort of logical fallacies you don't see in any other widely and properly crafted policy or guideline, e.g. an article with 2 non-free images is 'twice' as non-free as one, and thus 'twice' as bad - which is just nonsense frankly. An article with 1 non-free image is non-free, period. Further use is an issue of contextual justification within the EDP, not simplistic notions such as a numbers game. NFCC is not BLP, for the interpretive portions at least, the non-black and white lines, not one single person on this project has any right whatsoever to even think about chucking around block threats, 'I am right', and edit warring, and calling that anything other than pure disruption when it concerns the graduated interpretation of something like NFLIST. Pure disruption. In the face of the tag teams and meat puppets, it's frankly the holy grail for most normals to even reach the stage of actually getting to discuss the actual content of the actual images and the actual article. You'll be lucky if you can disentangle yourself from the condescension, threats and other BS, in time to beat the 7 day 'orphan' clock, which is dutifully started at the beginning of each 'cleanup' incident. As ever, past 'discussions' are held up as evidence of wrong doing - discussions never closed or reviewed independently for their, shall we say, independence. As it was decreed before, it shall be decreed again. Not consensus. Not even collaboration tbh. We're only here at this stage because many people understandably think that the only way to fight disruption and arrogance is with disruption and arrogance. I for one don't blame the guy for using his tools as a weapon, and there's hundreds if not thousands of other users who don't even have that option, and who are now either game-blocked, or have left the project all together. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One you are topic banned already from making comments about me, two I will stand right behind you defending the usage of appropriate Non-free content, (example cover of Virgin Killer), I am however a strong supporter in our m:mission, which is to provide a 'free' encyclopedia. And to that extent over usage of said content is not needed. So do not attempt to portray me as something I am not. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Δ is a bully and has been a troll. That doesn't make Bahamut's actions right; they would only right if Δ's actions were intentionally against consensus. Δ has been shown incapable of recognizing consensus, so it couldn't be intentionally acting against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I suppose you can point to a consensus that indicated Δ is incapable of recognizing consensus? Look, enough of the personal attacks. This isn't about Δ anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One, you're flat wrong. Two, I never said you wouldn't (you can take a look at the user pages of some of your closest supporters though, to see who I was referring to). Three, you can keep pretending you are the only defender of the mission all you want, it's the normal uncollaborative and anti-wikipedia stance which has come to be expected, and is completely and utterly irrelevant to the consensus view of the finer en.wiki policies as regards how much is too much, where you have to justify your position a little bit better and more cluefully than picking arbitrary numbers out of thin air, and declaring that's the consensus. I sometimes wonder if you really do actually realise that pages like the one you've just cleaned up with all the attendant drama, are no more or less 'free' or disseminable in the public domain now than they were before you even arrived to cause disruption and grief in the name of the Foundation. I also wonder if you realise what damage some of the arbitrary consequences of your approach actually has for the total number of non-free pages we actually have here. There must be quite a few pages that exist now solely because through the way you approach the issue, you have by necessity found it less easy to game the concept of simple identification, over more nuanced ideas of significance/critical commentary, upon which some of the views about what is and is not important are often completely incredible, if certain people intend to be invoking the EDP and the mission. That's certainly one measure of 'how free' Wikipedia is that is quantifiable. Yet your approach more often than not leads editors down paths which make Wikipedia less free by that standard. In these finer judgement calls in things like the finer wording of NFLIST, neither the Mission or The Foundation or even our own EDP are particulalry relevent beyond the obvious parts, except of course to remind you that they are value based, and not remotely supportive of made up arbitrary limits based on rather indefensible and illogical ideas about how you measure over-use. Feel free to get anyone in a position to do so, to contradict me. The Foundation has never, ever, spoken up in your defence over the years you've been making these pronouncements, as far as I can recall. If it were remotely possible, which it isn't, I know for sure the consensus of the wide community wouldn't, even in full posession of the facts and mission statement and EDP etc. It's your continual obsession with denouncing others as Mission denyers that shows your completely irredeemable non-collaborative nature as far as en.wiki consensus building goes. If you want to disagree with however I portray you, then we can have the much much needed arbitration case on the behaviours and tactics of certain editors, who make up a tiny tiny tiny proportion of the entire community, that influence the environment that is the finer point NFCC interpretation consensus building areas here, which lead to this ongoing situation where you really do seem to think you are entitled to make some of the more outrageous policy statements and demands that others comply with your interpretations, as you've been doing in this latest incident on your talk page and elsewhere, and have been doing for years now, irregardles of how many times you've been requested to change your approach. It's beyond obvious all prior options to get you to modify your behaviour have been well and truly exhausted, and we're now getting to a level of farce where you even get to play the victim in case of disputes with other editors who have never even heard of your previous incarnation or reputation, where it's clear, as if any more proof were needed, that you are the root cause, and those most frequently by your side who always take a rather less than whole view of events and matters regarding what's good for the community and the project. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• You do understand this is a closed discussion, yes? If you have a gripe with someone, take it elsewhere. This isn't the thread for it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Bahamut0013 an involved editor?

Separating out this single question for more analysis. Bahamut continues to claim that he was not an involved editor. I conducted a review of the article, it's talk page, and the images that were removed. I found;

1. Of the ten images removed, Bahamut0013 uploaded six of them (1,2,3,4,5,6).
2. Bahamut0013 has made more than 100 edits to the article ([72] see "Top 50 editors").
3. Bahamut0013 is the second most active contributor to the talk page of the article ([73] again see "Top 50 editors").
4. Bahamut0013 undertook four reversions [74][75][76][77] within 20 minutes prior to his protecting [78] the article.
5. (adding on) The article in question is Bahamut0013's 5th most edited article ([79] see "Top edited pages")

--Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of teh edits I've made to that page were the reversion of vandalism or inappropriate edits. I's been months since I've done anything of substance to that page. Like I said, I don't really expect anyone to believe me anymore, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to try to pick me apart. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to pick you apart. I'm just wanting to see what the consensus is on whether you were what we would call an involved editor or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• clearly involved - user should not have used his mop here at all, I support stripping him of it if he continues to carry on this way and assert he was correct. The user also appears to think its funny and to be making personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, his conduct can be discussed in the section above I think. Mainly, I'm wanting to see what the consensus is on whether he was involved or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think it's fair to say he's doing it because he "thinks it's funny" though, he seems to believe he's doing the right thing - I find it hard to comprehend why - but one way or another he's acting in good faith - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment was in relational to the users comment above - Ow my first controversy how droll or words to that effect. Personally I didn't understand users supporting his adminship anyways, he didn't need it, is not really gonna use it apart from in situations like this where he is involved (user log) and users seemed to support him because he was promoted to the audit committee and was supposed to be an administrator. Looking at his RFA this comment was quite insightful - "Oppose I'm afraid this editor has such a strong bias that his possible involvement as an administrator in articles pertaining to right-wing politics, US military, and the like, would not be subject to an impartial evaluation. The candidate already has expanded editing powers, and at this point I don't really see any need for giving him even more." - Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• For me, the question if you are involved due to previous edits or uploaded images or not is mainly futile. You paint Delta as a 'bully' and a 'troll', and decided to repeatedly revert his edits as 'disruptive', while in fact these edits are not disruptive, but, as I said unclearly, in line with policy and guideline. Those actions, reverting Delta because you define him as a 'troll' and 'bully' makes you (personally?) involved with Delta, making you unsuitable to use your admin tools in a dispute with him. Sure, that you actually were a contributor to the page and uploaded 6 of the images is not going to help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Clearly involved - Based on previous editing of the article, specifically with the images, many of which he uploaded and which he previously discussed the appropriateness of more than a year and a half ago; as well as his edit-warring with Delta. That, specifically, was the incident he ended with his own tools instead of calling for an uninvolved admin. Lara 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Clearly involved. The article appears to be a long-term project of his, which is made especially clear by his extensive participation on the talk page. In addition, I find it hard to think of a situation where I wouldn't consider a user involved when they were warring over images they themselves uploaded/added. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Involved, as I said above - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Clearly involved in particular with the 4th statement, which Ironholds has already mentioned too at the top of this section. Protecting a page in which he intended (or unintended) to revert other users contributions is a violation of WP:OWN. Minima© (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to close

It's obvious we can spin this for days here and write a massive amount of commentary on this incident. I don't think that serves our purposes very well. We're trying to resolve the issue, not have a talk show about it. To resolve it, I feel it is important that Bahamut0013 understand that what he did was wrong, that he was involved, and that future incidents won't be repeated. Administrators are not expected to be perfect. Making mistakes is ok. Repeating them, or defending mistakes to leave us with a belief they will be repeated is not acceptable. However, given this post from Bahamut, and his response to my query at User_talk:Bahamut0013#One_last_sticking_point, I think it's safe to say we've achieved the ends that serve the project and we can move to close this dispute in so far as Bahamut's administrator actions as resolved. Agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with closure --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (agreeing with myself; first sign of senility)
• Yes, user seems to have accepted the situation and as such no one is expected to be purr-fect so theres nothing left to work out here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with closure --Nicola Romani (talk) 18:10, 3 May 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.

Delta bullying; followon to User:Bahamut0013 using admin tools as an involved user

It's not all about Bahamut0013. If Delta did something which deserved blocking, that would be appropriate at ANI. And his bullying may deserving blocking. Since most of the editors, closing the previous comment, refuse to consider whether Delta was doing anything improper which might require admin action, I'm reopening that for consideration.

I won't comment on it, as I've been opposed to much of what beta/delta believed to be policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta and I had some discussion on it here at my talk page. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

His attitude has been a constant source of problems for him. if it's continuing is a clear indication he should never have been allowed back on the project. I'd like to see some recent examples if you have some.--Crossmr (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check - Francis E Williams

• Francis E Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.156.183.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.43.161.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.144.234.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.199.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've just blocked User:Francis E Williams for a week for carrying on baiting User:24.177.120.138 while the IP was blocked, after an acrimonious argument that has just been archived here, and I'd just like a sanity check if you wouldn't mind.

• He did this at the IP talk page, which was clearly deliberate baiting while he's blocked.
• The he did this at his own Talk page, which was clearly more baiting.
• I removed it and warned him here
• He responded by re-adding the baiting here
• I removed the baiting again and blocked him
• Back at the IP talk page he reverted my removal of his first baiting as a IP User:86.156.183.157, here
• I've also blocked the IP for 48 hours

Any thoughts? (PS: I'll notify User:Francis E Williams, but I don't see any need to aggravate User:24.177.120.138 further as he probably never saw it and this isn't about him - though I'll notify him too if anyone thinks I should). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And now I just got this on my Talk page - clearly the same person using multiple IP addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Checking, you look sane. :) In all seriousness someone's socking there it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Consider your sanity checked. It all looks good to me.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are all still not reading what has been written!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.234.182 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I read it all but nevertheless concur with Boing! said Zebedee. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, his Talk page and archives are very confusing, so your assistance is appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• And he's back with this - IP 109.144.234.182 now also blocked for 48 hours, and User Talk:Francis E Williams semi-protected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Just out of idle curiosity, the IP addresses used so far are...

86.156.183.157 = BT, Southsea

217.43.161.176 = BT, Oxted, South of London

109.144.234.182 = BT Openzone (public access), London

80.225.199.69 = Tiscali dynamic IP, Hull

(Note I'm disclosing nothing that isn't easily publicly accessible - I used http://cqcounter.com/whois/) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You`re still all missing the point - have a look at the botton of the accused`s page about what he is up to now. There is a message that is pretty plain and simple. Maybe it`s going over the top of your heads guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.199.69 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

80.225.199.69 now blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Right, for repeated trolling and block evasion, I have reblocked User:Francis E Williams indefinitely - I think we'll need to see some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour before he can be unblocked. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to adjust the block accordingly. As he clearly has access to a range of dynamic IPs, I have also temporarily semi-protected the IP Talk page he was trolling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking seems futile, I don`t think he is coming back.

WP:SOAP, WP:DENY. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, but that`s where you`re wrong!. I`m not just abandoning my account, I`m leaving this site to it`s own devices. I have better things to do with my time left. Yes, it is sad that you are loosing the benefit and knowledge from what was a content contributor ( with real words and paragraphs not just sentences. it is bizarre that I have to try and make my point in this fashion, when you deny free speech that makes good sense. Take the blinkers off for goodness sake and step back and take a good look at yourselves, and what is considered to be "politically correct" talking but has no basis in the real world.. Nobody can teach experience, wisdom. Until the episode with 24.177.120.138 and his various accounts I had no need to be anything but a satisfied legitimate user with ONE static i.p. address and user name. I guarantee you, (and check out the logs) I have never created any other account in any other name. I only used legitimate means (my static i.p. address) to create the "sock" account to try and give back some of the hassle I was getting. I know what to do with internet access, as I have said before don`t underestimate my intelligence or access to resources. I can access thousands of i.p. addresses, not just via B.T.s networks. All the i.p. addresses used today are all new to me and the 217.43.161.176 was a fault on your own system which accidentally gave me access to edit. I didn`t get to Wiki until way after that i.p. address was first used for one edit only. Check it out see if I`m teeling the truth if you know how. You are all assuming who I am what I am and seeing the world throught your own system only. The guys that can sort these issues out have to have a degree of intelligence (not neccessarily an education). If I can do it, surely can`t you see by now that so can anyone else, and hey, I`m on old senile soon to be state pensioner who refuses to grow old gracefully, and still remembers being a teenager with attitude! You`re as old as you think yourself to be. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge and dismiss my character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.252 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) Your own system has attributed that edit to the wrong i.p. address without my help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Tell me, when does free speech become vandalisation? only in your own mind. I have no intention of vandalising any article or page as you incorrectly report, nor have I posted any declaration to do so, so please retract that accusation. I have some standards after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The only problem you are encountering here is that you insist on trying to carry on a fight when you need to drop it, and you keep trolling that other IP's Talk page while he's blocked. If you're really nearly a pensioner, surely you're grown up enough to just let it go so we can try to bring and end to the disruption? We stopped the attacks on you, and we will do so again if they continue. But if you insist on trying to get in the last punch, it will never stop - and I'm sure you can understand that, can't you? It's up to you really - if you'll drop the fight and stop insisting on retaliation (including reverting edits of unconnected editors with whom you have had other previous problems), then your account is still there and I don't see why you can't resume with it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I will bid you goodnight and I hope you'll have a think on these words -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to see you're talking using your registered account on your Talk page - I've replied over there and will do what I can to help resolve this amicably -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So, are we going to unblock Francis E Williams, or are we going to continue to let him edit through IPs? –MuZemike 05:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd think unblocking would depend on how he responds in the current discussion on his Talk page. If he agrees to drop the stick and leave us to deal with the fight via the proper channels, I think we could unblock. I'd much rather get an amicable agreement than have a potential long-running IP sock war on our hands -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading his latest on his Talk page, I think it could be read as his having agreed to drop the fight (with just the "I have a final message for the i.p. user" possibly being ambiguous). If people think it would be beneficial to unblock now, I'll be happy to make it so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• He just did this, which does not look positive, and I don't think we can unblock right now. Can't really keep User talk:24.177.120.138 semi-protected as that will stop 24.177.120.138 posting there too, and it will expire in a few hours. So if anyone can keep an eye on it for Francis E Williams coming back there as an IP, that would be helpful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Levineps and yet another violation of his editing restrictions

Deja vu. Anyway, I just noticed Levineps (talk · contribs) recently violated his editing restrictions, which include, inter alia, a complete ban from performing any page moves. He violated this twice since his last block, on February 22, 2011 and again on April 19, 2011.

The last incident for which he was blocked was also a page move violation, in January 2011: ANI report here. The full restrictions, as well as the enforcement log, are documented in a collapsed box on his user page. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He was lower-casing the parenthetic word in the title, and he might be forgiven for that move had he also corrected it from "politican" as some bozo had renamed it to a couple of weeks ago. Someone else had to do the spelling correction after Levine moved it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if he had performed the move correctly by fixing both issues rather than just that one, the ban was made absolute, without regard to the merits of the move performed, because he proved that he couldn't be trusted with that editing ability. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm just saying that he could maybe try and defend himself if he had done the move fully correctly. In this case, it doesn't make sense. Whether it's "(Politican)" or "(politican)", it's still messed up. "What was he thinking?" (Rhetorical question.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot I was banned, I thought the period was over. It was a completely innocent move on my part.Levineps (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Why would you think that? postdlf (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Levineps: Your sanctions are specified in a drop-down box on your user page. For your future reference, they are in force permanently, or until such time as the community sees fit to remove them. That time is unlikely to come if you keep "forgetting" that they exist.

As an aid to his memory, I would suggest that Levineps be blocked for a month, as I believe his last block for violating his sanctions was two weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

His last block was for a week, so this one is for two weeks. Next one will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may, Elen, I would suggest you increase the duration to three weeks or a month. When I blocked him back in February, I erred on the side of assuming good faith and didn't increment the block duration, but I stated in the ANI thread that three weeks or a month would be the next duration. I'd suggest treating my February block as though I had incremented the duration because the reasons I gave for not doing so clealry don;t apply now there's been another vioaltion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to give him an extra week for that useless excuse. 'I thought it had expired' indeed. I don't want to appear a meanie - what do others think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's his fourth block for his fifth violation (the first time he was just given a warning), his third page move violation, and the second time he claimed that he innocently thought his restrictions had "expired." Two weeks is too light. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Mitchell did warn him last time it would be a month. I have amended accordingly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC Radio 2, again

all users notified

• Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
• TheRetroGuy (talk · contribs)

• 188.221.183.71 (talk · contribs)
• 132.185.240.124 (talk · contribs)
• 81.20.49.81 (talk · contribs)
• 82.132.248.69 (talk · contribs)

• Prior AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Andrew_Peach
• Prior talk thread: Talk:BBC_Radio_2#Bio_Info
• Current talk thread: Talk:BBC_Radio_2#Andrew_Peach
• Relevant article section: BBC_Radio_2#News.2Ftravel.2Fcontinuity_staff

Further chapter in the annals of BBC Radio 2 announcers. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Andrew_Peach was a prior edit war over whether Andrew Peach should be listed as a 5 Live presenter; now it's over whether he's a daytime/evening news reader. IPs are back requesting we counter an alleged mission of AP to "big himself up" which is the ips' terminology for allegedly exaggerating his reputation. The IP(s) is(are) personally invested in this and work for the BBC. I'm approaching 3RR or over it, but the initial series of reverts were due to changes without sources. There are sources from 2008/2009 which place Peach as a daytime news reader. Since then, updates in RS are spotty. Sources have been provided which could synthetically show that Peach has been replaced, and the ips suggest he be listed as an evening news reader; but there's no explicit mention regarding this position of his in the past 2 years and no full published schedule from the BBC. The ips have proposed just merging categories to avoid any 'rank' issues, but given their COI, I'm hesitant to do so. Assistance requested to investigate RS, edit-warring, page protection, and possible sock/meat puppetry. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 02:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) updated 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to referee in this disagreement some months ago, but without success. Both sides seemed unwilling to reach any compromise so I have stayed pretty much out of it since then. This argument is at least two years old now, so we need a solution to bring it to a close. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so much on a side, except for being quite resistant to COI editors motivated by suspicions, accusations, and personal vendettas. If someone else would like to mediate this, I'd gladly step away from the page. Ocaasi ^c 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Major COI/POV-pushing issue

Has this: http://hurryupharry(.)org/2011/05/04/raining-on-sergeant-len-matthews-parade/ (remove parenthesis to access to the link - damn spam filter!) already been reported? Is it already being dealt with? If so, sorry for interrupting. But if not: how could this happen? Such a blatant manipulation? Cheers to all, Insert coins (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This The Promise (2011 TV serial), seems to be the relevant article referred to on the website link above. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposed person

Resolved

 – Deleted as "G3: Blatant hoax" by Elen of the Roads - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

İrf Temrjukovna Oruç seems to be non-existent in reality but the editors that probably are sock-puppets have been trying to use both reliable (but not relevant) and non-reliable sources to pose this person as existing. The speedy deletion tag is constantly being removed and the article needs immediate attention as it has been subject of cross-wiki spamming in several other wikis in other languages. Excuse me if I have used inappropriate language as this is my first attemp to use the noticeboard; but this example should be examined closely by some administrator, and the editors should be examined for clashing IPs. I hope I am not doing anything wrong for the wiki. Thanks already. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment on whether not the article is a hoax, but in general if you have to explain how the article is a hoax, it is not obvious enough for speedy deletion. Since the speedy tag kept being removed by relatively new editors, I'd suggest taking the article to AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's a hoax. I agree generally about the 'if you have to explain' bit, but in this case, the alleged mother of the alleged Irf Oruc is Black Widow (Natalia Romanova) - see Marvel Wikia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With that and other info (like the non-existing father and the explanation I made to some other administrator, I assumed any admin taking notice would immediately understand it is a hoax and there would be no need to further explanation. It has been standing there for a while and also in other wikis; so I was tired of explaining everything from the beginning all over. Anyways, thanks a lot to both of you. Cheers. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 15:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Would a dash of salt be helpful here as well? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a BLP, and BLPs (or other biographies) don't generally have infoboxes in the sense that it is uncontroversial to add them. (E.g. there is long-standing consensus that opera composers generally don't get infoboxes.) I don't understand the concerns of the editor who is removing this infobox, but has I have noted on the talk page of the article, this infobox serves no purpose other than drawing unwarranted attention to irrelevant trivia. Hans Adler 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm . This is what I get for not reading it well enough. Thanks, Elen. lifebaka++ 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

November 28 birthdays

I watch the November 28 page. Over the last month IPs ( mainly 213.105.50.94 and 84.92.218.161 )have been added a large number of people with birthdays on that date. Probably averaging a couple per day. I assumed these were legit since I checked the person's page and they gave November 28th as their birthday. However I've just looked a bit more closely and it appears the anon IPs are updating the original bios first, changing the birthdate and sometimes other information and then making the November 28th entry. Examples include Tristan Lake Leabu, Adele Parks, Rachel Rath (imdb gives October 2), Richard Bean. Sorry I didn't spot this earlier - SimonLyall (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an enormous tangled mess. I came across the November 28 page after blocking User:213.105.50.94 for the continued addition of unsourced DOBs to BLPs without sources. While going back through their contributions it's apparent they've been at this since October 2010. They also appear to be making similar changes under User:84.92.218.161. All of the DOBs are being changed to November 28, then added to the November 28 page. We would need to revert November 28 back a June 18, 2010 version in order to attempt to undo the potential damage. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and rv'd to the 11 June 2010 revision. I'm going to request protection. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I would add the protection myself, but as I've blocked one of the offending parties it would probably be best to leave it to another admin. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A good bet would be that it's the birthday of the editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hijacking of an AN/I section by Bus stop to discuss an off-topic content dispute.

User:Camelbinky has raised a complaint aboveregarding comments I made, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Since I have responded to this there, this is clearly not the place to discuss this further. However, User:Bus stop has chosen to use this section to make comments regarding a long-running content dispute - not the subject of Camelbinky's complaint, and as such off-topic. In spite of my request to desist, [80], Bus Stop has continued, even while admitting that he/she is "trying 'not' to address the real reason we are here". [81] Can I ask an administrator to either delete Bus Stop's off-topic comments, or at least try to get the discussion back on track - This is AN/I, and the content dispute has nothing to do with Camelbinky's complaint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—in fact virtually every other post in the discussion is going on and on about whether Jewish refers to a "nationality" or a "race" or a "religion" or a "culture" etc. I have weighed in on that topic. If my comments are off-topic they are no more off-topic than virtually every other post found in that thread.

Yes, I admitted to not addressing the real issue which is your abrasive dialogue with your fellow editors. Am I required to address that too? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewishness is not a "nationality" or a "race". With Judaism's unique history, Jewishness can be considered a type of "ethnic group". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rodney R. Crowley and User:Kraxler

I am having issues at Rodney R. Crowley with User:Kraxler. He is an excellent editor and researcher, adding lots of material and lots of new articles on topics for New York State, an area that I also create articles for. However, in a classic example of the pride that comes with ownership, he keeps removing the infobox at Rodney R. Crowley saying there is an error in it, but he will not fix the error or say what the error is. He asked for a third opinion at User_talk:Lifebaka which supported the infobox, now he is venue shopping until he gets the opinion he is looking for. He is also restoring dead links and removing references that I am formatting into the standard inline citation method and restoring his version of having them as external links here. He has also called me "mentally retarded" at Talk:Rodney R. Crowley and "half-illiterate" at User talk:Lifebaka and my edits "vandalism". He has a habit of reversing any edits I make to articles he has created, for instance here where I add links to place names and change the lede from the German Wikipedia style to the English style. You can get an idea here of his combative editing style as he follows me from article to article undoing my changes. Here at Talk:Arthur William Wallander, he demands I post a death certificate to be able to use the information from the Connecticut Death Index, in an article he has made no contributions to. Here he kneejerk reverts my removal of a recursive link that I put in myself and then I deleted it, he revert it back in place. Good editors can disagree over many issues and this happens all the time, so it is always best to get other people involved to resolve issues. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like somebody who knows the Wikipedia guidelines reading the recent edit history at Arthur William Wallander, Rodney R. Crowley and Benjamin S. W. Clark, including talkpages; and the discussion at User talk:Lifebaka#Complaint, and give me a third opinion on what to do. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What you do is you put the infobox back, and you stop edit warring over it, because BLPs generally have infoboxes. If you delete it again, you can be blocked for edit warring. If some of the information in the infobox is wrong, then you correct the wrong bit. If you don't know how to do that, you say on the talk page what bit of info is wrong, and another editor can fix it. And you don't call anyone "mentally retarded" or I will block you myself,as that kind of attack is completely unacceptable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox has been restored and the issue resolved to my satisfaction. So much drama for a such a minor issue. It appears that he was removing the box because there wasn't a succession to the position but it had several people serving at the same time. It took a few seconds to change the box parameter to accommodate that once made clear that was his objection. We still have the issues of calling me "mentally retarded" at Talk:Rodney R. Crowley and "half-illiterate" at User talk:Lifebaka. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is resolved, but the behavior by Kraxler here leaves much to be desired This edit in which he states that "I resent it that a mentally retarded copy-and-paste wizard hijacks my time to eliminate errors introduced in a correct article, and tramples on almost all wikipedia guidelines. I will have you blocked permanently as a vandal, there is already enough evidence to show it. Now you are already hiding sources that contradict you, and state "may have been", hahaha." is just the most egregious example. Kraxler seems to have taken ownership of this and other articles he has created and has reacted to content he believes to be at issue by making wholesale removals of everything RAN added. The more collegial action would have been for Kraxler to either fix the material he believed to be incorrect, limiting his removals to only the data he deemed to be incorrect and discussing the issue on the talk page for either the article or contacting the editor directly. The edit warring and threats of blocks are entirely unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Need third party opinion to-

Resolved

 – Back to the sock drawer he goes. — Coren ^(talk) 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

find out that I'm not the only one who thinks User:Imbonwwwww is an ass (excuse my french - but I had to deal with this antisocial behavior for close to 4 months now). Okay, first of all please check his edit history. It's like his sole purpose is to revert me and other select users. That's all he does, follow our edits and reverts them. Doesn't respond to discussion invites and makes absolutely no constructive edits whatsoever. I swear this guy has my contributions in his watchlist. Kuebie (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be doing the same thing to Historiographer (talk · contribs) too. Doesn't seem to have made a non-revert edit in a while. Had another account in the past do we think? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the following accounts appear to be the same person:

• Efficiency54WS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Imbonwwwww (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gaia1CB3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficientvegetarianmn2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiency J Lam 82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Farmingpasbw7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiencyc62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianliux64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mendel 56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiency576os (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TsDavid51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianmn2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Einstein Li 37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gaia5074Q (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Steven Tim M. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficient vegetariannnwf607 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianliux64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) dup of above —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) TNXMan 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember Gaia1CB3! That makes soooooo much sense. Thanks for looking into that. Now do I have to go through a medium to get this dude to stop harassing us or is his accounts automatically blocked? Kuebie (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Has this been taken up at WP:SPI? If the user is the sock of a blocked user, they'll be blocked pretty quickly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thank you. Kuebie (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the registration dates, Efficiency576os is the master account. Is there any reason all of these shouldn't be summarily blocked? —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I only use one account Imbonwwwww. The above people are not me. And I asked Kuebie/Historiographer to use one account. These accounts edits are often POV and removing opposite views. Please see edit historyedit historyedit historyedit historyedit history. I hope him stop removing facts and use the wikipedia promote his personal views and mislead readers.Imbonwwwww (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except not.  Confirmed, all those plus a couple more blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More Middleton madness

I protected the article James William Middleton after finding that editors were edit waring to replace this tabloidesque material.

I further removed this thread from the talk page. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussing unfortunate google results with "gay" for BLP subjects. I was reverted by Colonel Warden, which I view as inappropriate.

I stand by both actions. But as I have voted to merge or delete the article, I'm being accused of content bias on my talk page. Hence, I submit my actions for review.

As this comes on the back of salacious tabloid crap being added to Pippa Middleton yesterday, I sugest more uninvolved watchlists would be good.--Scott Mac 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I understand Scott Mac's concern - I wasn't keen on that gay/Google stuff myself. But he seems to be too heavy-handed in both locking down the article and trying to control discussion on the talk page too. We have to be able to discuss topics in order to arrive at consensus. It seems improper for Scott Mac to be prejudging the issue when he is involved in discussions about the article himself. He seems to want to control the article by personal fiat. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • Given I've never even edit the article that seems a wide description. Stuff about googling someone with the word "gay" has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia article.--Scott Mac 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • There was content about this aspect of the topic with multiple sources in the article. The talk page discussion therefore related to article content. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have sourced more articles than tabloid newspapers discussing the info but now i cannot add them in. In the deleted thread all was perfectly relevant to technical issues viewing the content.Nirame (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure we need any additional administrative action here, the article is locked for a few days to protect it from the addition of tabloid titillation type additions and you can use that time to make WP:Edit requests and seek consensus on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I dont feel that is possible, it has already been shown that discussion threats get deleted there and blocking threats are issued if they are returned .Nirame (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well - perhaps have a read of WP:Policies and Guidelines especially WP:BLP - and return to the talkpage refreshed. All that titillating sexual speculation is more correct in a celebrity magazine than a wikipedia BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• • (ec) No I don't think Scott Mac wants to control an article that he hasn't edited; rather, he seems to want to uphold and protect BLP policy in spirit and letter (which is admirable). Rather than reverting, you should have come here if you wanted more eyes on the actions being taken. Don't see a reason for further action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Scott Mac wants to delete the article per his previous comment at the related AFD. This makes him involved. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Protecting is not deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

his actions work to achive the same. how can users work on the article to adress issues raised in the deletion discussion if they cannot edit. requesting changes on the talk page would be pointless as the user removes i progress discussions from there. Nirame (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The oly thing I have removed is your replacement of this shit. This has nothing to do with building a quality article.--Scott Mac 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't swear at me. That shows you are removing what you personally regard as that rather than letting people reach consensus. I returned one thread one yet i have been threatened with blocking and sworn at. You are showing abuse and bias. Nirame (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you submit material which is fully compliant with BLP policy, you will have nothing to worry about; when editors submit material which fails to meet that standard, it does not just frustrate a couple of administrators - it frustrates the Community at large. If you don't want to be blocked, heed the warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just be happy that you weren't blocked for this policy violation. Hans Adler 18:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What did i violate by returning that discussion once and where does is say i can be blocked for one reversion?Nirame (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, which states "Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." It also states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" and "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." All right up in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

the other user is saying that singular action could have done it which seems ridiculous. not a number of actions as your quote is refering to.

@CW: If you really insist on going on about Scott MacDonald being involved, I'll unprotect and reprotect the page myself for the exact same duration. Stop focusing on any supposed involvedness and actually address his and others' concerns. NW (Talk) 18:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded (or is that thirded?) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonel, BLP falls under the exceptional circumstances clause further below in the policy (and the fact that Scott opened this review and requested more uninvolved eyes on these pages alleviates any involvement concerns). The responsibility is firmly on the editor to demonstrate that any BLP material they submit on any page on Wikipedia is fully compliant with BLP policy, both in spirit and letter; that onus does not shift to the admin who removes material which fails to meet that standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We have long-standing consensus that this type of material is only included in blp articles under exceptional circumstances, and even then normally only in a very restrained way. Although WP:BLP has some passages that are marginally relevant, this is not really discussed there. Perhaps it should be, so that we have a specific section to which we can point those who are familiar with the Sun or the Mirror and have never looked into Britannica, so don't know the difference between a tabloid and an encyclopedia. Pseudo-news from pseudo-newspapers is simply unacceptable as sources, and any reporting about the excesses of the tabloid press that makes it into reliable sources needs to be treated in such a way that we don't become yet another instrument in victimising the subjects. Hans Adler 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Had I known that the inexcusable tabloid nonsense I saw on recent changes patrol yesterday that spurred me to AFD this article would get so ridiculously extreme, I would have come here first and asked that the article be speedily deleted and salted per WP:HARM and WP:IAR. This poor guy, who has never done anything to be remotely notable enough to pass WP:GNG, is getting shat upon by the tabloid press, and editors are claiming notability specifically so they can throw sharp rocks at him. If I were him I'd be enraged. This is a living person; we should have more sense than to allow an article to exist simply because tabloids are spreading juicy gossip about the subject. --NellieBly (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Middleton articles (Pippa & James) should be deleted. There existence smacks of recentism, as nobody cared about who these 2 people were, until their sister married Billy Mountbatten of the House of Windsor (aka Prince William, Duke of Cambridge). GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

People need to realise: Wikipedia exists primarily to validate the readership of Hello magazine in their belief that encyclopaedic knowledge of the relatives of the rich and famous-for-being-famous somehow confers nobility on themselves. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, this is the most recent edit to Pippa Middleton. Are the sources being used here reliable or British tabloids? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Those 2 articles are becoming an embarrasment to the project. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden merchandising

moved to another forum; apparently redundant here; see WP:AN#Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden_merchandising
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wanted to discuss merchandising at Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden, but this user Rklawton (talk) immediately deleted my addition thus accusing me of adding spam. He now accues me of simply amusing myself at his and other editor's expense. I would like this topic reinstated as it seems to be perfectly valid and has not been suggested by any other contrubutor. Another editor, User talk:N5iln, who mistakenly gave me a warning, has apologised for being over-hasty and has made some useful sugestions. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC) You've cross posted this at WP:AN... please have a read of WP:FORUMSHOPPING for an explanation of why this is discouraged & frowned on --Errant (chat!) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC) You did add spam. I can't help but be amused by this. This is like saying, "I'm not trying to advertise for Coca-Cola, I just want to start a discussion about the refreshing beverage that is sure to quench your thirst, which has been enjoyed by many generations all over the world and can now be purchased at a reduced price at Wal-Mart and other leading retailers, for a limited time." Even if that wasn't your intent, the way you phrased it (putting links to sales web sites and saying that there was lots of fun merchandise) really made it look like you were doing so. Please keep in mind our guideline at WP:ELNO. -- Atama頭 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Or the old TV ad about calling person-to-person-collect and asking for someone named "Wehadababyitsaboy."←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen

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.

---

A long-stalled requested move with no consensus was closed today as "move" by a non-admin, at Battles of the Mexican–American War. Since that time we've been having a bit of a back and forth by involved editors on both sides (myself included), as it is such an obvious travesty to claim that there was a consensus for a move in this case, and the guy who closed it somehow dismissed all the arguments about keeping it with the three-year-stable consensus as trivial. Now what happens? I thought old stalled RMs would just fade away, but if they hang around until someone jumps in and takes sides this way, where is the integrity of the process? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen–en-dash war still rages, I see. I'm assuming no one followed up on the binding RfC suggestion that came up during the last WP:AN go-round? 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal has been batted around some more, but I haven't been told what it means, so am not so comfortable saying yes to it, and PMAnderson has pretty much said no anyway. It seemed for a while that we were discussing things rationally, but then we went back to calling me and Tony and Noetica and anyone else who disagreed with him liers and out to destroy wikipedia. He seems out to destroy the MOS; so it's a bit of a stalemate. And of course, it can be written off as trivial, as it is by many who don't care about typography, but for those who care it seems worth fighting for, as you've probably noticed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is trivial in the grand scheme of things (and I've no doubt another dozen people will chime in here to repeat that point), but it also needs to get resolved one way or another or else we're going to be seeing this pop up again and again on the noticeboards until the end of time. Am I correct in assuming that the hyphen-dash battle has largely been settled except for articles/categories/templates associated with the Mexican American war? 28bytes (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better if the decision whether the page was moved had been made by an admin who was not involved in any of the many hyphen disputes. The move was actually made by User:Born2cycle, who appeared to be a neutral person (he had not made a posting either way on Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War).

Supporters of the dash immediately attacked the move, assuming bad faith:

• Claiming that Born2cycle's assessment was "clearly prejudiced in favour of one side against the other"
• Claiming that an IP editor who made a posting should not have been counted as: "It could easily be one of the named supporters coming in anonymously."

It is of course true that there is no consensus either way. Of 14 editors who have expressed an opinion so far:

• 8 favour the hyphen: CWenger, Toddy1, Septentrionalis/PMAnderson, Ucucha, 65.93.12.101, Enric Naval, Fut.Perf, User:Born2cycle
• 6 favour the dash: kwami, McLerristarr/Mclay1, Tony, Noetica, Dicklyon, ErikHaugen

--Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you counting the guy who closed it, User:Born2cycle? Oh, right, he did say the arguments against were all worthless. Also, the guy who did the speedy delete and the move was an admin, but not an uninvolved admin; User:Jonathunder was a supporter of Septentrionalis/PMAnderson's previous RM of Mexican–American War to the hyphen, with the brilliant analysis "per Septentrionalis". Is there anyone who has not misbehaved a bit here? Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to rudely break in here, but I'd like to express my strong opposition to the dash, and extreme support for the hyphen as a supplement to to the "vote count" above. I'd also like to suggest conclusive discussion take place on who will fix the horrible inconsistency messes made thereby. A similar debacle took place about dashes, hyphens, etc. in cancer articles (several times) in recent months, during which I came completely unglued out of sheer frustration and was nearly permanently imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay over it. We have literally many hundreds of improper, "against-consensus" moves and changes made to dozens and dozens of cancer articles, which no one has cleaned up to this day. Time to triple my hypertension medications again. Grrrrr. Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll say what I've said before: we need to decide as a community (1) whether we want to have a Wikipedia MOS or if we should simply adopt the various MOS's of the primary sources used for our articles, (2) whether TITLE is supposed to cover style and formatting or just cover terminology, and (3) more specifically, do we want to restrict disjunctive en dashes to numeric ranges, as some style guides do, to geographic or temporal ranges, as other style guides do, to terms named after more than one person, as still other style guides do, or to use them for disjunctive relations in general, such as wars, borders, and the like. IMO it's a huge waste of time to fight this out on individual articles when one of the main points of the MOS is to avoid such repetitive problems. If we decide we don't want an MOS, then let's scrap the MOS. If we decide that the MOS does not apply to titles, but to content, then let's spell that out at MOS and at TITLE. If we decide that we want to restrict or eliminate en dashes on WP, then let's spell that out in the MOS. But until we do one of those things, as a community and for WP as a whole, then articles should follow the MOS unless there is compelling reason not to, with IDONTLIKEIT not being considered a compelling reason. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

VERY well said, Kwami (my friend)! I'd put forth these (premature?) votes: (a) consistency is important, so titles and text should be identical; (2) we should adopt the forms most prevalent in the Universal [sic] standards (i.e. for cancer stuff - the International Classification of Diseases and Conditions, the World Health Organization tumor classification schemes, etc.). I would also respectfully request discussing "requirements" for mandating fixes of articles in areas where folks have "changed things around". Lastly, I also now support - as I think Kwami once proposed, and forgive me/correct me if this is incorrect, Kwami - putting the alternate form/forms in the lede. Best regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The RM was closed by an uninvolved editor, while Dickylon, the reverter, was involved in the RM. Could someone please revert the move, warn Dickylon, and warn in the talk page that this shouldn't happen again? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I already stipulated that I was an involved editor who reverted your revert of Noetica's revert of the improper move. But a warning might be nice so I can be told what I did wrong. One thing is clear: there was no consensus for a move. Another thing is clear: those who argue in favor of the move for consistency, as they guy who closed it did, are clueless about what's going on here, when all the related articles except the one that was improperly moved use the en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I reverted the improper closure of the move by User:Born2cycle. That editor was acting without any right. We should therefore feel free to revert the article to its original state, as equivalent to undoing vandalism: without fear of action against us. Here is relevant policy concerning closure by non-admins (my underlining):

Experienced editors in good standing are allowed to close some requested move surveys.
Non-administrators should restrict themselves to moves:

  • Which result in unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);
  • Where there is no contentious debate among participants;
  • Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
  • Which do not have large numbers of subpages ...
...

For me the four salient points are these (and I have been insisting on such points throughout and attempting to make peace, rather than joining in on the substance of the contested claims in totally inappropriate forums):

1. If there are naming issues specific to the suite of articles concerned with the Mexican~American War, the established mechanism for dealing with them is a multiple move. Any single move is only advertised to the community as that. If by subreption such an RM is successful, it cannot legitimately be parlayed into a multiple move.
2. If the matter concerns interpretation of WP:MOS or WP:TITLE, or the "jurisdiction" of WP:MOS or WP:TITLE, the discussion belongs at WT:MOS, WT:TITLE, or both. Any other way of proceeding must result in prolonged and wasteful turmoil.
3. If it were proper to close such ill-formulated RMs as the one that moved us away from MOS-compliant Mexican–American War by considering that a simple count of votes reveals consensus (perhaps along with a blinkered and unexamined view of the policy issues that I mentioned just now), then the present RM for Battles of the Mexican–American War ought to be dismissed in a consistent way. If "no consensus for change" was a good reason for failing to revert at the first article, why should it not be a good reason to dismiss an RM at the second article? But of course, that's all speculative: those local and limited forums are of course improper for deciding on matters of policy and guidelines, which have very broad consequences for the structure of the whole Project.
4. As I have maintained from the earliest stages, we ought to undo the initial erroneous and biased move, closed by an admin who despite the arguments I clearly laid out for him refused to look at the big picture, or to act in way that would prevent the turmoil that we now see. It is not too late for that to happen; but it would take more far-sighted action than we have yet seen from any admin who has ventured into the matter.

Noetica^Tea? 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Dickylon. Once an article is renamed, it's "child" articles and categories should be also be renamed. That's plain common sense and common practice. Nobody should be forced to endure multiple RM and move-wars just to perform these gnomish moves. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness, not Dickylon has reverted the RM closure, but he has edited the page in purpose to prevent being reverted[82]. Nice non-admin way of having the article locked in your preferred name. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sympathetic to Dickylon's argument that this move discussion should have been closed by an uninvolved admin, but "poisoning" the redirect to lock in one's preferred title strikes me as indisputably disruptive. The back-and-forth page moves should be stopped, but this is not an appropriate way to accomplish that. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that stopping the edit war at the status quo condition this way was more, or less, disruptive than having an involved admin speedy and move it to start the war, as User:Jonathunder did, after we requested a hold on the speedy? Anyway, my argument with the closer had nothing to do with him being an admin or not; it was just wrong to claim consensus when there clearly was not, and he clearly had not even begun to understand the issues being debated. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

After spending much of the day trying to get you to explain what you think the issues are, it's clear you don't understand what they are yourself, as the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Any_problem_with_using_hyphens_and_never_dashes_in_titles.3F clearly shows. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm not interested in ranking the various disruptive activities, I'm just pointing out that making a meaningless edit to a redirect to prevent non-admins from moving a page is the wrong way to handle things. If a page needs to be move-protected, request that at WP:RFPP. Exploiting a software bug/feature as a backdoor way to enforce move protection is gaming the system, in my view. 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Failure of binding RfC proposal

The last AN proposed a binding RfC. Unfortunately the binding RfC is being rejected (and one of the accepters won't agree to be binded by the results), and one of the rejectors has even asked for a topic ban of the proposer. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a mess at the moment. Proposing a binding RfC was one of the few positive suggestions to come out of that discussion. I'm at a loss, and really a bit dejected by how requests for help are being received at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dickylon, Noetica, Tony1 and PMAnderson should clean their act soon and abide to a binding RfC. If they refuse, the only remaining solution will be dragging them to Arbcomm for harsh measures. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, do include Kwamikagami, who has been equally irrational, and began the current flurry by demanding that Mexican-American War be moved back after its first RM was closed.

For my part, I would now agree to a topic ban for all five of us; I have better things to do than engage in a battleground in which tactics like this are routine. Noetica and Dicklyon are acting in evident bad faith; if, as seems to be the case, nobody but Tony and Kwami share their preferences, somebody else will be along to clean this mess up and English this article.

In the meantime, some admin should close the actual, and still outstanding, move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson agrees to a binding RfC but says "I do not agree to be bound without consensus." I feel similarly, which is why I haven't agreed; I'm all for an RfC to see if consensus emerges, but a precommitment to make it binding means what? Can you show an example of a process called "binding RfC" that we can review to see what is meant? Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought (and others may have better ideas) would be to first determine what questions need to be answered by the RfC. For example, "to what degree, if any, should the formatting used by reliable sources influence the title formatting used by Wikipedia?" and "should all the pages (e.g. articles, categories, etc.) related to a single topic (e.g. the Mexican American War) use the same punctuation (e.g. hyphen or dash), or can they vary on a page-by-page basis?" I think a key element to doing this right is for both sides to agree upon a clerk, probably an admin, who is both neutral in the dispute and knowledgeable about the issues (i.e. familiar with style issues and knows what the typographic differences are, why it's Franco-Prussian War but Iran–Iraq War, etc.) Are there any admins you, Pmanderson and the other interested parties consider both neutral and knowledgeable? 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Born2cycle

• Every now and then when the backlog at WP:RM is particularly out of control, I and several other non-admins try to help out. There is nothing unprecedented about non-admins closing WP:RM discussions, including controversial ones.
• I've closed numerous WP:RM discussions in the past, many of which were controversial. I've been asked to not close discussions in areas where I have been involved. This hyphen/dash issue is one about which I was neutral, having no opinion on the matter when I first start reading the discussion in question.
• The guideline advising non-admins to not close controversial discussions does not seem to be especially adhered to or enforced, with the apparent unstated view that non-admins with WP:RM experience and a solid understanding of the underlying policies, guidelines and conventions are generally exempt, with everyone understanding that any controversial non-admin closure is vulnerable to appeal to an admin. But simply reverting the move is taking that to another level, resulting in a move war. The normal course is that, when appealed at WT:RM or here, an uninvolved admin reviews the work of the uninvolved non-admin, and either affirms or reverses the decision, which, as far as I can tell, is what still needs to happen here.
• I stand by my closing decision [83]. Other arguments have been made on my talk page and above in opposition to the move, but I went by the arguments presented in the discussion that is over a month old, and, of those, I found the support side to be grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions clearly better than the opposition. Since my closing decision has been reverted, this is what I originally wrote:

The result of the move request was: move. I'm not an admin, but at least one admin has looked at this and refused to deal with it. It has been festering for over a month, I've closed RM decisions before, I've never been involved in a dash-hyphen decision, and, so, I'm boldly going for this one. If anyone thinks this is important enough to appeal to ANI, good luck. So, here it goes... On the support side I am persuaded by these points: 1) consistent with usage in most reliable sources , 2) consistent with other articles, namely Mexican-American War, and 3) per WP:COMMONNAME. On the oppose side the argument, as I understand it, is that the hyphen does not imply the juxtaposition that is supposed to be conveyed, and an n-dash would. I find that argument to be at least mostly hokum. Even if there is some truth to it, it's not consistently reflected in serious reliable sources, so I see no reason for Wikipedia to sweat over it. As to the style guide, there appears to be no consensus to follow the ndash guidance, if that's even what it says to do here. Finding no compelling reason in opposition to the move, and three good reasons to move it, my decision is to move. Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept that you acted in good faith, but you're clueless on the points being debated. On the points that persuade you, (1) the common usages are not in the context of works that have an MOS similar to ours, so don't provide an input to the style issue; (2) consistent with other articles is only true for the singular; it is inconsistent with all the rest; (3) WP:COMMONNAME is not violated by calling it the Mexican–American War with good typography. You find the argument about how the en dash signifies meaning to be "mostly hokum"; so defer to those who understand en dash usage, rather than those who are out to stamp it out. It IS reflected in reliable sources that were pointed out. Finding "no compelling reason in opposition" is an affront to those who respect the MOS and decent typography, and who are trying to defend the style against the unschooled Visigoths and Huns. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Our MOS should not be based on WP:OR; if the style it espouses is contrary to that commonly used in reliable sources, well, let's just say that obvious room for improvement in the MOS. (2) This article is a sub-article of a parent article - it should follow the usage in that article. I don't know what you mean by "all the rest". How are they more relevant to this issue than usage in the title of this article's parent? (3) I reject the notion of "good" typography, at least in the context of dash vs. hyphen. There is no good/correct bad/incorrect choice for this issue. There is however more likely to be found in reliable sources, and more likely to typed in the search box; on both counts the hyphen is favored, as far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request of 1RR and strict WP:BRD at Mexican-American War article

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

Request withdrawn by Avanu

In an effort to encourage resolution of the dispute over whether to use a dash or hyphen, I would like to request that an Administrator institute a 1-month temporary 1RR and strict WP:BRD rule for the Article and Talk page at Mexican-American War. Please do not do this in an effort to punish any of the editors, as it appears that all are trying to act in Good Faith. As an alternative or addition to this proposal, if an Administrator would like to take an active role in assisting these editors to come to a consensus, it would be helpful. I appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This was already discussed at length fairly recently on WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) No, it wasn't. I'd really just prefer admin commentary on this, a simple yes or no will suffice, but I really don't want this to turn into another off-topic thread. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Exactly this topic was discussed, although different proposals were made there. A separate thread here, extremely closely related to the previous thread, does not seem wise. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Different proposal, different reasons, different time. Could we please leave this to an admin decision rather than extend this little argument? -- Avanu (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Avanu, you haven't even given a description with diffs of what you think is going on in edits to the article at present. If you expect any administrator to intervene or even comment, please do so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Its about a simple request, this is the place listed for such requests. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." Closing and moving due to off-topic commentary. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Please leave this archiving to somebody uninvolved. Mathsci (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Please, I have now asked you 4 times to leave it for an admin. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this, but could you please just let this alone so an admin can review and stop micromanaging it? Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Anybody can comment on this noticeboard. I have no idea why you referred to the link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute as being off-topic. Please calm down. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC) It's just another of these extremely lame, petty, pedantic debates that have nothing whatsoever to do with helping the wikipedia readers in any way, shape or form. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC) FWIW, Avanu has taken this to WQA too: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mathsci_disruptive_editing_on_AN.2FI William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) No, I didn't, I took the issue of Mathsci's behavior there. The substance of the AN/I request has nothing to do with that, and I *tried* to just close this. I am at a loss at this point. You guys have taken a little request and its really pointless now. -- Avanu (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'll say here what I've said elsewhere about this topic. Ignore it. If someone wants to move it from a hyphen to an n-dash, let them do it. If they want to move it from an n-dash to a hyphen, let them do it. It doesn't matter. Either way, the readers can find it just as easily in the search window, and that's what matters. Some things are worth fighting about. This isn't. It's a total waste of everyone's time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I really have no view at all on this matter. Whenever I have created an article in mathematics with a hyphenated title, User:Michael Hardy will correct it to whatever it is supposed to be. Slightly more complicated and harder to remember is how to put a minus sign in plain text (the length and the spaces) ... now I hardly dare look at the article on my home town Aix-en-Provence :) Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) In looking at this a week or two ago when the subject last came up, I became aware that the real problem is that the rules are not sufficiently defined. For example, there's usually not much trouble with when to capitalize or not, as that rule is pretty clear. But the hyphens and n-dashes rules are just too vague, too obscure; and that's why there is constant battling over them. I recall there were two different users who interpreted the rules two different ways. How do you fix that? By fixing the rules. If the rules were clear, the amount of debate would be almost zero. In fact, I would say that a significant quantity of the battles at wikipedia are centered on unclear rules and guidelines. That's what needs fixing - not any particular article's hyphens or n-dashes. Fix the rules, and the hyphens and n-dashes will "take care of themselves". Your comment about Michael Hardy, who I assume is a true expert on the matter, gives me an idea: How about having some sort of committee of experts to turn to, on matters of this nature, i.e. "syntax" questions? They could help define the rules better and uniformly, and apply uniform standards. We've got a user named Cuddlyable3 who is an English syntax expert and could probably help on this if he were willing. Not me, for sure. I don't know enough about it. But these battles over technicalities do not serve wikipedia's best interests, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'm willing to help. A "simple" attributive compound is written with a hyphen. A dash is used differently and is not to be confused with Hyphen or Minus sign. Conclusion: Mexican(hyphen)American War is correct English. Comment: the editing summary for this change to en dashes argues for intra-article consistency which is only a circumstantial claim, see WP:OSE. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment I would have thought you guys would have been embarrassed enough to have even one AN/I thread on such a lame issue, let alone two AN/I threads and a WQA thread...sheesh.... DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This is why I didn't want the distracting non-admin comments. My thread (which I would prefer to drop entirely now) is based on a 3 day timeline that we discussed in the Talk page of the Mex-Am War article. It has NO relation to the other thread and really just needs a yes or no from an admin. But really, just drop it, ok? Please. -- Avanu (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) =WP:OWN DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) WP:OWN applies primarily to articles, this is not a Wikipedia article page, it is a page for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators". I *specifically* asked that this be left to the admins, and rather than simply honor my request in a WP:CIVIL fashion, its turned into this. -- Avanu (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) You don't get to say who posts messages on an AN/I thread. So drop the ownership (and last word) syndromes. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC) {ec} Avanu, just to make it clear - anyone can comment in a thread on this board, and no-one can tell other editors not to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) DeCausa, it seems like circumstances prove you more than right. I was only asking for some courtesy, it is certainly not an obligation on anyone's part to grant that. -- Avanu (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) ...you've been given good advice from William M. Connelly on the WQA thread. DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment I have no idea if an actual admin has commented yet, but you've managed to take a polite, simple request for a gentle, thoughtful intervention and turn it into a war on me. I realize I'm not entitled to ask for cooperation, civility, and courtesy. These things are luxuries at times. But the last thing I wanted was for this to become a messy debate of this sort. In the future, I'll take some time to independently find an admin whose record shows that they are supportive and considerate, and simply avoid this page altogether. I know a lot of my fellow editors try to help, and believe me, I appreciate that, but like it or not, this page is supposed to primarily be for asking Admins to intervene. I don't understand when people *insist* on derailing a request like what has been done here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) An admin (and member of ArbCom I believe) has commented. Draw your own conclusions. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Hyphen vs. En-Dash Where can we go to get the ball rolling on the idea of having a committee to decide these silly battles instead of everybody-and-his-mother getting involved? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) When people write articles, they are meant to provide reliable sources - especially for contentious material. Reliable sources concerning correct punctuation are available in the form of (1) good style guides (2) reputable books on how to write English (3) reference to examples of how good quality publishers do it. English language Wikipedia should be written in English, not a new variant of English invented by some editors. On matters of English grammar, it would be better if the Manual of Style were based on reliable sources, rather than the opinions of editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC) If the MOS were clear, we wouldn't be having these debates, now would we? How often do you see a debate about capitalization rules? Almost never, and certainly not here. The trouble is that the MOS rules about hyphens and dashes are clearly not good enough for the average editor to figure out. If we had some expertise in the area, maybe these battles would go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Yeah, the problem is that even manuals disagree on hyphens vs. dashes, so we're never going to get a definitive answer that way. It'll probably take an ArbCom ruling to get this nonsense stopped. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Then this will continue until or if someone decides they've had enough of it. That does not speak well for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Avanu has withdrawn his request for admin assistance. In the absence of an outstanding request there is no reason to re-litigate the hyphen-dash battle here. 28bytes (talk) 13:01, 3 May 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.

He doesn't own this section, and neither do you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want the admins to do something, say so. If not, let this die. This is already being discussed, more constructively, in a thread directly above. 28bytes (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer, apparently, is that nothing is going to be done about this ridiculous hyphen/dash issue. So dat's dat. P.S. It was not your place to close this discussion, unless you've suddenly become an admin and didn't tell us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think something will end up being done, hopefully via an RfC. And I'm pretty confident that consensus supports anyone, not just admins, closing threads that have run their course. But if an admin decides to re-open it, I obviously won't revert them. 28bytes (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How will we find out if such an RFC is created? Will it be annnounced here? As far as closing, you weren't even in on the discussion. However, the one user implicitly closed it by expressing that there is no clear solution. I find that astonishing, but whatever. The hyphen/dash fanatics need to figure out ONE SET OF RULES and stick with them. From what I saw the last time, it may be hopeless. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If an RfC is started (see above section), I promise to announce it here if no one beats me to it. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Given the protracted nature of this and similar MOS-related disputes, I have started a RfC on whether Wikipedia should have its own MOS or follow that of its sources instead. I've added it to WP:CENT to get a wider consensus. It may be worthwhile to put it on watchlist notice as well, but let's get some initial feedback before we do that. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, as phrased, the question mostly evoked an "of course we should have an MOS" reaction. I think it would be possible to phrase some questions that would get at people's actual issues and concerns. Things like should each project be free to specify variations from MOS for their areas (like the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation people did when they decided to capitalize Subway in New York City Subway even though there not a bit of support in sources for that being a proper name). Or maybe the MOS would list a menu of options that the projects could choose from, so we could get to a chemistry MOS and a military history MOS, etc. Clearly, the military history field uses en dash a lot less than the technical fields do, so maybe they should be able to get their own MOS to reflect that, and maintain some sort of regional or project consistency. Like the birders get to capitalize their bird names. It would not bother me a bit to see the Mexican–American War go back to using the hyphen if they had a military history MOS that they could hack without threatening the core MOS that so many other areas respect and rely on for consistency and best-practice typography. Just "follow that of its sources" is a good principle when there's nothing else specified, but will lead it chaos if it is the general style principle, and will certainly lead to protracted counting arguments in any case. Where do you draw the line? Provide a default guideline to apply except when 67% of sources go the other way? And another tie-breaking process for when it's real close to 67? Xeno won't have it. Basically, without a credible alternative, proposing to do without an MOS is a non-starter; or a troll to invite some of the flames you're getting there. Actually, since we have precedents for projects overturning MOS aspects that they don't like, why are we even here? Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We had to find out if people really wanted WP:MOS gone. Apparently not even User:Pmanderson truly wants that, so we can move to more topical questions. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a DASH, FFS

Does this dash affect a reader's ability to comprehend the information presented in the affected article(s)? Because I think the answer is no. And anyone who continues to edit/move war over these silly dashes needs to either get a sanity check or just stop editing altogether. This WP:LAME territory. No one will die if the MOS is "wrong" or not followed in a few articles. We should be focusing on writing and developing those articles, not disputing some silly dashes. The next time I see a dispute about endashes v. hyphens, I will have to restrain myself from blocking everyone involved and deleting the main page, because it will certainly spell the demise of what is actually important on Wikipedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion. If you feel this is 'lame', move on and explore other topics. Grammar and copy editing have an important place. Its a little uncivil to be this dismissive with a group of editors who are doing their best to improve the encyclopedia in this area. As BaseballBugs explained, the real problem is a lack of clear rules for this. Without a clear guideline, these editors end up circling one another, both armed with reliable sources that support their positions. To me, the real nonsense is that so many of you aren't working on helping these editors, but are sitting on the sidelines sniping at them. How about some positive suggestions and ideas instead? -- Avanu (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this may reflect the feelings of a growing number of us who have been watching this nonsense from the sidelines. At least it does for me.Heiro 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're curious, I tried hard to find some descriptive accounts of how often en dashes are actually used instead of hyphens, to improve our article on dash. I wasn't able to find much, applied/field linguists seem to only care about the distinction between the en-dash/hyphen (as a group) and the noticeably longer em dash. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin your fun, Fetchcomms, but... [[84]] lifebaka++ 03:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know how to do it (theoretically). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It is a non-argument about an imaginary difference. If readers cannot tell one from the other there is no difference. Communication involves the exchange of information, not just its transmission. I propose an indefinite topic ban regarding all articles including any hyphen, en-dash, em-dash, or similar horizontal line, on anyone who thinks it actually matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It is a non-argument about an imaginary difference that has somehow not managed to impede the writing of the 'pedia for how many years now? The fact its caused such as fuss lately, with multiple acrimonious threads over so many notice, watch and talk pages has to be the WP:LAMEst thing I've seen here so far. I can't wait for Coco, Colbert and Stewart to notice (why they haven't yet is beyond me), we're going to look like a bunch of pedantic jerkoffs, even worse than normal. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to take ourselves seriously, ( or maybe stop taking ourselves so effin seriously, depends on which side of the emdash debate you've been on so far ). Heiro 04:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly nobody would be unhappy, offended, or inconvenienced if those who can't see the difference would just not go around changing them, and would refrain from posting noise into the discussions among those who can. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think that this otherwise imperceptible difference is so important, I suggest you create your own fork of Wikipedia, and continue your meaningless battles there, so the rest of us don't have to put up with the 'noise' of your infantile squabble. Some of us are trying to do something useful... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone else who has been watching this from afar, all I can say is that this is beyond lame, it's gone off the edge into the void. Infantile squabble barely covers it. Someone needs to wade in and start handing out topic bans asap. Starting with anyone who edit wars in the name of some typographic/MOS god. RxS (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy, the mere fact that you can't see differences is no warrant for insisting that they are not there. That attitude is typical of religious dogmatism, not of rational discussion. The mere fact that you can't see the point of a battle is no warrant for declaring it an "infantile squabble". That attitude is similarly unworthy. Dicklyon, Tony, Kwami, myself, and many others (who are less tenacious than we are in the fight against anti-MOS chaos) are not preventing you from doing something useful. We do useful things too, according to our best understanding of the needs of a multi-million-article encyclopedia. So go: ignore us, and I for one will ignore you in return. Fair deal? (Same for you, RxS.) Noetica^Tea? 04:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-MOS chaos...lol. My face just melted. I'm happy to ignore you. RxS (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

O, I forgot to add, RxS: a laugh is not an argument, any more than a scowl or a florid insult is. Now, can we ignore each other with somewhat fewer words? ☺ Noetica^Tea? 04:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, I'm laughing. RxS (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol indeed RxS... If you use an en-dash instead of a hyphen the sky will fall in. Use an em-dash instead and the universe will implode with indignation. The universe began with a bang, and will end with a misplaced - AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do not be arrogant in one's claims or beliefs: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; ..." Now, where did I read that? Andy, you can stop any time you like. We'll go on caring about guidelines and standards for the quality of Wikipedia articles, and you can get on with working on whatever you care about. Noetica^Tea? 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"according to our best understanding of the needs of a multi-million-article encyclopedia"—sorry, I didn't realize that one of Wikipedia's needs was a bunch of users fighting over the length of a one-byte horizontal line. The fact that people don't see how puerile and laughable this dispute is, but rather claim it is useful, simply reinforces my view that Wikipedia is nearing its demise. So arguing is useful? So not developing content is useful? So wasting countless hours on hyphens v. dashes is USEFUL??? wtf. It's a few fucking pixels. Get the hell over it. Kthxbai. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms, it is not the defenders of WP:MOS guidelines who cause the problem. Do you blame firefighters when there is a fire? A full stop is also one byte. If people insisted on omitting it, would your attitude be the same? Step back, think, read, learn – and comment when you understand. Noetica^Tea? 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. If the firefighter contributed to the fire, then, yes, he/she would be partly to blame. I don't care which side is "right" or whether you are a "defender" of the MOS. You should instead be a builder of our content instead of mindlessly arguing with the fire or the attackers or whatever you wish to call them. Step back, think, read—does omitting a full stop affect readability? Yes. Does changing an endash to a hyphen affect it? No, unless you're a nitpicky linguist or grammarian; note how many (if not most) publications use " - " over " – " and no one complains. If I were you, I'd comment when you open your eyes and realize, "Hey, it's actually not that big of a deal which horizontal line I use"". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding people who take sides in an argument with a justification of "it's not that big of a deal". If it's not a big deal to you, maybe you need to stay out of it. Trying to subvert and tear down this aspect of the MOS has been a very big deal for Pmanderson, for a long time now, and some of us would rather see the MOS protected. OK, not as big a deal as some things, but not something you're going to talk us out of by saying that to you it's not a big deal. Work on things you care about, and let us do that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point. Many things are "big deals" to me, but if it's constantly causing disputes and wasting others' time (like that of admins patrolling this noticeboard), then maybe I need to think whether it's really worth spending time arguing over. Same applies here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Does "proper" spelling, capitalization, or italics serve any major function? No. we could allow common mispellings, never capitolize any-thing, and not Italisize book titles, & the avverage reader would be able to reed our articles just fine. We dont do that because we're trying to appear profesional. Style and formating are importent in that reguard, which is why we have style guides to begin with. If I went around reverting the spelling bots because correct spelling is "stupid" (and I can back up that opinion with all manner of RS's, including Shakespeare), should the rest of you just yawn over my lame edit war and go on to do more important things? So much easier for everyone if poor spellers allowed the bots, or other editors, to clean up their poor spelling without making melodramatic claims of sabotage. We should decide which style guidelines we want for WP at the MOS. We should then implement the MOS without temper tantrums. If we decide as a community that we don't like the results, then we change the MOS. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It affects readability, which is what I and others have been saying this whole time. If multiple words in a sentence were mispelled, such as in your example, then it would distract the reader. Given that most readers don't pay attention to or even know the difference between an endash and a hyphen, much less when they should/should not be used, this would not affect readability in any manner similar to that of constant misspellings. So your comparison is quite faulty. We have style guides, not style must-follow-and-not-stop-until-I-prove-I'm-right-or-the-world-will-end laws. I agree we should implement the MOS without temper tantrums. As is quite clear, that's not happening any time soon due to a few users' militant stances on hyphens v. endashes. So the easy solution is to ignore it and write the articles. Some inconsistencies never killed anyone; we have British English and American English spellings mixed all over our articles, for heaven's sake. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We were doing just fine implementing the MOS until Pmanderson came along and started attacking en dashes. Wouldn't a good fix be to ask him to stop that, and go back to the long-stable and consistent versions that conform to the MOS? Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But this is English-language Wikipedia; it should therefore be written in proper grammatical English. Correct English grammar is to use a hyphen. (See for example: The complete plain words, by E Gowers, 3rd edition revised b S Greenbaum and J Whitcut, Penguin, 1987.)

I am aware that some editors believe they know better than published reliable sources on English grammar. These editors should write a book on grammar espousing their new rules of English grammar, and then try to get it published. Wikipedia is not the right place for innovations in English grammar.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon, if you want him blocked, could you just say that? Because then someone would direct you to ArbCom or RfC/U, which are the correct venues for dealing with user conduct issues. My point is simply that continued bickering over dashes is unhelpful if no one actually bothers with pursuing dispute resolution pathways. Toddy1, yes, it should be written in proper English—now I could start a whole thread about how there are more US readers of WP so we should stick to consistent American English spellings, but what's wrong if it's not consistent? What's wrong if there are hyphens instead of dashes in a few articles? Is it worth spending hours arguing over? What I see are two sides refusing to give in because they each believe they are "right". What I don't see is people realizing that writing the encyclopedia is much more useful that fixing a few minor details (dashes) that do not affect readability. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal That Fontpedia be established, wherein all manner of minor typographical flourishes shall be expected to be complied with in each and every article, including true proportional spacing and justification, so that those who do a print-screen will get fully Linotype-equivalent results. And that all here who go around making such trivial changes be encouraged to go to that new project. Collect (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully strongly disagree with this - while many folks may feel the dash-hyphen etc. war is silly, some of us take it VERY seriously. For example, my friend Kwami and I - we have butted heads on this like crazy, despite both of us just wanting to do what is right. One mans trash is another mans treasure. Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can you explain why this is so serious? I don't recall anyone dying over dashes. WP:LAME territory, again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal Topic ban all involved editors. Beyond lame. Irrelevant, pointless disruption. It just doesn't matter. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, respectfully strongly disagree with this proposal, except in cases where people do moves and changes against consensus after being warned. Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• This has got beyond ridiculous. My suggestion would be a one-week block for the next editor who makes an edit changing a horizontal line on this article or who attempts to change the rules regarding horizontal lines of varying length on any policy or guideline without a clear consensus on the talk page first. Failing that, then I suggest community-based discretionary snactions, similar to those for abortion topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If I can throw in my non-admin opinion on this, I have to agree. I've been reading the thread as it's spiraled out of control, and it's over something that I would say 90-95% of the editors and readers of the article don't even notice, or CARE about. This has gone way past lame, it's stupid at this point. Everyone (including myself) needs to put down the WP:STICK, walk away and go on to more productive things, like fixing REAL problems in article, reverting vandalism, creating new article etc. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may simply say: I told you so. I reiterate the topic ban proposal made at that link.  Sandstein  15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see spurning of the micro aspects of professionally written text—not by engagement with the technical issues, but with an apparently resentful edge in which words such as "fuck" and "hell" are pressed into service. Someone above said, "most readers don't pay attention to or even know the difference between an endash and a hyphen"; but most readers (and editors) don't notice many aspects of poor flow or fluffy expression either. That doesn't mean we should denigrate those who improve it. Professional typography does convey meaning to readers who could not give you a precise definition of the role of such items as hyphens, en dashes, and ellipsis points (like me, a few years ago). Editors are not denigrated for using typography wrongly, and their work is often tweaked by good citizens on their behalf. Typography, and Mexican–American War in particular, have been used as a rallying point by someone who has been trying to run down the notion of the coordinated style guidance that every other serious publisher has; this has involved continual low-level incivility (and some not so low-level) towards editors who disagree. In this league are comments here such as "You should instead be a builder of our content instead of mindlessly arguing", made to professional writers who, like all of us, volunteer their labour. Above all, ANI is not the proper place to decide matters of style: that is what the style-guide talk pages are for, so that articles themselves can remain free of bickering and tussling. Advertise threads widely, but keep them in the right place, and remonstrate with the administrator who escalated the whole thing by prematurely intervening to create an unfortunate mess, in the process breaking the fundamental policies WP:UNINVOLVED and WP:TITLE. I would love to see involved editors all agree to stay away from the article in question: leave it be. However, Sandstein, bans and blocks without further cause would be hugely out of proportion—the kind of gung-ho action that makes good editors leave WP. That is all I have to say here. Thank you. Tony (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for using the right horizontal line. But when it takes hours and hours of bickering and arguments to use the right horizontal line, it's turned into simply a triviality that we don't need to be spending time on. If your car had one speck of dirt that you just couldn't get out, regardless of how many hours you scrubbed it, would you go on for ever and ever trying to get it out? Unless your life depends on having a spotless car, who would notice or care? After a while, it becomes silly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have to point out that volunteering one's time and effort to argue over dashes comes off as rather silly to me. Again, if an agreement cannot be reached, then is this really worth arguing over? Can anyone just tell me what compels him/her to try and get everything so perfect? By all means, there are thousands of non-professional-level Wikipedia articles bearing much more egregious MOS violations. Should those be ignored for the sake of more minor "violations", such as horizontal lines? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I could really do without your calling me "silly". It's uncivil, although not as plain offensive as the post immediately below. I hope those comments don't rule the roost here. Tony (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, people that edit war over trivial shit like this are not good editors, so bans and blocks will not drive anyone worthwhile away. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fetchcomms. An arbitration called "dashes" a few years after "date delinking" is not something to be proud of; it would be sad if every aspect of MoS ended up with this sort of thing because people are not getting along. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all involved editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, could you point out exactly what policy or guideline I have breached, or why my posts have somehow been disruptive (if you consider me to be "involved")? Tony (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tarring all editors with the same brush and banning them all is a tempting, but unhelpful, approach. That's why I think something along the lines of discretionary sanctions is called for. Essentially, that would make it much easier for administrators to block or ban editors behaving in a particularly disruptive manner around the subject of - vs – and those who wish to discuss the matter like adults, as several editors have been doing, can do so unimpeded by the noise generated by others. I'm not a fan of discretionary sanctions, and have been vocally critical of ArbCom's over-reliance on them, but they do have their uses and this seem like one such case. Do i have to bold the word proposal for people to pay attention to this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's apparent from this mess of a thread is that there are broadly two groups: on the one hand, the handful of "involved" editors who from their comments have no conception of how clearly ridiculous they are and on the other, everyone else. The involved editors comments make it clear that they believe they are the custodians of the orthographic "truth" and have no intention of giving in to the barbarians at the gates. They are therefore exactly the very last people who should be involved in such an issue, and there is no hope of any sort of resolution while that type of editor remains involved. I'm with Sandstein on this: topic ban all of them. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments like the one above (and several others in this thread) are not civil or helpful. These editors are working with reliable sources, and genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, just as many others are. As BaseballBugs explained, the real problem is a lack of clear rules for this. Without a clear guideline, these editors end up circling one another, both armed with reliable sources that support their positions. To me, the real nonsense is that so many of you aren't working on helping these editors, but are sitting on the sidelines sniping at them. How about some positive suggestions and ideas instead? -- Avanu (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC) (repeated part of earlier comment)

I agree. I almost posted a similar complaint myself, actually. It's as though, as a community, we're so afraid of conflict that we're more interested in seeing who we can get blocked, banned, or topic banned, rather then engaging in the issue itself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia"? No, you are wrong. It doesn't improve Wikipedia, that's the point; it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The only help these editors need is to be clued to go and do something worthwhile instead of this. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

genuinely trying to improve wikipedia no you are wrong it doesnt improve wikipedia thats the point it doesnt make a damn bit of difference the only help these editors need is to be clued to go and do something worthwhile instead of this (So having tried to read your comment without punctuation, do you think it makes a 'damn bit of difference?')

Genuinely, trying to improve wikipedia no? You are wrong it doesnt. Improve wikipedia thats the point, it doesn't. Make a damn bit of difference. The only help these editors need is to be. Clued to go and do something. Worthwhile, instead of this. (So, having tried to read your comment with crazy punctuation, do you think it makes a 'damn bit of difference?')

I hope you see there is a point in striving to do things right. -- Avanu (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I dn't get the point. You'll need to explain it. You made a number of orthographical changes to my post to make it less comprehensible. But I didn't use a dash. This is about the length of a dash, and nothing except the length of a dash. If I had used a dash and you had repeated the post with a different length of dash, you would have at least made a point that was relevant to the issue. However, I still would not have given a shit. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, how's this? If this topic isn't one you wish to contribute to positively, find another topic. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a very positive contribution to argue for these editors to be topic banned. Now that would be "genuinely trying to improve Wiipedia".DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Because you don't feel that a style issue is important, we should topic ban those who do feel that it's an important issue?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. Have you not read this thread? The vanishly small number of people who "care" are vastly outweighed by the WTF point of view. And they should be topic banned not because they think it is important, they should be topic banned because they have turned a very small issue into a whole pile of crap ...and the reason is, I suspect, because they think it is so important. And that's why I said above that they are the very last people that should be involved. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for you to come and take a look at WT:MOS. Some of the folks involved in this debate are a bit defensive at this point, but many (I'd say most, actually) are not. Trying to topic ban people, at this point, is "pouring gasoline on the fire". It wouldn't be helpful, and would likely cause more harm.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So DeCausa, you're saying those people who don't care are the ones who seem to care the most about this (and have subsequently made it into a bigger mess)? -- Avanu (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Start an RfC. I've sketched out my ideas for how to get started on laying the groundwork for one elsewhere on this page; if you don't like those ideas, you're welcome to do it differently. You should know by now that starting threads on AN/I isn't going to do anything to solve the problem and is just going to bring out comments denouncing the lameness of all this. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There may not (currently) be an RFC tag on WT:MOS, but what is occurring is effectively the same thing. This AN/I thread is at least drawing in some outside participation, even if it's not the most constructive participation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the precedent at MOS:CONSISTENCY & MOS:RETAIN*, hyphens and en-dashes should not be changed in an article. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

(* I reference MOS:RETAIN because it is a similar situation: RETAIN is about differing English spellings of words, while this is a simple style difference between hyphens and en-dashes. We solved the English problem with RETAIN, and I believe that will be sufficient here as well. People who fight against this would be treated as tendentious editing or disruption, same as with the English language arguments.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. This is really one of the pettiest disputes I have ever seen in over seven years on Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is the only thing that does make sense here!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as it makes no more sense than saying that other deviations from good grammar should be left alone. Almost all articles are written with just hyphens, since most editors are not in the habit of usage proper typography if they've come up on typewriters or simple word processors. Would you then propose to roll all the progress on typography back to the original poor versions? What's the schedule for conforming an article to the MOS before freezing it? This is not like color vs. colour where there are two equal choices; rather, it about the style guideline of using proper punctuation and typography to help indicate the intended meaning of grammatical structures. For all the people who don't give a rat's ass about dashes, there nothing here that they can't simply ignore; to inflict their lack of concern on other editors as readers by locking in poor typography would be a big step backwards. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—This is not a suitable matter for discussion at ANI, and applying ENGVAR guidelines concerns stabilising an article in an appropriate variety of English, not entrenching poor prose in a particular variety of English. Completely different. Tony (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the editors involved in this nonsense seem to be unable to control themselves. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support but move to WT:MOS. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll take this to MOS, but I did want to get a feel for others' opinions here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And now I'm being told on WT:MOS that the only difference in formatting is that the characters are being entered as Alt codes, which is not distinguishable on Wikipedia in the edit box at all! The WP:LAME grows by the minute...

An en-dash and a hyphen do display differently in the view font the readers see—compare - – - –. However, they're indistinguishable (I think there's one pixel difference) in the default edit view—compare - – - –. – iridescent 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not proper venue to reach such a decision. Without changing the MOS wording the battle will continue unless an ArbCom injunction is passed. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course the moratorium proposal at WT:MOS was shut down in flames by both sides of the dispute. It looks like ArbCom is the only venue left. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And what, exactly, do you propose arbcom should rule on? Whether or not the editing community can use dashes? Do you expect arbcom to edit the MOS?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom has passed editing moratoriums on this kind of issue in the past, if I recall correctly, in the date delinking case. (Let me see if I can find a link.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest of strong opposes. Just what we need, more conflicting editing styles so that articles can be inconsistent and edit wars over the style can occur (but we'll just block users. Thanks arbcom for your enginuity and your great compromise). How about not doing that, adopting ONE style, and enforcing it across the encyclopedia? STOP BEING LAZY! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  It seems that I don't often agree with you Floydian, but I certainly agree with this (although I don't know how helpful the stridency of your reply is, I can't really criticize it too much based on some of the other replies throughout this sprawling discussion).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to tolerate good style

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.

---

Even if people see no reason to respect the typographic and grammatical roles of dashes and such, they should, I propose, avoid tearing down things that they consider to be trivial and inconsequential and can't see the difference, when there are other editors who understand and care and want to see the MOS's recommended best practices continue to guide wikipedia improvements. The only reason this lame argument is going on is a recent relentless attack on en dashes, led by Pmanderson, who has clearly indicated that he doesn't understand the different grammatical roles that they fill, and who calls them a "failed experiment". For most wikipedia editors, there will never be any inconvenience involved in allowing those who care to improve the typography. The MOS has been stable and working for many years; should we let Pmanderson tear it down because he doesn't understand dashes? I say let's not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think that while people sholdn't be forced to know WP:MOS prior to editing, they should allow other editors to improve the style afterwards. Edit warring to "protect" personal preference is not constructive, so putting more "force" on WP:MOS would be good in my opinion. Any suggested changes could be discussed there. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Throw a coin. Head = "-", Tail= "–". Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above: if you have a problem with a particular editor, you should see WP:RfC/U and WP:ArbCom. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:07, 4 May 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.

Motion to close the DASH discussion here

This section appears to have served whatever limited purpose it was intended to serve. The Battles of the Mexican–American War article was only moved twice (moved once, and then back), and the move discussion has effectively been superceeded by continuing discussion on WT:MOS. It doesn't appear to me that this AN/I report can, or should, accomplish anything further at this point. Can we archive this, now?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Somebody please close this mess. 28bytes (talk) 23:32, 4 May 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.

Moratorium on hyphen page moves

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.

Discussion continues at WT:MOS, and now at arbcom

---

I watch the Push-pull configuration, which, as far I can tell, has been at that title since its creation in 2004. Today, User:Tony1 moved the article to Push–pull configuration. He made some similar moves to several other articles in the same time period. I've reverted his move as tenditious and undiscussed. Is it too much to ask that the parties to this dispute stop moving hyphenated-title articles until the dispute is settled? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is totally over the top to create an ANI thread without even waiting for a reply. The complainant's s edit-summary talks of paranoia and something else quite irrelevant to the page move: whose paranoia? Some articles in the category had dashes, some had hyphens; it is not unreasonable to harmonise them according to the style guidelines. I won't move any page for the time being, given this user's sudden spin-out. My intention was not to upset anyone. Thank you. Tony (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been several ANIs on this topic here alone. It's not unreasonable to expect you to not make moves while discussions are underway on what to do about the issue. That's why I came here first, as I consider this an extension of the previous conversations above. You should know better. - BilCat (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

BilCat's subsequent edit-summary to me, "... LOLOL - lughing AT you ...", makes it hard to treat this as a good-faith exchange, and I note that his talk page says his editing is affected by illness. It may be that he is acting aggressively through health-stress. Either way, as I said, I will make no further page moves, and wish him well. Thank you, I've better things to do. Tony (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was laughing at your ridiculous claims of my disruptive editing by adding a warning to your talk page. Nothing more. - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an ArbCom request for a motion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hyphens and dashes. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since ArbCom deals primarily with behavioral issues, the issue of Tony continuing to move affected articles while the issue of hyphens in titles in under discussion can now be dealt with there. From the previous ANI discussions, this is not isolated behavior on his part. - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ANY user who moves a page for the sole purpose of screwing around with the hyphen or dash should be immediately blocked for disruption, until a final decision can be made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea there was any kind of moratorium on editing for compliance with any part of the style guides. I was not "screwing around" with punctuation. Why would you block someone who has just stated twice that he won't move any pages (unless the motive were pure vindictiveness)? Tony (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you've stopped, then good for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony, we are all responsible for our behavior, and I've NEVER excused any of my own behavior because I was sick. You've no right to insinuate otherwise, or assume you know my state of mind. I was not angry until you did that. - BilCat (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I had actually moved on from the issue, and had dropped it (that's what my removing a post.warning means, as I've stated in my notes), until you posted a second time on my talk page. At that point, the insinuations about my health and mental state were something I could not walk away from. This is my final post here on this issue until an admin or arbcom contacts me for further involvement. - BilCat (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, your initial post was pretty aggressive, as were your edit-summaries. As I have said, I meant no offence. Perhaps we should both simply move on from the matter? Tony (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who calls himself a "reformer" on style issues has already taken an aggressive stance, and to me, a tenditious one. I felt I had no other choice but to go directly to ANI with the matter, as you've already made your stance on style issues quite clear. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I apologize for my own reactions in this case, and I now accept your apology that you were commenting on my health in good faith. My apologies for my own actions appearing agressive to you - I understand how you would think so, as you didn't have access to my reasonings any more that I had acces to yours, before we gave them. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BaseballBugs. In light of the content of recent AN/I threads etc any page moves in the Dash Wars should reult in an immediate block - it's clearly provocative and disruptive and beyond disingenuous to say that he didn't know there was a moratorium on "editing for compliance with any part of the style guides". Also, the comment on the health - and the implication was mental health - of BilCat was disgraceful. DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not yet consensus on a moratorium (many dash fans oppose one); but perhaps there ought to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A moratorium on an issue under discussion should be self-evident as necessary by experienced users, and since it is not, I came here seeking one. After so many discussions on the issue already, the fact that some want to continue making contentious moves while discussions are underway is in my opinion tenditious. Hopefully Arbcom can address that. In my defense,I felt I was upholding the status quo by reverting Tony's move, but if Arbcom disagrees with me, it's there right, and so be it. - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

BilCat, you have called me "ridiculous" here as well, and I have repeated that I meant no offence. But I'm willing to let it all pass. DeCausa, as Mr Anderson says, there is no moratorium. If you want one, please take it to the appropriate place (there is right now an appropriate place). Blocks are explicitly for protecting the site, and not punitive. In the light of my public statement above (Baseball bug says "If you've stopped, then good for you."), I don't see an issue. Please assume good faith WRT my actions. They were certainly not intended to provoke or disrupt. I believe the matter is best left now. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:05, 5 May 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.

banned user

Resolved

 – IP blocked by an admin

92.28.84.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants blocking; appears to be banned user Light Current. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Blocked by Gfoley4. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)An admin has now blocked it for 7 days. There is a lengthy analysis now, on the ref desk talk page, essentially confirming that these subnets, including 92.28, are from the banned user "Light current". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for IP block

A user has investigated the various IP's used by Light Current, and they all "trace-route" back to a single IP: 62.24.255.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is it possible to issue a block to that IP, and if so, would that choke off the troll? I'm talking maybe a week, just to see if it helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm told that such a block won't have any effect. Is that true, and if so, is there anything else that can be done, beyond some broad range-blocks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no, respectively. Individual IP blocks longer than about a day are also pretty pointless. You'd need an ACB or hard block on every range being used. I'd think that's quite unlikely given Tiscali's scope. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's Opal now. And his old IP range was blocked for a month last year with nary an effect, so it's very likely blocking his current IP ranges would be similarly lacking in collateral damage. But at worst, we can just keep swatting that mosquito whenever he turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Those ISPs all kind of merge into one, and hold some monster ranges. A quick look tells me he's using 89.243/16, 92.28/16, 92.25/16, 92.29/16, 78.148/16, and 78.150/16. That's simply not blockable unless you can narrow it down a lot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How about trying it for a few days and see if anyone yelps. It worked before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about nearly half a million (identified) IP address from a very popular UK ISP. There's no way I'm going to condone that kind of block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, then it will have to be shoot-the-fish-in-the-barrel for the foreseeable future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to file an abuse report? How is Opal about responding to abuse reports? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Could someone email me details on this user's editing patterns? I might be able to create an abuse filter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot problem

A bot [85] is removing an important superfamily from an insect genus. I undid the edits and asked on the bot's discussion page why this was going on. The bot includes a link that lists the changes, but does not say why it is removing this superfamily; it's an important grouping in agriculture, and the articles are almost all written from that perspective; and the superfamily is not elsewhere in the article. The bot may be doing it according to a recent dissertation, but that would be original research, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The bot continues to operate although I posted a bug report. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:TX. According to this policy, these ranks should not be included. I made those articles and I certainly did not make them for their "agricultural" importance, so I dont know where you got that from, but I agree they are agriculturally important. Anyway, I was not aware of the policy that these ranks should be excluded at the time I made the articles. Now that I am, I dont really care that they are removed. Finding these minor ranks is not difficult: just click on the family rank and you will see to which superfamily the species belongs.Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor rank means different things for different taxa. If no minor ranks should be included, they shouldn't be coded. There is a reason for including this particular subfamily, it's well-known. The bot didn't move the information from the taxobox to the article, it removed the information completely. By the way, did you copy the mining descriptions from the database or vice versa? --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The database does not have a description of the mines for 90% of the species. I got the descriptions from other pages and research articles mostly. The database cited mainly has info on the distribution and host plants. Anyway: it seems you have an interest in leaf mining species, why dont you help out making articles, I could always use a bit of help! :) About the removal of these ranks: I will leave this discussion to the people who suggested removing the ranks in the first place. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." This superfamily is important to understanding the classification of the genera. Not all species and genera have relevant superfamily; these particular genera have a relevan superfamily that is frequently included in discussions of the taxon, and this where the bot is removing the superfamily. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary provided by the bot includes a link to its approval. It seems to have been briefly discussed at the relevant wikiproject, and I have added a comment there pointing to this report (see WT:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a discussion. It is a list, without explanations, about removing superfamilies from articles that already have genera, and so on. This superfamily should be included in its genera articles. See my arguments above. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruigeroeland is entirely right that this minor rank ought to be removed, as was agreed, and as was approved for the bot. Contrary to the IPs assertions, it is not important to understanding the species involved. Indeed, the superfamily Gracillarioidea is a much less well known taxon than the family Gracillariidae, and our article on the superfamiy is tiny compared to the article on the family. There are indeed cases where taxa at minor ranks are important for a taxobox; this isn't one of them. The bot is right to make the changes it is making. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no discussion about the importance of the family versus the superfamily until you said this right here. This decision should have been made before the bot removed the superfamily. The family is very well known, but the superfamily is also very well known and studied as the superfamily. If the superfamily were also in the article, removing it for these genera would not matter, but the superfamily is being removed from the articles. The phylogenetics of the superfamily is a current hot topic, an encyclopedia provides basic information like this: connecting this superfamily to members. This is one of the times where the minor rank is important. The bot operator is wrong to program the bot to make this change. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And, was it agreed to remove all superfamily for all genera of Lepidoptera? Are all superfamilies as little known as Gracillarioidea versus its family? There is no discussion about this. You've come and said the bot was right to remove this one superfamily. I disagree. Now, is it correct in removing all superfamilies? Where is that discussion? That is what the discussion should have been before the bot started removing all the superfamilies. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One more point in response: the size of Wikipedia articles is not proof of anything at all. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I defence of the bot I must say that it was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#RfC, the talk page for the wikiproject covering all moths and butterflies. I notice you are well-known with the subject of Lepidoptera, but seeing you use an IP instead of a username, I think you are not very active on wikipedia. Might I suggest you make a username and start watching the talk page mentioned earlier? If something like this happens in the future, you can jump in and share your opinion. I do use wikipedia often and have seen the discussion but was neutral on the subject of removing these ranks, hence I made no comment. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The basic position that minor ranks should not be included in taxoboxes (the core part of this bot task) is of very long standing at WP:TX, and (as far as I know) enjoys universal agreement. I have seen no evidence that the one superfamily in question is substantively different from the many others that are routinely excluded from species-level and genus-level taxoboxes. To answer your question, then, yes, there was agreement to remove all distant, minor ranks from taxoboxes for taxa at low rank; this was both in the form of the long-held guidelines on taxobox usage, and the specific discussions surrounding the bot task. That task only covers Lepidoptera, but only because that's where the bulk of the problem lies, and for no other reason. The link between a taxon and its members still remains, but we cannot include all taxa in the taxobox, which is intended to be a summary, so we exclude minor ranks except ones very close to the subject taxon. This is all explained at WP:TX. If the membership of Gracillarioidea is under debate, then that debate will take the form of which families (its direct children) to include (and possibly individual aberrant genera), but will hardly list them species by species. Thus, we see that the superfamily is not of direct relevance to the species – not in the same way that the family is – and the species are not relevant to the superfamily. One last note: I did not claim that article size is "proof" of anything, but I do think it rather suggestive that a taxon which you claim to be of central importance to these species has such a weak article. In general, better known taxa have longer articles; having such a short article at Gracillarioidea (one which does not mention any of the reasons for its being a "hot topic") does nothing to convince me of its importance. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to 184.99.179.238, the bot does not stop after a bug report is filed. The bot performs multiple tasks and a unrelated bug report may stop a scheduled task from performing. It will stop after a block or when the appropriate shutdown page is activated. This was linked in the bots edit summary. This task was approved after 2 RfC's which ended with consensus for the changes. The BRfA was approved by the BAG. The more information link led you to the BRfA where the list of changes is available. Also on the page are links to the two RfCs and the filed bot request which probably provide the information you are looking for. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, shut the bot down pending comments from the opposing users. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy shutdown on that, Noom. I'm surprised an active contributor didn't see the RfC for this at WT:LEPID or the note about it at WT:TOL. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Newcomer AnnNorwood interfering with deletion processes

Removed CSD tags from Rosetta Walker here and here, removed AFD tag here and blanked AFD discussion page here. Probable sock of RosettaWalker, who also removed CSD tag here, SPI investigation pending here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD and AFD tags removed again here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a single warning having been issued - I'll issue one now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning issued, and as the early AfD responses made it clear it was an unfairly contested A7, I have deleted the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

URGENT Template:Hansard-contribs

Resolved

 – Blocked, locked, etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

High traffic template is being vandalised with, potentially, disturbing images. Please see Template:Hansard-contribs. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the right one? That looks to have been fully protected since January 2010 and not edited since -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the transcluded template Template:StripWhitespace which has been vandalised (twice) by EvMurre10. Locking and blocking needed. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes. I am absolutely certain. It is strange indeed, when I looked at it some minutes ago, their were several photos of a naked woman defecating. Maybe the picture was transcluded somehow. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Template protected by Zzuuzz, returning troll and their underlying IP blocked. TNXMan 16:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin(s) needed at Bernard Finnigan

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Bernard Finnigan about whether the article should include coverage of an alleged serious criminal offense he's been reported to have been charged with. The complex issue is that while the criminal charge cannot be reported in Finnigan's home state of South Australia on legal grounds it can, and has, been reported in major newspapers in other Australian states. This raises issues over whether repeating the reports in his Wikipedia article would cause him harm, and so violate WP:BLP, and whether such material would violate the relevant laws (which Wikipedia may not be subject to). Could an uninvolved admin (or admins) please review this discussion? If the decision is to not include the material, the entire talk page discussion should probably be oversighted. Note that this has also been discussed at WP:AWNB#Troublemakers at Bernard Finnigan and that discussion may also need to be zapped. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, is this another "superinjunction"-style case? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - the issue seems to revolve more around Wikipedia's policies than legal issues, in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably should go to WP:BLP/N rather than here. There is some news coverage of the charges but not all that much on the scale of things. If I'm understanding, the guy was a .au MP and cabinet member, so the equivalent of a high-up US congressperson, i.e. a significant public figure, if that matters. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really great on US political systems, but if I understand it correctly, a more accurate description would be a senator in a US state senate. However, I'm not sure where a Minister would sit in the US model - perhaps a state senator with a role in the Governor's Cabinet? It's a minor point, but a US congressperson would be a national role, whereas in this case it is a regional/state role rather than a national one. His responsibilities were important within the state government, although not as one of the most senior positions.- Bilby (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, he is not a national politician per my current understanding after some talk page disussion. More like state or regional level (not sure exactly which). (edited). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No uninvolved admin has yet responded to this post. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what admin action is needed at this point. Article was protected for a day, things seem calm now, some sources are being gathered and evaluated on the talk page, not yet in article. I think there's general acceptance of updating the article once there's more independent sources (right now several newspapers reporting the incident all are from the same company, that may be pushing an agenda). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think someone needs to make a call on whether the discussion on the talk page (including my comments) needs to be deleted. The stories available on the internet are from different media companies BTW. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to delete the stuff on the talk page. The stuff there is cited to published sources and is legitmate for article development. The talk page is noindexed so won't show up in most search engines. And with multiple independent media outlets publishing stuff about the incident, it's getting to be time to put it in the article if it's not yet there. At most, Finnigan supposedly has a court hearing on May 20th and it will all presumably be out of the bag after that. It also seems to me that User:Timeshift may be showing some ownership issues towards the page, though there's not major conflict over it at the moment. Yes I know that Fairfax Media and Newscorp aren't the same company (earlier sources were mostly from Fairfax). It may be that Fairfax and Newscorp have similar editorial perspectives though. Presumably a wider variety of sources will appear over time. I thought this blind item in the .au Greek Community Tribune[86] was amusing.
TLDR: I still don't see an immediate need for admin intervention. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Otto Middleton

I believe the creator of this article is disrupting wikipedia to mock people and prove a point. Within the article he is repeating behaviour on purpose that he has just been chastising people for doing so. see here also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otto_Middleton RafikiSykes (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see what the problem is here. Can you explain? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mocking? Not sure who I'd be mocking. Disruption? Hardly, I created an article which may not be notable, but it is accurate and verifiable. There's some humour involved perhaps. I'm not clear what your objection is, can you spell it out? Would you not have been best to come to my talk page and discuss this, rather than come here? What admin intervention do you want?--Scott Mac 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TBH, the sudden creation of Middleton family related articles, has gotten out of hand. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep WP:RECENTISM in mind. Notability is not temporary. (I mean seriously, Checkers doesn't even has his own article.) Guoguo12--Talk--  02:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be speedied, but let's cut the creator a little slack. He's been mopping up a lot of vomit today. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it... do make your point clear in the discussion, noting examples of articles that could exist under the rationale for keeping the one in question. do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making." The user voted in the james william middleton deletion to delete it then protected it and later created this otto article to Illustrate his point and parody behaviour he took issue with in that article. see his posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_William_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=427434609 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_William_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=427423761 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&diff=prev&oldid=427605646 See there for the mocking/supposed humour intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• On Kate Middleton's brother's article, Scott Mac wrote "good grief, are we going to have articles on every Middleton repeating the same family information". Given his earlier approach to the other Middleton articles of course this one is a WP:POINTy piss-take. As sympathetic as I am to his point of view (and however amusing his response), it's "not allowed". DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiatica and www.artabase.net

Could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Xiatica edits please ? They appear to be a single purpose account adding links to www.artabase.net which describes itself as "an online marketing channel for the fine art market". On the one hand it looks like external link spamming, on the other I'm biased so I don't have the heart to remove the links. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiatica has very kindly stopped adding links for the time being pending clarification here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm. Interesting. I think, considering Xiatica's willingness to play by the rules, that no administrative action is required. Sean, would you agree that this discussion can be moved to the EL noticeboard? That's where it seems to belong. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a plan. I'll move it over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Xiatica_and_www.artabase.net. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

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.

Snowball close per request of initator TenPoundHammer and comments from those that participated that there's nothing here that requires an administrator's attention. AFD has also been withdrawn

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Bryna (2nd nomination) — I get the feeling that Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is making some WP:POINTy edits in this discussion. Some history:

• Laura Bryna got deleted at AFD because the article was a copyvio and spam.
• Just a few minutes ago, I rebuilt the article from scratch, using several reliable, third-party sources not present in the original.
• Off2riorob slaps it with an A10, which I decline since it clearly doesn't fit.
• Off2riorob restores the A10, then replaces it with an AFD.
• In the AFD, he says that she's not noable because she didn't chart.
• I asked him several times if he had read the article and noticed the sources, and he remained silent.
• When another user and I both !vote keep in the AFD, he says, "Digging up a few trivial reports and bloating a not notable singers life story when they haven't ever charted falsely represents them to the reader." This is the most wrongheaded argument I've ever seen in an AFD.

Can someone set this guy straight? And maybe close the AFD because it's so obviously WP:POINTy? I get the feeling that this isn't Rio's first time stirring shit up, because I see he got into an argument with an admin only one post upward on his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see a problem with AfD'ing a previously deleted and recreated article. If you have done your work well enough in recreating it it will be kept, but you should expect that the work will be put to the test if you decide to recreate an article that has been deleted previously. I don't know much about the notability criteria for music, but I would suggest that in the AfD you try to demonstrate that the article meets those criteria. The argument that digging up a small number of online mentions and writing a long biosection doesn't guarantee notability in itself - I don't see a problem with this argument. Just stay calm and argue your case, and if the article is deleted then take that as a sign you didn't argue well enough.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't replace the A10 a bot did it, the bot said as you were the creator you shouldn't have removed it. After the recent deletion a recreation of the same low notable singer and her uncharted album are imo even with eight country music promo articles that mention her, not notable, its a good faith nomination. IMO its clear that a singer who has never charted is not worthy of an article - her music is what she is notable for and her music is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what A10 is for, you know. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a recreation template - - WP:A10 seemed the closest relevant. - I am no speedy deletion template expert. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

G4 would have been closer but if the article was completely different from the deleted one as TPH claims then it does not qualify under that criterion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, G4 doesn't qualify unless there was a deletion discussion. If an article's speedied for some other reason, you can't G4 a recreation. In this case, there was a deletion discussion, but the article had been substantially improved, so the version written by TPH was not eligible to be speedy-deleted under any of the CSD criteria. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)2 - the album content was at least exactly the same as what was deleted a couple of days ago. - and the singer has not become more notable since last week even if you scour databases and add eight or nine citations that mention her. WP:GNG is imo an all to oft used reason to keep content that is not truly notable. A singer should have a least some notable music. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyways... - this thread is titled - accusations of bad faith - I don't feel I have accused anyone of bad faith, so ... I am also not being pointy - I nominated the recently deleted article and strongly supported its deletion at AFD and her album. I am also happy to accept whatever the consensus is at the AFD and if its kept it will strengthen the articles right to exist here. - Is there any administrative action required here? I don't see any - move to close. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a poor AfD nomination (and I voted to keep) but I don't think a poor AfD nomination is a blockable offense, so I agree with Off2riorob that this can probably be closed. The AfD will probably snow keep before long anyway. A medium-sized trout to Off2riorob for misusing CSD and a miniature trout to TPH for "declining" a CSD of his own article are probably all that's merited in the way of administrative action. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept the medium trout for the CSD and any AFD that results in keep keep keep, likely shouldn't have been made and I'll take that on board. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone wanna snowball close this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I wish I could but Off2riorob would need to withdraw the nomination for it to qualify for a speedy keep. If he doesn't withdraw, you'd have to show that the nomination was meant purely as disruption and wasn't sincere. I think it was a sincere nomination even if it doesn't seem to stand a snowball's chance of deletion at this time. -- Atama頭 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• My presumption is when TPH said this he/she means this discussion and so I'll act accordingly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 6 May 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.

Dave Snowden

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh

Is it possible to put an article on permanent protection? A banned sock-master continues to obsess over that article, due to his anger with the article's subject. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Simpler just to block if it is a single editor causing problems, which I have now done. I have also applied semi-protection to make it harder for sock puppets. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Barnstarbob, formerly Vegavairbob

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh

Barnstarbob had been warned recently here about that he could be blocked if he continued to attack other editors. He has recently been extremely attacking, again. He has a tendency to edit in a machine gun style, with lots and lots of edits... and he often archives attacks shortly after making them. Here is a relevant recent diff. Please lend a hand if possible. 842U (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there are two warnings on his talk page now (yours and one from Beeblebrox). Let's see how things progress. One more tirade or personal attack will likely see this editor blocked for a while. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiatica and www.artabase.net

Could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Xiatica edits please ? They appear to be a single purpose account adding links to www.artabase.net which describes itself as "an online marketing channel for the fine art market". On the one hand it looks like external link spamming, on the other I'm biased so I don't have the heart to remove the links. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiatica has very kindly stopped adding links for the time being pending clarification here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm. Interesting. I think, considering Xiatica's willingness to play by the rules, that no administrative action is required. Sean, would you agree that this discussion can be moved to the EL noticeboard? That's where it seems to belong. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a plan. I'll move it over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Xiatica_and_www.artabase.net. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

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.

Snowball close per request of initator TenPoundHammer and comments from those that participated that there's nothing here that requires an administrator's attention. AFD has also been withdrawn

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Bryna (2nd nomination) — I get the feeling that Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is making some WP:POINTy edits in this discussion. Some history:

• Laura Bryna got deleted at AFD because the article was a copyvio and spam.
• Just a few minutes ago, I rebuilt the article from scratch, using several reliable, third-party sources not present in the original.
• Off2riorob slaps it with an A10, which I decline since it clearly doesn't fit.
• Off2riorob restores the A10, then replaces it with an AFD.
• In the AFD, he says that she's not noable because she didn't chart.
• I asked him several times if he had read the article and noticed the sources, and he remained silent.
• When another user and I both !vote keep in the AFD, he says, "Digging up a few trivial reports and bloating a not notable singers life story when they haven't ever charted falsely represents them to the reader." This is the most wrongheaded argument I've ever seen in an AFD.

Can someone set this guy straight? And maybe close the AFD because it's so obviously WP:POINTy? I get the feeling that this isn't Rio's first time stirring shit up, because I see he got into an argument with an admin only one post upward on his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see a problem with AfD'ing a previously deleted and recreated article. If you have done your work well enough in recreating it it will be kept, but you should expect that the work will be put to the test if you decide to recreate an article that has been deleted previously. I don't know much about the notability criteria for music, but I would suggest that in the AfD you try to demonstrate that the article meets those criteria. The argument that digging up a small number of online mentions and writing a long biosection doesn't guarantee notability in itself - I don't see a problem with this argument. Just stay calm and argue your case, and if the article is deleted then take that as a sign you didn't argue well enough.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't replace the A10 a bot did it, the bot said as you were the creator you shouldn't have removed it. After the recent deletion a recreation of the same low notable singer and her uncharted album are imo even with eight country music promo articles that mention her, not notable, its a good faith nomination. IMO its clear that a singer who has never charted is not worthy of an article - her music is what she is notable for and her music is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what A10 is for, you know. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a recreation template - - WP:A10 seemed the closest relevant. - I am no speedy deletion template expert. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

G4 would have been closer but if the article was completely different from the deleted one as TPH claims then it does not qualify under that criterion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, G4 doesn't qualify unless there was a deletion discussion. If an article's speedied for some other reason, you can't G4 a recreation. In this case, there was a deletion discussion, but the article had been substantially improved, so the version written by TPH was not eligible to be speedy-deleted under any of the CSD criteria. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)2 - the album content was at least exactly the same as what was deleted a couple of days ago. - and the singer has not become more notable since last week even if you scour databases and add eight or nine citations that mention her. WP:GNG is imo an all to oft used reason to keep content that is not truly notable. A singer should have a least some notable music. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyways... - this thread is titled - accusations of bad faith - I don't feel I have accused anyone of bad faith, so ... I am also not being pointy - I nominated the recently deleted article and strongly supported its deletion at AFD and her album. I am also happy to accept whatever the consensus is at the AFD and if its kept it will strengthen the articles right to exist here. - Is there any administrative action required here? I don't see any - move to close. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a poor AfD nomination (and I voted to keep) but I don't think a poor AfD nomination is a blockable offense, so I agree with Off2riorob that this can probably be closed. The AfD will probably snow keep before long anyway. A medium-sized trout to Off2riorob for misusing CSD and a miniature trout to TPH for "declining" a CSD of his own article are probably all that's merited in the way of administrative action. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept the medium trout for the CSD and any AFD that results in keep keep keep, likely shouldn't have been made and I'll take that on board. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone wanna snowball close this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I wish I could but Off2riorob would need to withdraw the nomination for it to qualify for a speedy keep. If he doesn't withdraw, you'd have to show that the nomination was meant purely as disruption and wasn't sincere. I think it was a sincere nomination even if it doesn't seem to stand a snowball's chance of deletion at this time. -- Atama頭 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• My presumption is when TPH said this he/she means this discussion and so I'll act accordingly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 6 May 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.

Personal attacks

Resolved

 – Blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin have a word with User talk:194.66.216.40 and ask them to cease their personal attacks against me here, here and here. I have asked them to stop but to no avail. Mo ainm~Talk 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mo ainm has participated in an edit war and started slapping tags on my talk page and then didn't like it when it was suggested that he was taking the piss and continued to slap tags, pathetic stuff from a pathetic user. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked due to the ongoing inapproriate behavior. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you have closed this Edgar but I think that it is worth mentioning that this IP's editing bears the hallmarks of KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked with talk page access removed and Apr Mar 28. First this IP is predominantly editing tennis articles which was KnowIG's bailiwick. The abuse of other editors is the same kind that KnowIG spews. I acknowledge that the IP has been editing since before K's block but this would not be the first editor who has operated as both a user and an IP at the same time. Most telling is that with this edit [87] (made before K's block) the IP answers a question posed to KnowIG. Now, as the IP has been blocked for a month I don't think that there is anything else to do at this moment but I thought that this should be on the record as we may be heading down the road of having to discuss a community ban of KnowIG. MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I think you're right. Also, KnowIG followed editors to other projects such as Commons to continue to attack them, and this IP is behaving the same way. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Little Cambridge

Resolved

 – Done. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Would someone with Twinkle please take a look at the contribs? I've been going through this guy's edit history for the past twenty minutes clearing out his stuff with no end in sight. This user is a blocked sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles and went through his favorite subjects with nearly bot-like speed, creating such memorable one-page categories as "First Ladies of Burkina Faso." I'm looking at a good thirty minutes or more if I roll back the changes he'd made and to delete the categories manually; I don't have the time right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh

Is it possible to put an article on permanent protection? A banned sock-master continues to obsess over that article, due to his anger with the article's subject. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Simpler just to block if it is a single editor causing problems, which I have now done. I have also applied semi-protection to make it harder for sock puppets. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Barnstarbob, formerly Vegavairbob

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh

Barnstarbob had been warned recently here about that he could be blocked if he continued to attack other editors. He has recently been extremely attacking, again. He has a tendency to edit in a machine gun style, with lots and lots of edits... and he often archives attacks shortly after making them. Here is a relevant recent diff. Please lend a hand if possible. 842U (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there are two warnings on his talk page now (yours and one from Beeblebrox). Let's see how things progress. One more tirade or personal attack will likely see this editor blocked for a while. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Esad Mekuli

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh

Does anybody know when this guy really died? There are two different death dates in the lead paragraph and in the infobox. B-Machine (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be putting this on the article's talk page (it's not like admins know everything), but a quick Google search turns up this, which says 1993 is the correct year. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivilities by Pmanderson

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.

---

Pmanderson (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who has (again) what appears to be a philosophical difference of opinion with me, launched a surprising and unprovoked attack against me that I would consider racist. Not only did he reinstate it after I had removed it, he justified it saying he was paraphrasing me. Upon my removal of it for a second time, citing WP:RPA, he complained about its removal but actually refrained from reinstating the aforementioned offending text. Now Pmanderson have crossed paths many times before, but never has the conflict descended to this low level. What upsets me is that just I had thought things had quietened down between us for some time. I tried to offer my opinion whilst keeping things impersonal. He is an intelligent and educated individual, and yet he chose to launch his latest attack with such serious racist undertones that I am wondering whether the recent string of blocks has begun having an adverse effect on his psyche. As he is no stranger to Personal attacks or harassment, and has upped my request for him to consider formally withdrawing his attack with semantics. A clear message should be sent to him that such behaviour is unacceptable. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC) notification.

That doesn't seem racist to me. Am I missing something?Heiro 05:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. The alleged instance of racism is that I have used the word "anglophone", which means (to quote the OED), "An English-speaking person." Two editors have explained this to him, in response to his original complaint, here and here.

If Ohconfucius simply had no idea what the word meant, this should have dealt with it; so I must ask if this is another spurious accusation intended to win a discussion by getting another person blocked.

Please deal with Ohconfucius appropriately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, was wondering if there was another meaning of anglophone I was heretofore unaware of. Heiro 05:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What sort of administrative action would you suggest? Have you read WP:TPO? "The basic rule is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Refactoring once is fine, if you think it could be a personal attack, but rather than escalating the issue you should have at least made an attempt to communicate to the user on his/her talkpage commenting that you find his comments incivil, rather than merely reverting back and forth. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He did calmly address the offender on his talk page here and subsequently. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a 30-day block? That was the duration of his block of misrepresenting another editor which was shortened after 3 weeks because he saw "the error of his ways". It would appear that he does not, by once again misrepresenting (or "paraphrasing" to use his own words). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't find the word "anglophone" to be much of a personal attack, but YMMV. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I give my interpretation? Pmanderson frequently uses personal attacks, like when he called me a liar, and mocked me by crediting me with inventing the rules of dash usage, and impugns the motives of people he disagrees with, often by mocking them, as in his mocking "quote" of Ohconfucious's opinion as "Don't do what reliable sources do; do what OhConfucius wants. Who cares if anglophones understand us?" in which he seems to contrast "anglophones" with the orient-related username of the editor; this is I believe why the personal attack was perceived as rascist. I hope OhConfucius will say if I understood him correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps Anderson thought "Ohconfucius" was Chinese because of his name and therefore could not be a speaker of English. That's presumably what Ohconfucius thought, and I agree that would be racist. (Your grandparents came from China, therefore your opinion is worthless.) But Anderson routinely claims that people who disagree with him don't speak English, even if it's their native language, and that phrasings he disagrees with are not in English, even if they have been demonstrated to be. The idea that only his POV is "English" is a frequent argument of his, so it may well be that this is just an example of Anderson's reflexive incivility rather than racism. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would characterise Pmanderson as sly, intelligent, snide; his mastery of the language allows him to tread the fine subjective line between the perceived insult and the actual insult. We have had to live with one another enough for him to know that I am oriental. The quote I removed was a bad faith attempt to "paraphrase" me with a "me no speakee Engrish" type jibe was clearly calculated to wind me up. I pointed out to him that I took offense, and he launches into his habitual semantic contortions. His attempting to turn the tables and ask me for an apology in turn for the offence he allegedly suffered is feigned and a piss-take. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ah. The dash enthusiasts from the #Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen, closed and lame as it is. (Remarkable of them to show up so fast.)

I regret that they join Ohconfucius in misrepresenting what I have said: I have not, I believe, called Dicklyon a liar; I have said - and will prove, if an uninvolved party cares - that he repeats false statements, like calling an 8-2 RM. closed as consensus, non-consensus.

I use "English" to mean - and always have - what the overwhelming majority of English sources use. Dicklyon and Kwamikagami are opposed to following such overwhelming majorities - and have engaged in revert-wars and wheel-wars to make sure Wikipedia doesn't either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The last time you said you didn't call me a liar, someone posted the diff; you actually used the verb "lied" since we're being precise. And don't mischaracterize my position. I have never argued against following overwhelming majorities of English sources; I just argue that we can follow them and still use the styling specified in our MOS. So, you misrepresent, and you mock, and you sound racist to some; can you offer to do something about it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noticing that I support Pmandersons point of view in the dash-hyphen war, and hence can not be called a "dash"-enthusiast, and still think that he shouldn't be allowed to insult others. This is not, despite Pmanderson attempts to characterize it as such, a content dispute, but a discussion on Pmandersons insult of Ohconfusius. Pmanderson does *not* have the right to insult someone just because they disagree. It matters not that Ohconfusius and Dicklyon are incorrect, that is not an excuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

From his comments, I had the distinct impression that his xenophobia was not English based, but more American based. He even mocked the guide to American style and usage (whatever the exact title was) because it was published by Oxford. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To be more accurate than this falsehood, I described it as Oxford English - a dialect of doubtful relevance to an article about the United States. But some people see mockery whenever someone presumes to disagree with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The book was about American English. Where is my falsehood now? Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this merits administrative action and therefore I recommend closing the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How much repeated violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF does warrant admin action? Would you recommend an RFC/U, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that none of this merits administrative action. I don't know whether User:Pmanderson has been uncivil. He clearly has not been racist - the word "Anglophone" refers to the language spoken, not to ethnicity, nationality or location. I often find what User:Pmanderson writes unclear; I guess that other people do too. Please can we just put this down as a misunderstanding.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that the word "anglophone" is racist or is the problem; indeed, all have said otherwise. The insult was in implying that Ohconfusious is not one, via a mocking "quote". Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The personal attack was not racist. However, he is implying that OhConfucius doesn't know English, which is an insult, and one that Pmanderson like to use often. Note that he already has been blocked for personal attacks twice. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone reading the link you provided will see that User:Pmanderson was accused of calling User:Marknutley a sockpuppet. User:Marknutley has since been blocked and is listed as a suspected sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. As for some User:Marknutley's edits that User:Pmanderson called lies - calling them lies would seem to have been fair comment.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and Cuba is a democracy having free elections [88]. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that, but:

1. That was only *one* of the insults of Pmanderson mentioned in that RFC.
2. In fact he accused Marknutley of being a sockpuppet of *me*, some 18 months before the actual sockpuppets of Marknutley was created.
3. How does Marknutleys sockpuppets give Pmanderson the right to insult OhConfusius? Right, it doesn't. This happens everytime Pmanderson is being discussed. Someone pops up and starts talking about someone else in an effort to derail the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture - You brought up the RFC as further "evidence" against Pmanderson - that was why I commented on it.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch the shifting sands of Manderson trying to dodge the central issue of my complaint by throwing up chaff. I don't think I was being accused of being a sockpuppet, and just because Manderson was correct on one count proves now't in this current debate. It certainly doesn't prove he's always right or has monopoly of The Truth™©. The issue here is whether you people agree he insulted or attacked me. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius - you said that Pmanderson made a racist attack on you - he did not. Even Dicklyon and OpenFuture agree on that.

Even me??? Please don't put words in my mouth; I didn't say it was or wasn't racist; I explained why I thought it was taken as racist. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please can we just drop it. You are assuming bad faith by people you disagree with. Please stop it.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No administrative action required. It's distasteful to see old enemies of PManderson take the opportunity to air various ancient grudges which have no relevance to Ohconfucius' complaint. Please ponder the instructions at the top of the page: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion". @Ohconfucious: even if you're offended, you are by no means required to "characterise" PManderson, as you do above ("I would characterise Pmanderson as sly, intelligent, snide"). ANI is not a free forum for personal attacks and character assassination. Time to close this thread. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Old RFC's on the topic are relevant, indeed that is the whole purpose of the RFC as I understand it. I do agree that Toddy1 bringing up Marknutleys sockpuppets is completely irrelevant, but I don't think you can characterize Toddy1 as an "old enemy of PManderson". Noting that PManderson has a history of insults is hardly irrelevant, not an old grudge. This is just once again an attempt to move focus from PManderson actions to the actions of others. That said you are of course entitled to your opinion that no administrative action is required. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture - you are misrepresenting the situation. You brought up to old RFC as "evidence"; I commented on the RFC.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed anything else, so I don't know how I misrepresented anything, sorry. I'm with Bishonen on this: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion". --OpenFuture (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) No administrative action is required here. I see no personal attack in [this whatsoever. May I also suggest that bringing up old RfCs when a particular charge is not getting the traction that you think it deserves is both unfair as well as unwarranted. --rgpk (comment) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with "Not getting the traction", that seems to assume and imply loads of things that is incorrect.

Anyway, I've seen admins bring up RFC/U's, and been told that one of the purposes with them is to act as a permanent record of the discussion and outcome, precisely to do exactly that so as to act as guidance in the future. If you mean that old behavior shouldn't be brought up, I don't see how that is any more unfair or unwarranted than having a link to the users block log. And previous behavior *do* influence decisions of admins and this is in general the consensus of how it should be. So I guess this is yet another case of where different admins have different viewpoints and practices, and yet another space to get lost in dispute resolution quagmires of wikilwyering. :) But OK, I won't do it again then. No big deal. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd close this thread, since it's generating more heat & smoke than light, but the only conclusion I can come up with would be along the lines of, "If the parties involved still want to debate this issue, they are encouraged to meet somewhere offline & engage in ten rounds of bare-knuckle boxing, either in pairs or as a battle royale. The survivor gets to decide who was right; in the case there is more than one survivor, the individual with the least brain damage makes the decision." (And I suspect many disputes on Wikipedia should be resolved in this manner.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps Wikipedia needs some flaming forum where people can engage in the mental equivalent of that until they tire of it. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One already exists. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have Trouted both PMA (for insensitive comments, and continued insensitive responses to reactions to the insensitive comments) and Ohconfuscius (for not making nearly clear enough complaints and edit summaries and so forth to understand what the perceived issue is).

Other than that, this is not actionable, and (another) uninvolved admin should probably close / resolve this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 6 May 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.