Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Persistent edit stalking

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [1] (newly created by me)
• [2]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] (newly created by me)
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17] (newly created by another editor)
• [18]
• [19] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [20]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]], [26], [27]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], ... [36]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [37]; and another: [38] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [39].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.

Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.

Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst it may seem reasonable to insist that the case be narrowly focussed on the 'Wikihounding' issue, it's a ploy often used to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's be clear, though, that I'm not saying that its being so used here. The problem with this dance of tango is that one dancer seems to want the floor all to himself, so that he can do as he wants without interference, but the other dancer just wants to be consulted on the steps and is upset when no request is forthcoming from the party whose onus it's on to make it. In the absence of a demonstrable preparedness to pro-actively seek and then abide by consensus, blocking or granting unilateral restraining orders just won't solve the problem. Nobody owns any given WP article, and if the collective editors of a page (or a category in this case) wants no infoboxes, then the article creator must cede to consensus. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox templates as well as articles. The latter is an area where Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt have been extremely active— though not Nikkimaria. --Kleinzach 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the Mass in B minor), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, Template:Infobox musical composition which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you [40]. Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.Kleinzach 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They were added - as said above - to be compatible with Bach composition when Nikkimaria used this template instead of Bach. (I confess that I was a bit furious when that happened. If such things don't happen again, I will not do it again.) I suggest to continue talking about this very general template (how many fields does Infobox church have?) on the template talk. Back to here, back to my suggestion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we all appreciate that you don't edit war, and are willing to discuss infobox issues in a calm way. The problem is that you make changes that affect large numbers of articles, without consulting other editors. Moreover, instead of participating in centralized discussions and respecting their outcomes, you've initiated a whole series of distributed debates, that are repetitive and waste everybody's time. Instead of working on content, we've all been chasing around trying to locate and respond to your latest initiatives. Leaving aside the extensive template changes and just looking at articles, you've started at least five discussions since February: Robert Stoepel on 27 February 2013, Peter Planyavsky on 5 March 2013, Johann Sebastian Bach on 21 March 2013, George Frideric Handel on 25 March 2013, and Richard Wagner on 16 May 2013. Kleinzach 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look a little closer: 1) Stoepel was in response to a discussion on project:Opera (I DO try to work with projects.) The author installed an infobox. 2) I didn't start a discussion on Peter Planyavsky, I installed an infobox for an article that I had created. (It was promptly reverted.) 3) I started a discussion on Bach, agreed. Some editors said it was too long, and could only be accepted if it contained only a minimum. 4) Trying to learn, I suggested a minimum for Handel. 5) I did NOT start a discussion for Wagner, I followed advice for a solution, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity: In only one case did I insert an infobox in an article: my "own". Please have a look at the Stoepel discussion, that was efficient and encouraging, if you ask me. It was an article I knew well, I had nominated it for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, All you have to do is follow the links I have given above. In each case you started the discussion. I think it would help you if you can be frank about what happened. --Kleinzach 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was learning. From 1) and 2) I learned that an infobox was possible for a composer, from 3) that my suggestion was too long, from 4) that it was not wanted even short, therefore 5) only talk, no hope to have it in the article, no discussion. Why we still had a discussion, I don't know. - I will not even try Infobox on composer talk again - and said so several times in this thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: link to another Planyavsky discussion, in case of interest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.

For myself, reply to Slim Virgin: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is [41]. But whatever, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes as was done here at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know that was the last time (August 2012), so the ceasing you ask for seems to have happened already. - News from Andy is that surgery went well but he will not be able to edit for a week. Can this be closed, asking everybody to assume good faith and look forward? Nikkimaria and I had a nice conversation today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is alas not quite far enough if you want to stop storms of this sort. I evidence the state of affiars at Richard Wagner when Gerda 'playfully' inserted a infobox on the article talk page while the article was coming up for front page feature. When I archived the lengthy and futile discussion over this the day before the article was front-paged, (and incidentally was thus enabled to feature Gerda's very nice Wagner DYK box there), Mr.Mabbett stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving. This is presently the subject of a complaint elsewhere, as Mr. Mabbett is under a permanent ban from interfering with articles when they are coming up for front-page. So Gerda is perfectly aware that the 'ceasing' has not taken place (at the very least in spirit, although I note Mr. Mabbett quibbles about the details). Mr.Mabbett's surgery - and of course I wish the man good health - does not somehow restore the GF which many of us have alas found it impossible, from bitter experience, to assume in his case. It is because Mr. Mabbett and some of those in his train play these silly games that time which could be spent on editing is spent on mutual masturbation (oops - did I say that?) of this sort. I don't exempt myself totally for being such a prat as to rise to their provocations, but occasionally even an equable soul like myself feels the need to try to draw a line.--Smerus (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• September 2012, same thing here, and February 2013, another instance. I keep a very small watchlist and so am only showing the instances of which I'm aware. We lost a very good and productive editor because the September event. I have to ask, why? Victoria (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Same thing"? - The "Pilgrim"-Infobox was not added on TFA day but later, Little Moreton Hall HAD an infobox, only "invisible". It has a visible collapsed infobox now. Some editors learn, - I miss George, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gerda, just to clarify - I posted here in response to a very sensible suggestion SlimVirgin made and I added a concrete example using the words "the days before and the days after TFA" with the suggestion that perhaps that behavior should cease. As SV said "I'll stop doing X and you'll stop doing Y" - my example can be seen as X. This has now degenerated into a "that didn't happen", "that's ceased", "that doesn't happen anymore" when in fact three more examples have been presented. SV is quite right in saying that it's better to hash it out rather than having it go to Arbom, but we'll never get anywhere if it always degenerates in this fashion. I'll step out now; I was simply seconding SV's suggestion. Victoria (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Cease is not stop, right? - Putting something on a talk page a week or so before TFA, explicitly stating that it was not to be considered for the article but the talk, is not the same as on the article on TFA day, right. (And I will not do even do that again.) When the talk was archived Andy complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving, - was that "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving"? - That's what I am aware of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, do not misrepresent! - and do not imply that I interfered with an auto-archive. The page had always been manually archived, until Mr. Mabbett in his self-righteousness unilaterally (without any discussion) converted it to auto-archiving. This is all evident in the page history. I had no wish on the day of the article being front-paged to start another futile argument thread, so left it alone. When issues which I raise are turned into implicit accusations against myself, I detect that the spirit of the master temporarily in exile has found a worthy inheritor.--Smerus (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, so I don't know all the loopholes, but the best way forward is for everyone relying on a loophole to stop that way of thinking (e.g. I didn't add one, I just made an invisible one visible). The best situation would be if Gerda and Andy would agree not to add infoboxes to pages they didn't create or weren't in the process of significantly improving, and none to pages where they know editors will object (e.g. composers); and if Nikki would agree not to remove any, and not to look at Andy's contribs anymore. If someone does add an infobox and others disagree, open an RfC on the talk page, let it run for 30 days, have an uninvolved editor close it, and stick to the outcome.

Ask yourselves whether you want to go through an ArbCom case about this, and if not make every effort to avoid it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since February, we have had at least 16 classical music-related infobox debates/discussions, plus an unknown number relating to architecture, visual arts etc. Anything that can bring this to an end will be welcome, even an ArbCom case. --Kleinzach 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of time was wasted. Did you count Richard Wagner? No discussion was needed, the infobox could just have stayed on the talk as proposed by me, following advice by Newyorkbrad and Nikkimaria as a possible solution when an infobox is not wanted in the article. I thought that was a good solution, but if you are so strongly against it, I will not do that again. I don't have to stop adding one to a composer someone else created, because I never did that (as far as I remember). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: for those who don't look at that discussion (but it's enlightening, promised), here is the link to the advice mentioned (which was removed in the meantime): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: So are you willing to stop doing this? That would be positive. Kleinzach 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I stopped with Wagner, - that one experience of a "discussion" was enough for life, remember? See also Tristan, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bach cantatas are among my key areas of expertise, although I hardly ever visit the articles in that topic. I have to side with Slim et al. here: those articles are far better off without an infobox. I have a bunch of reasons. Let me know if you want me to list them. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to list the reasons, Tony, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; but I expressed these reasons—or something like them—at infobox discussions some time ago, so I'm not sure I'm adding anything new. I'm not per se against infoboxes in every situation, but for articles on complex-music composers and their works they add nothing and risk detracting from the articles. They present packaged and stripped-down information that is often not useful and is sometimes misleading outside a larger context ("Related" in the Mass in B minor box, for example). They can't help but repeat information that is or should be treated in proper context and detail in the main text. Why repeat it? Who is going to flip from one article to the next just to read the infobox info? We shouldn't encourage superficial reading, if the motivation exists for it (which I doubt for readers of these topics). They sacrifice what would often be an opportunity for an image right at the top, larger than can reasonably fit into an infobox. And I find the meta-data argument most uncompelling, I have to say. Infoboxes might be tolerable for pop-music articles and pop-bios, but not for complex-music topics, where greater reading motivation can be assumed. Tony (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you mind having this discussion at a more appropriate venue, for example project Classical music, where these infoboxes were discussed before introduction, or the template talk of {{infobox Bach composition}}. Please don't miss the Wikipedias de-fr-nn, where every Bach cantata has an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for explaining, Tony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's an unfortunate tendency to cram the infoboxes with unexplained stuff even in pop music articles. Look at Metallica (FA) for example. What is the giant list of "Associated acts" in the infobox telling you? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wagner for example

I am all interested in a good way forward. The past is shown here in a nutshell: "I am entirely against having a infobox for this article. Wagner's life and music is a very complex topic and I am certain that an infobox would damage the article by giving inappropriate or highly debatable prominence to some aspects, and/or by under-reporting other aspects. Moreover, Gerda, as you know, the whole issue of infoboxes is extremely ontroversial and the overwhelming opinion of editors on the Opera, Wagner, and Classical Music Projects is against having them.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" (quoted from the FAC in which I was involved)

When I read that I had an infobox ready in a sandbox. I put it on the talk (!) stating that it was not meant to be included in the article. There still was a discussion that would better be archived. I did not mind the manual archiving at all, please see.

I will have to understand how an infobox would damage the article but simply accept that view. I don't add infoboxes to articles (!) where I expect controversy, - as far as I remember I never did that, so I can easily agree to the request just above. - I just added one more item to the Wagner "DYK" collection, feel free to take it to the Wagner talk, Smerus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I wonder why, if an infobox is known to be controversial, it has to be placed on the talk page, rather than not introduced at all. Can you agree not to add infoboxes to articles (or talk pages) where you know it is going to cause a problem? If you would agree to that, that would be a start. If Andy will agree too, and if Nikki will agree not to remove them and not to follow Andy's or Gerda's contribs, the dispute will be over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the above modest proposal 100%.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's part:

• The infobox didn't "have to be placed". It WAS placed because I saw the recommendation, as part of a solution (!): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB)". This link preceded the infobox on the talk, - not everybody saw that, if you belong to those please take another look. I said above that I will not do that again even if I don't understand why an infobox sitting quietly on a talk page would cause ANY problem, or how any infobox would "damage" an article.
• Nikkimaria: I ask you formally to keep following my edits, - I need help with English and formalities. Just please don't revert a complete infobox with an edit summary I may not understand, and consider to have mercy when I ask for it (it wasn't often).
• Andy: he can't contribute at the moment nor for days to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, the possibility of placing infoboxes was not a 'recommendation', it was a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' suggestion for consideration by Nikkimaria, which indeed the latter subsequently withdrew. It had no endorsements or I think even comments by any other editors or Wikipedia fora. You were perfectly aware that the Wagner article was coming up for front-page featuring, and you were perfectly aware of the feelings of myself and other editors about info-boxes for the article; indeed as you mention you participated in the FA discussion, and you also participated in the TFA discussion. I am aware of the significant contributions you have made in many Wikipedia articles, which I unreservedly acknowledge, and thus I would never have credited that you had the naivety not to imagine or foresee that posting an infobox on the Wagner talk page, especially at this time, without prior discussion, would provoke animated debate; and moreover to realise that such discussion would inevitably bring in the causeurs who feed on such issues, whether or not they have any interst or contribution to make to the articles concerned. Clearly, I must accept your word that you had never anticipated this; but I am sure you have learnt from the experience. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, thanks for thoughts and feelings, - Fact: It was not Nikkimaria's thinking, she quoted Newyorkbrad, another respected user. - I will try to learn to anticipate feelings better, and there will be no next time, as said twice above. Thank you for a constructive GA review, I enjoy collaboration here, especially with you "after Wagner"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Redux

I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion here), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing WP:1RR), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).

If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. Kleinzach 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.

My statements are above, repeating:

I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)

I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)

To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)

I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)

I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.

From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested here. That should solve 1–4.

May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to write WP:STALEMATE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --Kleinzach 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Done Kleinzach 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think a statement from you would be positive, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --Kleinzach 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Too late. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should apply, but the self-fulfilling Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties already has lift off. Kleinzach 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties

As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page J.S. Bach talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.

I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, an admin is stalking an editor; this means User:Nikkimaria creates a deliberate chilling effect. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at Sparrow Mass. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.

I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.

I suggest a strong warning for Andy - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.

A Wikipedia-wide Rfc on infoboxes. This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Wikipedia community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the obvious social handicap as far as User:Jusdafax is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps User:Jusdafax can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as Richard Wagner advises, that I need to seek Untergang? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on User:Jusdafax's part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but User:Jusdafax's pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of WP:NPA in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, Le Pas d'acier. Notice there is no info box. I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? Jusdafax 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Wikipedia. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But User:Jusdafax says that the outcome must include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." User:Smerus wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. It's about power: the power to tell others what to do. Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Wikipedia that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, User:Nikkimaria who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes. Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. Jusdafax 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.

Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we have arguments: "has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. [emphasis added]" Toccata quarta (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example WP:CITEVAR or WP:SHE4SHIPS. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of WP:OWN, that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a topic ban last year.

This is not a new phenomenon. He was banned for a year by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.

Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. Choess (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice from my daughter

My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Wikipedia issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including BRD, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is more valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of WP:OWN who do not understand the policy that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

• Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes Report by Jusdafax, 2 April 2013
• Persistent edit stalking Report by Andy Mabbett, 5 June 2013 against Nikkimaria.

User pages

• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox and User talk:Ched/RfC - Infobox Rfc plan started by Ched, 5 April 2013

Classical Music Project

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Orchestra_infobox:_proposal new box proposed by Kleinzach, 16 March 2013 (see also Template talk:Infobox orchestra)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Abbreviations_in_infoboxes by Kleinzach, 23 April 2013

Composition articles

• Talk:Sparrow Mass Infobox discussion started by RexxS, 30 March 2013.
• Talk:The Rite of Spring Infobox discussion started by Andy Mabbett, 30 May 2013.
• Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 Infobox discussion started by Nikkimaria 27 May

Composer articles

• Talk:Robert_Stoepel#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 27 February 2013
• Talk:Enrique_Granados#Infobox_on_this_article: discussion started by Kleinzach, 4 March 2013
• Talk:Peter_Planyavsky#Infobox discussion started by Gerda Arendt, 5 March 2013
• Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 21 March 2013
• Talk:George_Frideric_Handel#Mini-infobox infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 25 March 2013
• Talk:Richard_Wagner#No_infobox ‘no infobox’ proposal by Gerda Arendt, 16 May 2013

MOS

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_7#Collapsed_or_hidden_infoboxes protest against collapsing infoboxes started by Andy Mabbett, 6 March 2013

Templates for deletion (TFD)

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15#Template:Collapsed_infobox_section_begin now closed as keep. nomination by Andy Mabbett 15 March 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_Bruckner_symphony proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_musical_work proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013

IMO a one revert rule-based approach would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. Kleinzach 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ Sphilbrick: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata BWV 103: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a cute example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel the strong need to emphasize again that, for an admin with a checkered past who is clearly subject to WP:INVOLVED, it is not ok to stalk Andy's edits, no matter how much he has blundered in the past. That's the immediate core problem here (aside from the overriding infobox stuff), and to do nothing just means more time wasted down the road. Fix this now, please. Jusdafax 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is not relevant in this situation because INVOLVED concerns an involved admin using, or proposing to use, administrative tools. The actual problem is that a small team of technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders—that is the problem which should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Day by day I hop this thread will archive. "The problem" in it is NOT the infobox, NOT "technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders", - the problem is that one editor feels stalked by another, and I of all people certainly know how that feels. With other problems, go to other threads. 18 discussions have been listed above as "drowning" content work, please look yourself if that is true, I don't see it. Show me one of those where an infobox was added to an article in a way that could be called "disruptive". Perhaps check your premises. Are you aware that Andy can't even edit, while Nikkimaria keeps reverting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Each of the two links at "keeps reverting" points to a discussion about an infobox. I have only dipped my toes into this dispute (and that was perhaps six months ago) and have no particular passion for either side, but the situation is clear: some editors LIKE infoboxes, and LIKE putting facts into them, while other editors DONTLIKE infoboxes and DONTLIKE what they regard as superfluous facts. This ANI report was started by an editor who regards someone checking his edits as stalking, but it's not possible for anything short of a three-month arbcom case to decide whether editor A (who is known to have been enthusiastically promoting infoboxes literally for years) is more or less at fault than editor B (who is known to have been enthusiastically resisting the promotion of infoboxes). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@SP, nice idea, but there's a simpler way...count the number of edits to this thread (main and subthreads) by Andy and Nikki. The numbers will tell you who's been trying to find a solution and who's been blowing this off. It continues to boggle my mind at how long and hard users will argue over the simplest of things here. If people would behave the way that had to at work to keep their job, we wouldn't have these problems. If wiki had a DR system that worked we wouldn't have these problems either. There are many reasons for this and I see no solution. The United Nations can solve things quicker and easier than wiki can, and that's scary. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no solution other than a central decision that infoboxes are or are not mandatory. The time an editor is prepared to spend arguing their case at ANI is not a reasonable way to measure whether one editor is stalking another. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close redux - with remedies

From what I can see, the basis of this case is a complex battle between teams of dedicated turf warriors. While I applaud Sphilbrick for making a real effort to look through the history of the battle in a short (couple-of-days-long) examination, I think there is general agreement that the two main root issues can only properly be addressed by the ArbCom. These two issues being (1) what is considered best practices regarding the placement of infoboxes in classical music articles, and (2) which if any of the main turf warriors have been acting in violation of Wikipedia's rules on collegiality and should therefore be sanctioned. In this AN/I, there has been a lot of sniping back and forth but very very little input from either of the figures in the central discussion (10 posts from Andy and 3 from Nikki). A casual reader would wrongly assume that Gerda (at 27 posts) is on trial here.

So If the central issues cannot be addressed by AN/I then it's time to close this discussion, however I do think that there are stop-gap measures that AN/I can introduce that would greatly improve the situation by defanging the central warriors in this turf battle. I strongly recommend imposing a 2-way interaction ban between Nikki and Andy for now (narrowly construed - only regarding the infobox issue - neither can revert the other, neither can participate in an infobox discussion that the other is engaged in). The benefit of this solution is that it will halt the most problematic aspects of the battle - the slow-paced reverting back and forth, the potential for edit stalking, and the further expression of their contrary and absolutist editorial POVs. And it will also provide a clear impetus for both editors to bring the underlying case to ArbCom as several reasonable editors at this AN/I have previously suggested. If Arbitration determines either Andy or Nikki to be entirely blameless then they can certainly lift the interaction ban, modify it, or take other action, but this issue needs to be addressed because this whole thing is giving Wikipedia a black eye. I'm sure it would make some anti-Wikipedia blogger's day to discover that this kind of thing is going on at WikiProject Classical Music of all places.

Let's force them to drop the stick for now by imposing this stop-gap interaction ban and then wash our hands of it to allow them to build their case for ArbCom. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe this summary (and many of those above as well) entirely misses the point and mischaracterizes the issues, which go beyond the infobox one-- having more to do with groups of technical editors who target in particular but not exclusively Featured articles to impose personal preferences against guidelines and consensus, in some past cases using socks to evade detection and scrutiny while moving from one suite of articles to another to install personal preferences, and doing this against the consensus of WikiProjects and established content contributors, who know the topics, edit the articles frequently, and can and do explain why these technically minded edit warriors are frequently negatively impacting content. Featured articles are targeted because by installing personal preferences there, editors can more easily force those preferences on other articles. This has been a problem for a long time, and the names that pop up in these discussions are often familiar.

Infoboxes are not the only area where this occurs, and we most certainly have lost valuable editors in the past when groups of technical editors have suddenly appeared on articles to impose their personal preferences, be it citation style, formatting, dates, infoboxes, lists, whatever. Anyone unaware of the number of valuable content editors we have lost to this very issue-- and the effect on Featured articles in particular-- likely isn't aware enough of the particulars here to be weighing in effectively. It is music and infoboxes today: it was something else six months ago, something else a year ago, it will be something else six months from now, but those who cannot or do not add content have long found ways to impose their personal preferences on the Project over the objections of those who actually build the content.

Because PotW wants to characterize this as a stalking issue doesn't make it so. ArbCom has weighed in recently on what constitutes stalking, and my read on that (which of course could be wrong FWIW) is that it is not stalking for admins to follow edits of known problematic editors who act against guideline, policy and consensus. An interaction ban will NOT stop the underlying issue here: what would be more helpful would be for more admins to follow the edits of the technical edit warriors who breach consensus and guideline to install their personal preferences so that the extent of this problem will be revealed.

Too may good content editors have already left because of this problem ... and most of them were involved at the FA level. Little is to be gained by mentioning departed editors by name, but this issue is most certainly a factor in my decreased editing: I have little inclination to constantly deal with bands of editors who show up on articles to install their personal preferences when those preferences negatively impact content. This is not only about infoboxes-- it is about tagteaming and content editors being chased off. Arbcom is not needed: more admin eyes following the problem should solve it.

Trouts to all of the editors who used inflammatory sub-headings above: do not the instructions here call for neutral sub-headings ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

From reading the above (and not being familiar at all with the gritty details of the warring at the WP:CM articles), though, it sounds like this particular issue - infoboxes within Classical Music articles - is a known and unsettled matter and that there are large numbers of legitimate content editors on both sides who view this trivial issue as worth crusading over. I'm not sure it makes any sense to dismiss the editors on one side of the disagreement as ne'er-do-well "technical editors" and to declare the others to be good "content editors". The facts don't seem to bear out this conclusion. It sounds like a large-scale discussion of the underlying issue (outside of AN/I) is what is required in order to pinpoint consensus which can then be applied to the relevant articles. Regarding the tensions between editors based on behavior, ArbCom does sound like the only solution since AN/I doesn't have the time resources to deal with it. The best way AN/I can help in my view is to contain the battle (reverting, stalking, POV-pushing talk page disruption) by imposing the above suggested 2-way interaction ban (at least temporarily until Arbitration has occurred). With a history stretching back several years, it doesn't sound like this problem is simply going to go away on its own. And I think that the increase of administrative stalking/attention on one side rather than the other is only a means to drive away those editors deemed to be on the "wrong side" of the argument. A narrowly-construed 2-way interaction ban applied only between Andy and Nikki is unlikely in my view to drive away content editors or to have a chilling effect on content edits. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Still and again ... the infobox matter has been settled several times, in several places, so some groups turn instead to making individual articles into battlegrounds to advance personal preferences, while content editors who are respecting consensus and guideline are overwhelmed by folks who tagteam and have no involvement with those articles, wanting to install their own preferences. And it is not only infoboxes ... it is that today, classical music today, but something else each time the same editors bring their personal preferences to bear on articles. Preventing admins from doing something about this is not the way to go; admins, please start adminning the issue by becoming aware of the same editors who frequently override consensus to install personal stylistic preferences on articles they don't even regularly edit. It's been going on long enough. There is no need to characterize a "wrong side" or "right side"; previous RFCs and guidelines are clear enough. I don't buy the argument that admins don't have the "time or resources" to deal with it-- awareness is enough to begin dealing with it. Why do certain editors appear en masse on articles they have never edited to install personal preferences ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What I find particularly galling about this is that a few years ago Giano came up with a perfectly good compromise in Montacute House, a partially collapsed infobox that allows for larger images, but even that was unacceptable to PoTW. Nevertheless I used it successfully in a recent FAC, Sunbeam Tiger. Eric Corbett 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone disagrees with the notion that this discussion has more than one level. One level is whether our policy is sufficiently clear on usage of infoboxes, but as SandyGeorgia points out, that summarization is too coarse, and masks other issues. However, one other level is the behavior issue, which is the original claim, that of stalking. I'm not convinced that the content issues have yet been fully resolved, but this is not the place for content resolution. Nor is Arbcom, so I'm not following the claim that this will have to go to Arbcom. They don't deal with content issues.

ANI is for behavior issues. The alleged behavior is stalking, with a list of 22 reverts as evidence. Yet, as SandyGeorgia points out, it is not prohibited to follow the edits of someone who is believed to be violating policies and guidelines. Andy presumably believes it is stalking, because he thinks he is editing within policy. Nikkimaria presumably continues to reverts because she believes policy supports her position. That's why I think the behavior claims should be closed, as two good faith editor both believe they are editing according to policy. Separately, and elsewhere, we ought to revisit the policy questions, but that's for another venue. This is ANI, where we attempt to determine whether behavior requires admonishment or more. I think both parties should be urged to cite policy when adding or reverting, and go to the talk page more, but I don't see any justification for blocks of either party. Let's close this so we can address real issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI is indeed for behaviour issues. This was an opportunity to get three high octane editors to moderate their behaviour. If that doesn’t happen — and it could be done by imposing a simple one revert rule — then we will all have been wasting our time. What is the message? It’s fine to be an aggressive edit warrior – so long as you do it skilfully, Mabbett-Nikki-Gerda style. --Kleinzach 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR is ineffective when tag-teaming is involved; it only gives an advantage to those who call in their buddies to continue reverting (I've never seen Nikkimaria travel with a pack). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If Nikkimaria was the sole champion of her side of the argument then this would be a non-issue. She could get slapped on the wrist for disruption and we could move on. But if tag-team reversion is going on then it sounds like it's occurring on both sides of the turf war. Given the level of experience and the large numbers of edits these high-profile editors make, a targeted 1RR would certainly seem to put a damper on the problem. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the impression that tag-team reversion is "occurring on both sides". I've not seen it, and I do believe a targeted 1RR would benefit only those who want to overrule already established consensus to install personal technical preferences, and that this will be to the detriment of article quality. IIRC, Arbcom has already ruled on the behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag-team reversion has hardly ever been a factor in this. It certainly hasn't been recently. Editors who revert three times in 24 hours don't need teams. 1RR would curb some of the aggression which is a feature of the argument. That's why I am recommending it as a moderate, minimal approach to the situation. --Kleinzach 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is for behavioral issues if indeed the noticeboard's participants have the time to properly address them. Unless I'm getting the wrong impression, though, the behavioral issues here sound like they extend back a few years. Add to that the fact that the parties involved are impressively prolific editors and it strikes me that this may require the kind of in-depth examination that ArbCom is better at. But I'm not completely discounting AN/I by any means. I just think there may be a need to go further at a future date. In the meanwhile I strongly feel that the whole nasty situation calls out for intervention and this AN/I thread offers a very convenient starting point. A 2-way interaction ban still seems like a sensible move to me, but mandatory 1RR as Kleinzach suggests would probably be a good alternative to that. I think most people agree that blocking or banning without much deeper examination that we've given it in this thread goes too far, but something like a narrow interaction ban or a 1RR restriction seems like it would fit the bill nicely. Doing nothing at all or (even worse) taking sides on this content dispute seems like a wasted opportunity to take some of the wind out of this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding interaction bans we'd need several, not just one, if we opted for that approach. Andy Mabbett Vs. Nikkimaria is only one of the antagonistic relationships involved, and it's certainly not the major one. If you scan the debates (that I listed above) you'll see this clearly enough. --Kleinzach 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is so hard about expecting that editors won't show up on articles they have never edited before, expecting to impose their personal technical preferences against already established consensus (particularly when the targeted articles are frequently Featured Articles)? Of course, I understand that it's easier to make everyone culpable rather than look at how content is actually being impacted and sort out the real issues ... again, if more admins followed those previously identified in dispute resolution, the problem would likely disappear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto

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

---

Stemming from a conflict regarding WP:COPYPASTE at Talk:Muawiyah I, User:Flagrantedelicto has engaged in three days of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches despite having been warned for such behavior by multiple users over the past few months.

• From the original content dispute itself:

1. " I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again."
2. "Don't mistake me for a non-Muslim WP editor who is unfamiliar with Islamic protocol and etiquette."
3. "And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ?"
4. "And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP."
5. "Don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality"...There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that."
6. "And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ?"
7. "lol...You must have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1...And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor?"
8. " you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV"
9. "First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's."
10. "I don't really need to know who you are, nor do I particularly care to. But I am aware of your POV"

• Flagrantedelicto being uncivil due to my attempts at seeking conduct dispute resolution

1. "Where do you come across with such wild accusations ?"
2. "If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control."
3. " I shall introduce (or perhaps re-introduce) myself as the editor who is supposedly "out of control", or so I have been labelled...lol"
4. "And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa."
5. "Your above semi-rhetoric of a response would even have been mildly effective had it not been for you running to a WP Admin and crying...You also falsely stated that I was "out of control" and had "outbursts"...lol"
6. You ask me to assume good faith, but lodge a false complaint of me being "out of control" and engaging in "outbursts"...You can offer all the policy rhetoric you want, but your POV is transparent"

• Flagrantedelicto's rejection of attempts at solving the dispute

1. By User:Toddy1 at 01:04, 17 June 2013, flat out rejected at 01:13, 17 June 2013
2. I asked Flagrantedelicto to cease his unprovoked mockery of me for quoting Stephen Jay Gould at 08:03, 17 June 2013, he simply denied what he was doing at 19:25, 17 June 2013
3. Toddy1 also expressed the view that Flagrantedelicto's comment was rude at 01:59, 18 June 2013, Flagrantedelicto once again flatly rejected this at 12:29, 18 June 2013 and denies that such concerns exist at 13:34, 18 June 2013.

• Flagrantedelicto's seeking of a third opinion even contains incivility

1. "::@MezzoMezzo. Your Stephen Jay Gould adage to Faiz Haider certainly sounds profound. It would be nice if you applied it to yourself."

• Flagrantedelicto's speculating about the religion of other editors

1. "Toddy1 (who gave the impression of being a non-Muslim) titled a new section header in Johnleeds1 personal Talk Page HAZRAT MUAWIYAH--Which almost no non-Muslim WP editor would have used. This reveals a Muslim affiliation..."

There is quite a bit more, but I'm only describing what requires urgent attention. In six years of editing, I've seen this maybe twice, and both instances ended with blocks. The longer this continues, the more bold this editor becomes, and thus I feel this requires immediate attention now. It is also worth noting that the admin I contacted, who previously warned Flagrantedelicto for incivility (he responded by saying "Before you start lecturing me, I couldn't care if you are the founder WP, please review both sides and don't cop to a double standard. If I am blocked do you think that really scares me ? LOL I don't like threats...Not from you or anyone. I also don't like your tone, either"), politely declined to mediate the dispute this morning due to other commitments. I don't see any other solution other than ANI at this point; this is a rather extreme case, at least in my experience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Editor seems rude which cant be helped, otherwise the only issue I see is his use of religious beliefs as a reason to question other editors capability (as noted above and also in some of his talk page contribs). WP:PERSONAL Amit (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• MezzoMezzo must learn how to handle talk page disputes himself..this is the 2nd time he has opened an ANI thread in these couple weeks..whats ironic is that there are cases of him being uncivil but he turns a blind eye on his own actions..apparently this user isnt aware that talk pages sometimes do get heated during discussion...this is another frivolous filing on Mezzo's part instead of attempting to calm things down he expects other users to do it for him. Baboon43 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The last thread was regarding you, Baboon. Nobody called it frivolous; I simply chose the wrong place and was encouraged to file an RFC/U by multiple editors, with one even calling it necessary. I thank you for your advice and perhaps I have made mistakes, but given that I drafted an RFC/U about your conduct I am inclined to be somewhat reserved in accepting your constructive criticism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are two related articles Muawiyah I and Yazid I. Flagrantedelicto has made more edits to these articles in the past six months than everyone else put together. Flagrantedelicto was asked to provide further details about sources that he/she was citing, so that other users can verify that these sources support the statements allegedly based on them. He/she has been asked this before. The kind of details requested include, publisher, date of publication, ISBN (if any), etc. Page numbers would also be useful. These details are not difficult to provide if you really have seen the source you are citing (though finding the right page numbers is more time consuming that providing publishing details). I would of course entirely understand a delay - a "hold on" message would have been acceptable.
• When I asked for further details on sources being cited on Talk:Yazid I on 2 February 2013, Flagrantedelicto did not answer, but instead a reply was posted by someone who has only ever edited Wikipedia on 8-9 September 2012 and 5 February 2013 explaining that other parts of the article had no citations, and giving reasons why there was no need/point in providing further details on citations.
• I raised this issue again on 9 and 11 May 2013 on Talk:Muawiyah I. Flagrantedelicto's reply was the other stuff exists argument, listing some problems with some citations by other people, which I fixed on 12 May, but he/she did not respond by fixing the problem with his/her citations.
• MezzoMezzo has raised the same issue (using different wording) on 16 June. He/she has advanced the theory that the citations have been cut and pasted from online forums, which is certainly a plausible hypothesis. If Flagrantedelicto is acting in good faith, why does he/she refuse to provide further details on the books that he/she claims to be citing?

• Flagrantedelicto has a habit of providing walls of text on talk pages. It is often hard to see the relevance of these.

• The question is whether or not the article should have sufficient details on sources for other editors to know what book is being cited and verify statements in the articles. What possible relevance is outing me?

• Personally I find some of the remarks that Flagrantedelicto makes to be uncivil. For example, please see User talk:Toddy1#Yazid I Talk Page, which was in response to my asking him to remove some uncivil words from one of his postings about a new user. Unfortunately Flagrantedelicto appears to believe that everybody apart from him/herself is a POV-pusher...--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, please can the comments by Flagrantedelicto outing me be removed by admins from Talk:Muawiyah I and any other talk pages with them on. I have a right to privacy, and speculation about my religion is not relevant to the topic.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that, his speculation about your (Toddy's) private beliefs does seem like outing. He was already warned by two admins for trying to out another person back in January - User:Someguy1221 and User:The Bushranger - and his reply was that "My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?)" and to accuse one of those admins of threatening him. An outing attempt in January isn't directly relevant now, but it does show that there is no excuse for this current outing attempt.

Look. The guy gets warned by an admin for incivility and he tells her "I also don't like your tone"; I don't know why User:Diannaa didn't slap a temporary block there but I admit I know little of how that works. He tries to out an editor that same month and accuses the warning admin of threatening him. Apparently on the Yazid article he's also behaving rudely and now, he launches into a tirade of insults and abuse for three straight days (hence my feeling that this is urgent and appropriate for ANI). This is clearly a case of a person who has been emboldened by the lack of action. He's violated WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL enough times in three days alone to warrant administrative action and his history indicates no reason to believe that this behavior will stop. The two or three articles for which he has very openly claimed ownership are now essentially locked from discussion due to his rudeness. Something needs to be done not only in response to all these violations but for the good of the encyclopedia as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As of a few hours ago, the user is still directing rude personal remarks at myself and Toddy1 as well, including on talk spaces that neither of us had previously commented on. I am looking bacj now and there were also more attempts than the one above to dig up private information in Toddy1 but I don't know how to post diffs because I am using my mobile browser and I'm not skilled with it. Look, this is a case of repeated incivility without provoking in our part in addition to what seems like attempts at outing. Something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE to me - constant attempts to out people, deliberately seeking out conflict, horrendous uncivil comments, etc. A lengthy block, or even an indef, appears to be required. With response to Baboon's comment, well, that appears to be quite clear trolling as well - MezzoMezzo has clearly attempted to discuss the situation, failed, and come here looking for valid sanctions - as is the point of ANI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Past behavior is relevant if it shows the user either can't or won't adapt to the collaborative editing environment. I was the target of the attempted outing in January, during an unnecessarily prolonged discussion over Mark Antony's date of birth. We had unequivocal statements placing the DOB from ancient historians and classicists, some of whom are notable enough for to have their own article. Even after I located and translated a German article narrowly focused on the DOB, along with finding the primary sources on which the secondary sources had been based, the user continued to make an OR counter-argument. When it comes to marshaling scholarship, I can take care of myself, but I was appalled by the user's attempts to undermine my credibility on the basis of gender. The worst of this, as I recall, was in the suppressed post in which the outing occurred. As one admin noted at the time, virtually every post made by Flagrantedelicto contained an insult or bullying remark. We shouldn't allow users to create that kind of toxic environment. A few other editors participated in that discussion, at least one at careful length (P Aculeius), and none agreed with Flagrantedelicto—until, after a couple of reports at ANI, the mysterious LiShihKai, who had never before edited Wikipedia, weighed in. LiShihKai has made a total of eight edits, six at Talk:Mark Antony, the last of which is perhaps the most scurrilous piece of incivility to which I've been subjected on Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this party is hosted in my honor, please allow me to crash it. I totally disagree with Cynwolfe's input as it is biased and has no bearing on the Muawiyah I article which is the issue. As Cynwolfe has probably no clue as to what has been transpiring in the Muawiyah I article. Also, I have joined this discussion. So let us stick to the facts. Also, Cynwolfe kindly forgot to mention that she initiated the adversity by calling me "ignorant". That is why WP Admin Diannaa did not go further with Cynwolfe's complaints. Anyone may ask me about the issue in the Muawiyah I article who has actually read word-for-word the exchanges. I agree with Baboon43's analysis. The only comments that really belong here are by those who have read word-for-word the exchanges in the Muawiyah I Talk Page. I put in a considerable amount of effort to improve that article over a month's time. So did another user Johnleeds1. We had our differences in perspectives but came to an understanding and resolved them amicably. This can be viewed by anyone in the Muawiyah I Talk Page as well as the Flagrantedelicto Talk Page. MezzoMezzo was not involved in a single discussion for over a month. Turns up all of a sudden and deletes hours of work without discussing it first. These are the rather Uncivil remarks by MezzoMezzo toward me which was really INITIATED by MezzoMezzo. Anyone here in this notice board discussion can go visit the Muawiyah I Talk Page and see for themselves :

all you did here was go into a rant about your own personal viewpoints on the subject,..... MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors...... MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And then MezzoMezzo admitted that he/she was not aware of the lengthy discussions between Johnleeds1 and myself. My dissatisfaction with Johnleeds1 is that he inundated this article with uncited entries (long before I restructured-NOT deleted any material of this article, which I only did later to uncited sources). All you have to do is go back and check the edit history to verify this. This article had dozens of sub-paragraphs that were entered by Johnleeds1 which were totally uncited. Toddy1 was surprisingly flexible about this, but with me, kept requesting even more detailed info than already provided to my entries which were all cited with references. These double standards are clearly evident and undeniable. And I voiced my CONCERNS regarding them, not accusations. And then MezzoMezzo suddenly turns up and DELETES considerable material which took quite an effort on my part to enter. MezzoMezzo also deleted the entire Shia View section of which I had no participation in (as I am SUNNI). The Shia View section was the product of other WP editors' efforts which were amply cited with references. MezzoMezzo did not participate in any of the lengthy discussions between myself and Johnleeds1 and just suddenly appears without having any awareness of what the content of our discussions were about. This statement by MezzoMezzo illustrates this:

Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday;....MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As for my dispute with Johnleeds1, he too accused of me of a couple of things I never stated. But at least Johnleeds1 realized this and apologized to me more than once regarding his mistake. Johnleeds1 mistook his debate with someone else entirely in another WP article altogether, then accused me of something the other WP user supposedly stated. After realizing his mistake, Johnleeds1 apologized.

Flagrantedelicto sorry if I offended you. It was not my intension to offend you. The Abu Bakr thing was a mistake. .... --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto sorry if I upset you earlier. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And my disagreements with Johnleeds1 were resolved amicably. You can view this yourself in both my personal Talk Page and in the Muawiyah I Talk Page. Johnleeds1 even complimented my efforts and agreed with some of the points I brought up to him. Here is what Johnleeds1 had to say about my efforts in the Muawiyah I article:

Flagrantedelicto you have done a good job of putting the article in chronological order. It looks much better now. Flagrantedelicto it may be best to move some of the text from the Shia section about Abdullah ibn Umar and others into the Sunni section too. All early books used by the Sunni favor Hassan and Ali over Muawiyah..... --Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the contradictory Toddy1 has stated about my efforts in the Muawiyah I article:

When people see the generally good work you do on Wikipedia, and notice in your good work some small errors in wording, and fix it for you... That is called helping you.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are a good editor and are of great value to Wikipedia. But please be more self-aware, and more tolerant of views you do not share.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If anything, the above block of text by Flagrantedelicto further proves the point - he is absolutely unrepentant and unwilling to address the concerns of his peers here. While his message was uncharacteristically polite - likely due to it being on ANI - it still seems to focus on editing patterns of myself rather than the issues of incivility and outing. According to WP:OUTING:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious, attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Here, Flagrantedelicto once again tries to justify his outing attempt on CNWolfe by saying that he felt the other editor brought it on themself. This is in addition to his refusal to address his outing attempts on Toddy1. This is the second time; he should be indefinitely banned immediately for this alone.

On top of that, we now have testimony from both Toddy1 and CnWolfe that this battleground mentality and proclivity toward insults has remained unchanged since at least January. Additionally, I only just now checked WP:NOTHERE as I had forgotten about the policy. It includes: General pattern of disruptive behavior, Treating editing as a battleground, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention and Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods. I think everybody here can agree that Flagrantedelicto is both guilty and unrepentant on both counts.

First of all, a temporary block won't work; he has shown defiance and even rudeness when warned by admins and it seems that a temporary block will only be a temporary solution.

Second of all, we have grounds per the policies above to request an indefinite ban. He has tried to out two editors now and has been unrepentant both times, even trying to justify his first outing attempt. This person should not be allowed to have an account on Wikipedia, as just the diffs above (there is still more) show. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wall of text by Flagrantedelicto

There was not any outing attempt on Toddy1. I will illustrate this now. Here is a copy-paste of how contradictory Toddy1 has been toward me-- In retrospective analysis, if it were not for Muawiyah's opposition to the properly elected Rashidun caliph, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Muawiyah's reputation would have been unanimously favourable among the eminent SUNNI theologians, chroniclers, and hagiographers. It was to illustrate this point that the section of Muawiyah's legacy was expanded. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC) POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC) "properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC) First of all, what do you mean by "you know it" (?) And fyi, properly elected means election by the Islamic Shura (Council), which was the Islamic standard since the foundation of the office of the Caliphate. That is what is meant by properly elected. There are POV phrases ALL throughout this article of which so many are UNCITED which you conveniently seem to be unaware of, so what prompted you to conclude that properly elected is POV pushing (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The following is a copy-paste of my CONCERNS (not accusations) about edtior Toddy1's questionable neutrality-- This New Section heading from Johnleeds1 Talk Page entered by Toddy1 -- Hazrat Muawiyah Thank you for the improvements you have made to the article on Muawiyah I.[2] The new section has some citations, which is great. Would it be possible for you to add some more citations please. You must have some sources for the information you amended, and and also for the new paragraphs you added that lack citations. It is much easier for you to add the citations for this than for other people. I also have one quibble. You have a paragraph that starts: "Sunni scholars interpret..." This is weasel-like. Please either give citations to a secondary source that says this, or amend to "Sunni scholars, such as X, Y and Z, interpret...", which would also need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Only Muslims address a historical or religious figure of Islam with the honorific title of HAZRAT. When Toddy1 did this on Johnleeds1 Talk Page, this gives a strong indication of possible Islamic affiliation by WP user-editor Toddy1. This affiliation, from speculation, could be that Toddy1 is a possible revert/convert to Islam, or someone who is headed in that direction. Only someone of SUNNI or SALAFI/WAHHABI persuasion would address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. It is almost certain that NO NON-Muslim WP editor/user would have addressed Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT MUAWIYAH. However, even among the vast SUNNI population, there is a half percentage who DO NOT address the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. Among the SUNNI Muslim populace, there is a division of those who address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT, and those who DO NOT. The point of all this being that if Toddy1 is presenting herself/himself as possibly a NON-Muslim, entirely neutral WP editor, then this revealing documented information has to be brought to the forefront and acknowledged. Not that whatever Toddy1's theological affiliation may be makes any difference as a WP editor/user, but it does make a difference if Toddy1 is acting as a mediator in the Yazid I and Muawiyah I WP article pages. This could manifest itself in potential favoritism and partiality toward Salafi/Wahhabi influenced views of nearly half of the Sunni Muslim population. Then the objectivity and neutrality as a mediating WP editor/user is clearly jeopardized. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Here are illustrations/examples of the apparent lack of objectivity and neutrality by WP editor Toddy1 from some of his/her responses in the WP Talk Pages-- You do not seem to understand my point. You object to Bewley's book. Your arguments against it were not based on Wikipedia policy (or if they were, you did not explain them well enough). Your posts show that you have an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son. As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. .... --Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC) In your anti-Muawiyah opinion Bewley's book is polemical. Mhaider5 shared your view. (He/she made 29 edits to Wikipedia from November 2007 to November 2008.) Have you read the book in question? Do you have any evidence from reliable sources to back up your/Mhaider5's claims? ....--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC) None of this relevant to the issue of whether Bewley's book is a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. The valid objection to the website, is that the text of her talk in Norwich is self-published. This particular objection does not apply to the book, which I have a copy.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Thus, all of these above examples of some of the responses of WP editor Toddy1 indicate a possible bias toward my position (which seeks to represent a NON-Salafi/Wahhabi POV of traditional SUNNI Islamic ideology), while on the other hand, indicating possible favoritism and partiality toward WP user/editor Johnleeds1 (who gives the clear impression of representing Salafi/Wahhabi POV, or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced POV of a percentage of SUNNI Islamic ideology). From further analysis, all the interjections of WP editor Toddy1 are clearly aimed at my responses and not a single one toward WP user Johnleeds1. This is further indication of possible favoritism and partiality toward one WP user/editor (eg., Johnleeds1) over another WP user/editor (eg., myself, Flagrantedelicto). Some further points to be addressed are that WP editor Toddy1 indicated that he/she had a copy of Aisha Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith. This appears to be somewhat unusual for a WP editor who is acting as a NON-Muslim mediator. It is further unusual when this same WP editor takes it upon herself/himself to seek REFERENCES and cite them on behalf of another WP user/editor or users/editors that had listed nine (9) INCOMPLETE cited sources (when the author was cited but the actual BOOKS were not). This is puzzling because when I myself had requested this WP editor (Toddy1) to do so on my behalf several months ago, because this WP editor kept interrupting me when I tried to insert any citations, as I was (at that time) relatively new to WP editing, this WP editor expressed to me much later that his/her responsibility was to assist editors/users (such as myself) in our edits to WP articles so that these edits meet WP guidelines. A summarizing point to be made: When presenting the traditional historical persona of Umayyad caliphs Yazid I (which is almost unanimous) and Muawiyah I (which is ambivalent) from all the classical Islamic literature of mostly SUNNI Imams (Religious Leaders) and Ulama (Scholars), is subsequently referred to as having an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son by the WP editor in question (who is acting as mediator to the differing views of Islamic historiography), this then indicates a propensity toward Salafi/Wahhabi or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced SUNNI ideology. A prime example of such propensity is illustrated in this earlier exchange on this Talk Page between myself and WP editor Toddy1-- Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC) POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC) "properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The bottom line of my objection is toward the apparent mis-representation in WP articles of what are essentially Salafi/Wahhabi POV which are being presented as mainstream, traditional SUNNI Islamic POV. What I am sincerely requesting is a mediating WP editor who is unbiased, neutral, and objective. This can only be properly achieved by a NON-Muslim WP mediating editor who is genuinely not influenced by any of the differing POV's of the various creeds (madh'dhab) of the Islamic faith. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Now where in the above transcript does it indicate that I am trying to "out" Toddy1 (?) My concern was for a NEUTRAL editor who could mediate. If Toddy1 had any Islamic affiliation, and that affiliation was partial toward a pro-Muawiyah I bias, then it is only natural to raise concerns about this. There is no "outing" going on. I am a declared SUNNI Muslim myself. And I sincerely requisitioned a truly neutral mediating editor. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My god, is anybody else watching this? He's trying to out Toddy1 again right here in the middle of ANi. This is absolutely ridiculous, on top of his further accusations of Wahhabism against an editor who hasn't even participated here. How on Earth is this person not blocked right now? He's literally trying to out the same editor again right now, in the middle of ANI. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Flagrant, I'm going to make this really simple. Unless you want to take a forced break from Wikipedia, stop speculating about other editors' personal lives, and restrict yourself to commenting on content. This warning will be repeated on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy 1221...I'm going to make this even simpler: Don't threaten me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor: Speculating on the religion of an editor is not WP:outing:

Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.

Outing involves posting information that may be used to identify the editor (whether correct or not). Stating someone is possibly part of a religious group is not outing. If he stated the mosque this guy might attend, or what suburb he lived in, that would be a different story. I hate to point out the obvious, but chances are most people who edit articles which are related to a religion likely also follow that religion, its not outing, its common sense. In the case above all that has been said is that someone has refered to someone in a certain way which likely means they are a member of or associated with a certain sect of Islam. Just like if on a Christian article if someone refer to a non-canonical modern day saint as such, they might be an LDS member. Purely for the record, I hold no religious affiliation whatsoever. -- Nbound (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You do make a good point there. Regardless, the comment still raises serious privacy concerns, in addition to the fact that the user is trying to justify their speculation. That, with the constant aggression and combative tendencies since January, still causes me to lead toward a ban; I can only speak for myself. As an uninvolved editor, could you (Nbound) comment on the situation as it stands right now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the situation could stand is if you treated me like a fellow WP editor (who has a different perspective), and stop running in every other direction to everyone else. I am no alien from outer space but a human being (and a fellow Muslim). I'm clearly open to reach an understanding as I did with Johnleeds1 and we even came to agree on most points. Instead, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I'll tell you this much, what faces me has never frightened me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Scot as apparent on my talk page (my father's French but culturally I identify with my mother's side), so as you could guess the bulk of my family is still Christian. My brother is an atheist, like I was before converting. I don't deal with people based on their religion, not in real life and certainly not on Wikipedia. So the religion card doesn't work here.

While I'm happy you're suddenly being somewhat polite here on ANI, the reality is that you're combative and rude with just about everybody you interact here. Just a few minutes ago, User:Someguy1221 warned you on your talk page like he said he would here and your answer was: "First of all, do you have the authorization to do this (?) And also I'm going to make this even simpler: Don't threaten me." Really, are you going to just turn Wikipedia into a battleground and take on all comers? You're still mouthing off to admins? I will reiterate: User:Flagrantedelicto is not here to build an encyclopedia and he has made that clear, from January up until a few minutes ago. They need to be banned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your closing comment is as hostile and uncompromising as it gets. Who are you to judge and evaluate who should be banned (?) You, who did not put in the hours of work on the Muawiyah article, nor improved it from its previous state which was a mess. It literally had paragraphs and sub-paragraphs duplicated in different sections. Neither you nor Toddy1 seemed to do anything about this. When I took the initiative, all I received was your hostile response. Even Johnleeds1 and Toddy1 openly complimented my efforts as I have already illustratred. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

TBH, the whole thing is a bit of TL;DR. As a bit of general advice I would warn any editor who uses strong battleground tactics, that their time on wikipedia will be limited, either by the community at RfC/U, an admin directly, or <insert deity here> forbid, ArbCom. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and should be treated as such. Unless an admin has been following this, and/or there is a definitely unarguable cause for ban, its likely that this will quietly slink off into the archives. I would suggest one of two options: Either an RfC/U to gauge community consensus on long term editor behaviour, or DRN for a formal approach to the content problems. I will not personally take part in in any DRN case pertaining to this (Im a DRN volunteer) due to COI issues as I am now technically "involved". And am not familiar enough with the entire situation to comment on an RfC either. -- Nbound (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sad yet true, this has become bloated. To me it seems crystal clear considering that just minutes ago the guy is still giving rather defiant orders to an admin for warning him, but if someone hasn't trudged through the walls of text it may not be clear. I'd still like to see if someone will take the time, as the absolute hostility this guy us showing to editor and admin alike seems absolutely deserving of a ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, stepping in as an admin here, let me be clear and simple and direct (unlike this thread. oy). I'm going to block Flagrantedelicto. There we are. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Violations of WP:Disrupt, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc., at the Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

Counterparty: Malke 2010 (talk)

Though the following issues arose in the context of a moderated discussion with an Arbcom member as moderator in relation to a suspended case, the burden on said moderator may have become too much, or he may be wanting to see what results when matters are left to the community. In any case, I’m compelled to seek input on the following matters. I have, incidentally, attempted to contact Silk Tork by email in relation to this matter, but he hasn't responded.

Earlier I posted a working draft for the major part of the Agenda section Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution, largely consisting of material on the Constitution. As it is a “working draft”, the object of posting it was to solicit input and comments toward further editing on the way to achieving a presentable text which could be put to a vote to assess consensus (SOP on that page).

Before posting the text, there had been a question as to whether I intended to put it to a vote, to which I responded

Of course, a vote will be called to assess consensus once a text has been composed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted, the response says "composed", but the that was made in haste, an as per past instances of proposing drafts and editing until a final consensus achieving text has been reached on the moderated discussion page, I as simply proceeding according to SOP. Moreover, the title of the section makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what the intended status of the text was "Working draft of Agenda section (partial) with section on the Constitution". Naturally the text was to be a working draft subject to revision based on the response and ensuing commentary, as per SOP.

Malke called a premature vote for no stated reason other than to dismiss the text outright before anyone had a chance to comment. Obviously that would serve to curtail discussion on the substance of the text, not to mention potential modifications, thereto. The section heading she chose read, “iVoteon proposal to add enormous amount of non-relevant text about the U.S. Constitution” [42], She subsequently revised that to remove the hostile an insulting portions. Prior to that, I had hatted that premature vote and left a comment. [43] She the reverted my hatting [44]

The objective of the editing behavior raised here would seem to be to cut off discussion and force a vote before the text has been assessed, commented on and revised accordingly, which would seem to raise issues with WP:DISRUPT. Obviously I feel that the text is relevant, so there is an issue with WP:AGF in regard to the characterization that the text was “non-relevant”. The reversion of my hatting of her premature call for vote and comment clearly indicating the situation and pointing to previous related comments would seem to raise issues with WP:CIVIL.

There has also been some POV pushing in the following comments. [45][46]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about others, but a previous situation where there was a previous vague and unclear discussion that went on that looked similar and then Ubikwit made a controversial edit saying that there was no opposition in the discussion. This I think has made me and possibly other folks want to weigh in clearly and early now on Ubikwit-led items. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? "Not sure" and "previous vague and unclear discussion" leave a lot to be desired in terms of specificity.

Indeed, I would prefer that you "weigh in clearly" and not in ambiguous term without providing diffs to that to which you are referring.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not "reporting" anybody....there is too much of that there already. My point is that some have become concerned of TLDR and unclear discussions where the inevitable resultant low participation might get interpreted as an "OK to change" and thus tend to clearly weigh in before that happens. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting party should remove this and post diff to User talk:SilkTork. He has been our babysitter at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. †TE†Talk 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment to admins:

1. Over the weekend of June 15-16, Ubikwit started a thread about a contentious topic and proposed an edit to the lede, which is probably the most contentious section in the whole of the Tea Party movement article. [47]

2. Another editor supported his proposed edit. Ubikwit voted his support, and then actioned the edit. He then informed Silk Tork of what he'd done. [48].

3. The moderated discussion has been progressing well, but often it takes up to two weeks of revisions and input from other editors before edits are actioned. Ubikwit is a lead contributor to that page and therefore knows very well that his vote and the vote of one other editor is not enough to action any edit to the article and especially not to the lede. And particularly, not over a slow weekend when participation by the others tends to be down.

4. He did not wait for wider discussion or for input from other editors. He was met with opposition [49]. As a result, Silk Tork had him revert the edit.

5. Since then, Ubikwit has again opened another thread regarding the same topic with a large wall of text as his proposed edit. This appeared to be the edit he intended to make. Having the experience of how he handled that last edit, and as the weekend is approaching, I opened the ivote section and others have since opposed his proposal. [50]

6. Per the rules laid down by Silk Tork, any issues with the moderated discussion belong on that page and any complaints about editors are to be brought to Silk Tork's talk page.

7. Since Ubikwit has said he emailed Silk Tork and has commented on ST's talk page, there doesn't seem any reason to bring this here. It appears to be another example of Ubikwit hounding me. He's been doing that since February. He's often confrontational, mentions my name at every venue he can, makes comments like this: [[51]], and makes frequent personal attacks. If any admins want evidence of the hounding I will be happy to provide diffs. Otherwise, I agree with ThinkEnemies. This is best addressed at the Tea Party moderated discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of misleading statements above. First, there was a third editor that voiced support for the proposed edit to the lead before I actioned it, and not a single "oppose" vote. Meanwhile, it had been more than two days since the vote was called and more than 24 hours since the last voicing of support.

I reported the edit to Silk Tork:

User_talk:SilkTork#Actioned_edit_of_reference_to_Constitution_in_lead

Silk Stork did not state that my edit was improper or against the rules, just laid out the principle that the main body of the text should be worked on first, and the lead edited subsequently to summarize the main body of the article:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Lead

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_on_Agenda_section

After recommending that the lead be returned to the form it was in at the time the article was locked (I carried that out), he unhatted the section on the Constitution and the Agenda that Malke had arbitrarily hatted, which was another behavior I brought to his attention.

Malke has been making efforts to obstruct discussion of the Constitution for some time now. Whereas she hatted the earlier section and refused to participate in discussion regarding the edit to the lead (which has been edited and reverted even prior to the discussion on the moderated page and ensuing edit), now she appears to have adopted a reverse tactic of prematurely calling a vote before anyone has had a chance to participate in the discussion and editing of the sample text. Moreover, it was her revert-warring of precisely an earlier version of this text while refusing to engage in a discussion of the substance of the content on the Talk page that resulted in the article being locked.

The diffs posted above also include Malke commenting on my WP:Competence in an unwarranted manner

Plus, huge walls of text with block quotes suggests to me a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with. When a writer can't paraphrase something and relies on block quotes instead, it usually means a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with.

Silk Tork has prohibited such commenting on editors instead of the edit.

In addition, this is now the second time she has leveled the false accusation of WP:Hounding against me [52]. In that case, I responded by email to Silk Tork in order to avoid inflaming the situation. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• As long as there is an open, albeit suspended AC case, as well as an attempt to moderate this issue, I think it's unlikely that an admin. with a modicum of knowledge on the background will be willing to take action on this thread alone. If Silk Tork, or any other admin following the discussions at that moderated discussion feel that some administrative actions in regards to behavior are required, then I'm sure they will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. As this board was not designed to determine "content issues", I'm not sure that actions on this thread would be appropriate. Perhaps this should be kept at the talk page discussion level. — Ched :  ?  03:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I have notified Silk Tork of this thread.

I drafted this complaint in a manner such as to address the disruptive editing and related behavior, not the content issues in relation to which that has arisen, but I appreciate the complexity of the context.

At any rate, if Silk Tork declines to comment here, then this thread can be closed and I will simply add a link to this thread and a summary to one of the AC case pages.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Ched, please do look into this. In suspending the case, we authorized discretionary sanctions for a purpose. If there is an editor who you feel is being disruptive, do not hesitate to topic ban them right out without fear of prejudicing the ArbCom case. NW (Talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as it entails a LOT of reading, I must beg a few hours sleep first. I'll do some research and reading tomorrow. (East coast USA time zone) .. and thank you for such trust - it is appreciated. — Ched :  ?  04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The following links might save a little time and effort:

1. An example of the work flow that has been established for proposing, discussing, and revising text until it is presentable for a vote to assess consensusTalk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Closed_discussions("Trimming 2" section)
2. Relevant discussions relating to editing and other behavior issues as per AC case pages

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010 (“Comments by others” section)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010_2 (“Comments by others” section)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have made it clear on several occasions that I am not always readily available to sort out issues, but that they should be brought to me, and then people wait. There is no issue important enough in that discussion that it has to be responded to urgently. I have advised people that obvious vandalism or BLP violations should be dealt with immediately - everything else is to be notified to me, and then people wait. Indeed, there can be a benefit for everyone involved in simply ignoring minor issues, and getting on with the more important task of building the article. Complaining about the actions of others is a huge part of the problem with that article. Walls of text, which are not about how to improve the article, but are about the behaviour of other editors, is not encouraging. I don't have the time today to look into the issue - I'm travelling - but I may have time to look into the matter this evening. I have no objection to an admin looking at the matter and making a judgement, and would indeed encourage that. The more independent eyes we have looking into the situation the better. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ched's Review which is limited with respect to the topic in its entirety, and focused solely on the thread before this board. After approximately 2 hours of reading last night, and another 2 hours this morning, I must say that staying focused on the core of this thread can be difficult. In the end my view is to try to remain on the "behavior" topics which I believe this board's function should be. I appreciate the passion of politics, but often find that editing in those areas to be contentious, frustrating, and un-enjoyable - and since I don't get paid for my time here, I tend to avoid it; but I digress. Ubikwit, my view is that you are attempting to rush to judgement here. While I understand that you may feel that others are stalling and filibustering to avoid your edits, I think you need to give others the time to review and consider things without the "I want an answer now" approach. While there is validity to the "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome on Wikipedia, I don't believe it's always been in the project's best interest to provide said grease. You need to stop, read, look, and listen to those around you rather than trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric, regardless of its validity or merit. To continue with the tired old cliche' sayings I was raised with: "Patience Is A Virtue". In conclusion: I will not be taking any administrative action toward any of the editors in this dispute/discussion at this time; other than to suggest to Ubikwit that he take a deep breath and accept the fact that often the path to the proper end is end is not always a quick and easy one. To be more clear; I suspect that others may be considering whether or not your efforts may be edging ever closer to that disruptive line that nobody should want to get near. — Ched :  ?  11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Followup I appreciate the amount of time you put into your work to evaluate the scenario, as it is rather involved. My concern in coming here with these issues was not to rush to judgement, but to seek relief against what I perceive as attempts to obstruct and impede progress on the article by running the clock out on the moderated discussion before issues that have proven intractable are addressed.

The moderated discussion is a time consuming process, and the discussion at hand was just getting underway before there was an attempt to prematurely vote down a text that was proffered as a working draft for comment, not presented as a proposed edit. Rather than stalling and filibustering of my edits, the concerns I intended to articulate were of the opposite nature of attempting to "I want an answer now" from everyone that this incomplete and unconsidered text is unacceptable for discussion.

I must admit that I do not see what you are addressing with respect to the statement "trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric".

Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Cup of tea please. Everyone can read your posts here, on multiple drama boards, on SilkTork's user talk page, and in the moderated discussion, and note the nature of your own edits, and see your multiple accusations of incivility etc. That is why we have the "cup of tea." Collect (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem in taking the time. I do understand the passion involved with political issues. I have friends on both sides of the isle, and to say that the 2012 election was a difficult time for us would be an understatement. :). If you would have seen some of my Facebook discussions - you likely wouldn't have know whether to laugh or cry. I do understand that some folks may feel they are under a time constraint in that the moderated discussion has a deadline; but my point is that article improvement does not have that same time constraint. The trick here is finding a way forward, and often that means trying to understand where others are coming from. Once you find the "HOW" of collaboration, then the "what" becomes clearer and easier. For example: When I see the section heading "Agenda", I immediately put on my "this might not be good" hat. While indeed it may be the most accurate descriptor, it can also be a highly charged and divisive word. There is the misnomer that we provide no "POV" here, when in reality what we must do is provide ALL POVs. The "neutrality" of NPOV comes in when both (or all) sides are given fair and equal treatment. Just IMO, but there ya go. Anyway - I do wish you all the very best in resolving this very difficult situation, and wish you all enjoyable editing once everyone emerges out the other side of the ride. Best. — Ched :  ?  12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the amicable discussion. I think that the advise regarding the "how" of collaboration is very important, and will make more of an effort to bear that in mind.

I don't want to belabor the point regarding the content issues, as they are extremely involved, but with regard to the Agenda section, since you mention it, that has been in the article for a very long time, and the issue with that is that it has consisted almost exclusively of primary source material, which is a position still being advocated by some editors Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Academic_sources. Silk Tork posted the following comment recently, for example, that draws attention to the issue sourcing.

There is a paragraph which consists almost entirely of a quote from Ron Paul. A paragraph with information gathered from a primary source - govtrack.us, rather than a secondary source. And a paragraph on an essay by Mead, which is the most useful paragraph, though is only one source on one aspect of the party, and leans too close to an editorial interpretation of the article.

The present discussion at the moderated page is focused on introducing the most focused on aspects by academics, and the entire section as it stands is sourced only to academic sources, but I am open to people introducing primary sources (in a policy compliant manner) so that corollaries can be drawn, weight evaluated, etc. I am aware that the text I have posted soliciting input has problems, but it does effectively illustrate a common thread in academic discourse that the article should include in some capacity.

Thanks again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If time will permit, I'd like to bring some evidence regarding Ubikwit's behaviours. Since he's naming me here, I'd like that opportunity. I wasn't able to do so yesterday because of RL work commitments, but I have some time this morning before I'm off again. I'd appreciate being able to do so. But if admins feel otherwise, I won't. Please let me know, thanks. I'll keep a eye on this thread. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This tea party mess is pretty preposterous. Just a lot of petty bickering about a whole lot of nothing...add in the walls of text that are the bulk of the talkpages and I can't imagine anyone being able to decode it from the outside. Maybe the best thing to do is topic ban the partisan players and walk away and see if some less partisan editors may take up the slack.--MONGO 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. No sane, reasonable editor is going to get involved in that mess, given the personalities and dynamics which currently dominate the discussion. And without input from sane and reasonable outside editors, content disputes on Wikipedia are impossible to resolve. The options are to a) topic-ban the most obvious partisans and tendentious editors to create breathing room for a serious discussion, or b) indefinitely abandon the article to the current group of vocal partisans under the supervision of a volunteer referee. ArbCom seems to have favored option b), which I would charitably describe as optimistic (and less charitably describe as naive, doomed to failure, and disrespectful to the time and effort of editors who make a serious attempt to generate good content on controversial topics). MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the person most involved and in the thick of it all and involved on nearly every dispute is brand new and not a party to the ArbCom case. And most of the people who were/are parties have left the article. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This was already at ArCom. They temporarily suspended the case pending the outcome of the moderated discussion. This topic is currently under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.[53] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork deserves a medal for their patience. I've been invited several times to "participate in the discussions" but that sounds as fun as a root canal. One bickering exchange dealt with whether the tea party movement was a grass roots movement or wasn't one...then the argument was about the definition of a grass roots movement...giant yawn.--MONGO 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

page break for convenience

My input is not at all related to any content dispute. The moderated discussion is to be used for that. My comments now are regarding Ubikwit's behaviours, specifically his hounding me. My understanding is that ANI is for behaviour issues. Ubikwit has brought me here and I believe I have a right to answer. Mongo, Quest for Knowledge and MastCell are right that the article is a mess but I have no quarrel with any content issues. I'm here solely because Ubikwit has created this thread accusing me of whatever he believes is yet another violation against him. It's time these behaviours were addressed.

Starting from the ANI, Ubikwit has been focused on me in a way that violates policy.

• ANI support topic ban for Malke. [54]
• Comments about Malke on ArbCom evidence page[55]
• Here he demands a response by Malke [56]
• Here he accuses Malke of advocacy on Moderated Discussion[57]
• Malke makes an edit on Moderated Discussion suggesting changes [58]
• Criticizes Malke [59]
• Opposes another Malke suggestion [60]
• Dogging Malke's edits [61]
• Malke makes edit suggestion on moderated discussion. Ubikwit demands to know, "What do you mean?. . ." [62]
• Gets reverted on an article edit and complains to ArbCom about Malke [63]
• Complains about Malke’s comments on ArbCom [64]
• Malke makes suggestion and raises point about proposed edit and Silk Tork suggests waiting on edit until Malke has resolved question. Ubikwit attacks Malke [65]
• Malke comments, Ubikwit attacks again [66]
• Ubikwit cherry-picks Malke’s edits to moderated discussion and posts this to Silk Tork's talk page: “Since we’re cleaning out the attic,” and refuses informal interaction ban by Silk Tork [67]
• And now he’s here looking for another venue for discipline. Everything I do he takes it to Silk Tork or ArbCom or he mentions things in other venues like the comment at the RfC/U.[[68]]
• Ubiwit also violated BLP on the moderated discussion to such a degree that it required oversight deletion. He called a living person a sociopath [69]
• In addition, I believe Ubikwit is User:Dylan Flaherty, who was indef blocked. Dylan also hounded me, as admin MLauba noted in this exchange: see collapsed "deny section" under Res ipsa loquitur: [70].
• I think Ched is right that Ubikwit might want to examine his own behaviours. I for one am tired of this hounding and would this resolved here.
• I wanted to also add that prior to the ANI in February, I'd never heard of Ubiwit, or edited the same pages. Don't know where his fixation is coming from other than the possible Dylan Flaherty connection.

Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The above indicates Malke's concerns that Ubikwit has been hounding / focusing on her, might be a banned user who has done so in the past, including ongoing efforts to "get her in trouble". I have seen the tendency for Ubikwit to characterize / spin-up semi-routine behavior as "wiki-sin words" (e.g. "disruptive" "personal attacks") in situations where most would not think that, every time they discuss them. I think the real test would Malke's previous proposal which I think was a mostly-disengagement between the two of them. Like maybe routine discussion but nothing else. I think that Malke expressed agreement with this type of thing. If Ubikwit would not agree to that, i.e. thinking that Wikipedia needs to have Ubikwit personally watch or go after Malke, then I think that such would be pretty telling. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. SMH. I am not familiar with the Dylan Flaherty history, and I really try to stay away from dramaboards if I can help it. It does seem that Ubikwit is very quick to make accusations about alleged policy violations. Just recently he accused me of a WP:OR violation for an observation that I made on the article Talk page. I had absolutely no intention of using the material in the article mainspace, nor did I suggest or imply that I would. I've also noticed that he's had some unpleasant exchanges with Malke and North8000.
• At the top of this thread, North8000 also touched on a recent incident where Ubikwit was discussing a potential edit to the lede sentence of the article. Another editor, Arthur Rubin, made a remark which I understood as an objection Under the rules SilkTork has imposed, one objection means no immediate action on the proposed edit, and the involved editors stop and talk about it and work it out, so I didn't bother to say anything at the time; I'm sure several others took it as an objection as well, or they would have spoken up. Then Ubikwit went ahead and made the edit. Then he proposed another edit, really a radical overhaul of the entire first half of the article, and immediately Malke, North8000 and I registered our objections loud and clear. And Ubikwit acted offended. (?!?!?!?!?)
• Personally I really don't have a beef with him, but others clearly do. I've even said that Ubikwit was the type of editor I'm able to work with despite our differences of opinion. I just wish we could go back to editing the article, and try to avoid any further unpleasantness. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, others do have a problem with him and not just the editors on the moderated discussion page. He's topic banned from one article and already has an interaction ban with another editor. His talk page is full of disciplinary actions and suggestions for behaviour changes which he challenges and apparently ignores judging by the persistant behaviours. And now he's here with another complaint in which he's totally blind to his behaviours.

He went from all the turmoil on the Isaeli article to the Tea Party movement which was then under ArbCom review and yet he made an edit to a contentious section in the article with no consensus and no real discussion: [71]. What reasonable editor seeking to be collegial and work with others does that?

How many warnings does it take? How long has he been on Wikipedia now? Since 2009? And yet his behaviours are not showing any improvement, but rather they are getting worse. Here he was given an interaction ban:[72] which he violated three days later. He's caused numerous incidents of disruption on Wikipedia including this: [73]. And after an interaction ban and a topic ban, he comes to a moderated discussion on an article under ArbCom sanctions and does this: [74] and this: [75]

He's been given excellent advice by Malik Shabazz who demonstrated impressive patience and restraint with him here: [76]. And here as well: [77]

The moderated discussion page on the Tea Party movement article is meant to resolve issues at the ArbCom case. It's not there to mentor a clearly disruptive editor. Since Ubikwit has brought his complaint here, the community needs to resolve it. These behaviours are recent, this editor has been on Wikipedia for a very long time. It might be best for the project, to prevent further disruption, if he's given an involuntary break. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

190.162.52.196 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is persistently edit warring at Jeremy Spencer right after returning from two blocks. Personal attacks have now been included here and here, not to mention some pointy edits at Python (programming language). I think it's time for a longer block. I would have done that myself, but, you know, I'm a "sanctimonious prick". Maybe the community can convince this anonymous editor that it is in fact themselves who're not here to build an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how removing subjective statements from an article could cause any kind of problem. But when you have people like De728631 blundering in without any clue about the situation, criticising me for calling a self described troll a troll, then we start to have problems. The mere fact that the troll had registered a username seems to have been enough for De728631 to assume that they were in the right. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The wording the IP has removed eight times is reliably sourced and has consensus. This IP understands neither of those things. The IP has three reverts at Jeremy Spencer within 24 hours [78], [79], [80], having already been blocked twice for edit-warring there. He's a single-purpose editor, leaves abusive edit summaries, he's called me stupid twice, and he's called an admin a sanctimonious prick, yet he's still here. Why is that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No matter how many references you find that contain a subjective statement, it's still a subjective statement. Consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Would you want an article on Transnistria to start by saying "Transnistria, best known for being a separatist republic"? I hope you might eventually comprehend the absurdity of judging the facts when you can simply state them, but my hope is very distant. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What you have persistently failed to understand is that it doesn't matter what you think of the statement (and you're wrong about it), it doesn't allow you to ride roughshod over the rules of Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not wrong about the statement. If you can't understand the difference between subjective and objective, you're a problem. As for rules, NPOV is a core policy which you keep on violating. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV has not at any stage been violated. If you understand it all so well, why did you replace one supposedly subjective statement here [81] and replace it with another one? Did you do one of your global polls to establish "widely used"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. "Popular" is subjective. "Widely used" is objective. Can you honestly not understand that? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Widely used where? How? By whom? Enough already. This is an admin page so let's leave them to sort it out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See the sources that are cited. They contain details on how the use of various programming languages are compared. You are asking for objective facts which are easily obtainable, which is fine. Can you see how this is different to making claims that require you to know how people feel about the subject of an article? Can you understand that actually, you don't know how people feel about the subject of an article? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Six minutes after I made an edit at Lindsey Buckingham, this IP went there (wonder why?) and made the self-same removal of uncontentious information as he has done eight times at Jeremy Spencer [82]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, can't imagine why I would end up looking at the article for more than one member of Fleetwood Mac. Once again your "uncontentious information" consists of subjective statements and puffery. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms? Are you even aware of those guidelines? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit by the IP-editor that Bretonbanquet is complaining about, improved the flow of English in the article. We should encourage the IP-editor to make more such edits.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Improved the flow? Didn't improve the sense, did it? Buckingham's still in the band. Coming from an editor who has a userbox on his user page that says he doesn't understand English, that's interesting. The IP is now trawling through articles on members of Fleetwood Mac, making the same edit [83], [84]. He's also so ignorant of the subject matter as to have implied that John McVie has left the group, when he is in fact still a member. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP is right or wrong, it is not acceptable to edit-war across multiple articles, nor is it acceptable to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] This IP has already been blocked twice[96] for edit-warring in less than a week. Apparently, they're not getting the message. Can we please get a block on this IP? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to edit-warring and disrupting Wikipedia across multiple articles, there's also personal attacks: "You are too stupid to distinguish between fact and opinion and that's a remarkable handicap for someone who is editing an encyclopaedia." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The edit warring at Jeremy Spencer is ridiculous. PAs don't help. Blocked 1 week. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This now-blocked editor has returned under a new IP – his edits so far consist entirely of undoing my edits from yesterday [97], including further edit warring at Jeremy Spencer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This person appears to be back and they're continuing to edit-war across multiple articles.[98][99][100][101][102][103] They originally edited as 190.162.52.196 which is allocated to Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry in Uruguay.[104] Their new IP address is 200.120.211.239 which is also allocated to Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry in Uruguay.[105] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week, but I have a feeling they will be back soon. Maybe a rangeblock would be more effective, but I don't know how perceptible Chilean IPs are for collateral damage. Can a checkuser please look into this? De728631 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And the ranting goes on: [106]. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of edit warring over the phrase "best known for" or variants thereof. See Cleo Rocos and it's related entry in Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

Hi everyone. I want to report User:AfricaTanz because his behavior seems very problematic to me. Beside telling other users they are "not welcome" to post on his talk page and accusing them of "long-term harassment", he unilaterally move pages about Tanzania (contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and especially to the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles of people), and now it seems he plan to start an edit war on List of Prime Ministers of Tanzania and President of Zanzibar. I have no desire to get blocked in some stupid edit war with him (especially when I saw that he was blocked for 48h only 15 days ago because of edit-warring), so I decided to report behavior of AfricaTanz here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified AfricaTanz. I have to agree with Sundostund's assessment: AfricaTanz has strong opinions on article names (that's not a crime, of course), and he pushes them even when the community has overwhelmingly disagreed with him before. See for example WT:WikiProject Tanzania#District and ward moves, Talk:Rombo (move discussion launched within minutes of Prodego's and Mareklug's comments at the WikiProject talk page) and Talk:Rau ward, Tanzania (the page was moved to its current title hours after the Rombo move request had failed to find any support). With the lone exception of the Rombo, AfricaTanz seems to avoid discussion at article talk pages, and he explicitly disagreed with my suggestion to use WP:RM to establish consensus before moving pages. Instead he prefers to tell others to stay off his talk page [107][108] or to tell them to stop their edits on the relevant articles: [109][110][111] Others' un-discussed edits get labeled as disruptive, he himself edits largely without attempting discussion (I should point out this positive example, though the article talk page would probably have been a better place).

Even when I agree with his points I find AfricaTanz' lack of communication irritating, and his attempts to enforce his personal opinions on page titles against community consensus will not end well. Huon (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My experience is he doesnt like talk pages, posted a discussion on my page that should have gone on a talk page and then chose not to engage in another discussion I opened on the talk page concerning his editing. Having said the which if directly challenged he hasnt, in my experience on LGBT in Jamaica, engaged in edit warring but instead has taken my comments to heart. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that other users noted AfricaTanz' problematic behavior as well. --Sundostund (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be a good thing to quote what a user said about the behavior of AfricaTanz in another ANI thread, 10 days ago. Here it comes:

AfricaTanz seems to be unable to engage in any constructive and respectful way with other users. I've been the subject of one of his frivolous 'edit warring' reports, along with another user on the same day, as he creates edit warring reports very liberally (diff, diff). In neither case were provisions taken against the users he reported, and in one case he ended up being himself warned. He later described the result as "a useful exercise", which seems to suggest that ending the imaginary edit war was not the objective for him.

Other users were treated in a similar manner: he refuses to engage in (seemingly benign) discussions, threatens with ANI reports (which adds to the impression that he uses it as a weapon, rather than to solve disputes), alters messages on other people's talk pages, and makes accusations of uncivil behaviour as well as unsubstantiated accusations of edit warring.

A dispute resolution has been opened on the matter that lead to his original accusations of edit warring towards me, but I feel that his conduct is by far the bigger issue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't come across AfricaTanz after that dispute, but I heard about another user (other than Sundostund) who had problems with him due to his lack of communication and poor manners. I think it's time to let him know that he needs to change his behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted what happened at the previous ANI report quoted above: nothing [112], because the individual in question chose not to respond and the report got archived without any action. Taroaldo ✉ 02:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are definitely right, Underlying lk. Taroaldo, that's exactly what should be avoided here - doing nothing because the individual in question chose not to respond. --Sundostund (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can endorse (and if necessary, considerably elaborate on) the evidence presented by other users above, but can I ask what specific administrator action they expect to be taken over it? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, some kind of block should be considered. AfricaTanz was blocked for 48h, only 15 days ago, for edit-warring and it didn't changed his behavior at all. I think some block longer than 48h is a right thing to do in this case. --Sundostund (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Sundostund; I'd say AfricaTanz' behaviour has changed significantly for the better over the past few days, with him joining a discussion at Template talk:Tanzanian ministries‎ and launching one at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Tanzania). Blocking him now would serve no purpose. Huon (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Li3939108

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

---

Page: Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: ‎Li3939108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already posted an edit warring report on Li3939108 this morning at [113]. It is not resolved yet.

Background: The Ping Fu article has been subject to continuing POV edits and vandalism, from a rotating cast of characters, ever since the Chinese blogger Fang Zhouzi launched a human flesh search engine attack against its subject 5 months ago. On Amazon.com (where the people involved in the attack coordinate their actions), they've recently put out a call for people to edit this article, to include their POV. (Which comes down to “Ping Fu is a shameless liar.” Put it in google if you don't believe me.)

The last edit by ‎Li3939108 at [114] was pointy at best, and certainly disruptive. When it's daylight again in China (where Li3939108 is), I'm assuming he'll pick up where he left off.

I don't want to short-circuit the process at WP:AN3, but neither do I want to spend the weekend wrestling with an editor who is bound and determined to post "the truth."

I'd appreciate some help in monitoring the page this weekend. (Apologies if this isn't the right noticeboard.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like you're both guilty of WP:3RR - I'd suggest full protection and the issues can be solved on the talk page. Dusti^*poke* 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I truly understand that wikipedia isn't a place to post "the truth". The content I posted has multiple reliable sources. User:Fearofreprisal has removed the {{POV}} tag. Isn't it a vandal ? --凡其_Fanchy 05:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu's alma mater Soochow University has posted two official statements against Ping Fu. And Soochow U has prepared to file lawsuits both in China and the United American . The info may soon be updated. I add {{current person}} to the page. --凡其_Fanchy 05:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• The POV tag is inappropriate IMO, as is the "current event" tag - it smacks of tendentious editing from you, Li. As did removing a bunch of information in retaliation to Fearofreprisal's edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• dusti - 4th revert was an exception under wp:NOT3RR for removal of WP:redflag pre-litigation material. Looking back at the policy, I should have labeled it clearly, and flagged as such in the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness and not biting newbies

I'm reluctantly bringing this to ANI, as I can see no progress in further interaction with this user. I first noticed User:Surtsicna when he reverted an obviously good faith edit with the summary "reverting vandalism".[115] Looking at his history, I saw that he calls things vandalism when they are obviously good faith edits, e.g. [116], [117], [118]. I thought I should better speak with him about this, and decided to have a look through his history. I was a bit shocked to see that he routinely leaves insulting edit summaries. (e.g. [119], [120], [121], [122], [123],[124], all from the last week, and I'm sure I missed some.) I'm not objecting to his reverts, I'm objecting to the way he reverts, as it drives off editors and worsens the problem of our deteriorating editor base.

I dropped him a message to express my concerns.[125] His reply essentially denies anything wrong, and implies that I am being ridiculous and am insulting him.[126] I admonished him to take my concerns to heart, and he removed it with the edit summary "I am astonished by your impertinence. Who are you to admonish anyone? Quit this bizarre stalking immediately and go away from my talk page."[127]

I think it would be helpful if an admin explains to him that good faith edits shouldn't be called vandalism, that two neutrally worded messages on his talk page is not stalking, and that he shouldn't leave insulting edit summaries. FurrySings (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• While the user does have a somewhat overly-broad definition of vandalism, there really isn't anything actionable here and the so-called "insulting" edit summaries are incredibly weak: "nonsense" or "unhelpful" would be unkind if directed at a person, but directed at a sentence or template it's not an insult. On the other hand, FurrySings, your talk message with its child-scolding tone seemed to be intended to provoke a negative response (" If you care about the long term outcome of this project..."). Do you seriously think most editors would react well to that? If you agree with the reverts themselves and they weren't even your edits reverted, you come off here as unnecessarily picking a fight over nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say how bizarre all of this is - so bizarre that a completely uninvolved user (with whom I only had a short discussion last year) could not help caling FurrySings' message an "intrusive inanity dumped on your talk page". FurrySings and I had not interacted in any way whatsoever before he or she started scolding me for allegedly rude edit summaries (such as: "Unhelpful. The portrait does not depict her."). The same user, while lecturing me about such supposedly inappropriate edit summaries, described me as "abrupt, surly or even rude" the very first time he or she contacted me. Such impudence is nothing but bizarre. I explained that I comment on edits rather than on editors and suggested that he or she should do the same, but to no avail. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to begin my comments by referring any neutral editor here. I think FurrySings and I are looking for neutral comment here, not for more decimeters of ridicule and sarcasm from Surtsicna. Additionally, any reader of English is likely to be astounded, flabbergasted in fact, at the amount of sarcasm and ridicule hurled at someone who only wants h to stop calling good faith edits "vandalism". Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of good work done on WP (which Surtsicna certainly does, as I have recognized repeatedly) cannot entitle anyone to endulge in that kind of mud-slinging as a regular behaviorism. When Andrew Lenahan commented, he surely must have been unaware of the exceedingly belligerent tone coming, to an overwhelming degree, from one side of these arguments. Sorry, but this is par for the course for Surtsicna, who, when objected to or crossed or (particularly) reverted, is one of the least civil editors I know of on English WP. If falsely accusing others of "bizarre stalking" and "gross personal insults" (and much much more such stuff including always threats of a backlash) is getting to be OK, then all of us who need a somewhat acceptable working environment here need to quit this. There is no good reason ever to be sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some context: SergeWoodzing took the opportunity to attack because her or his another false report failed due to obvious reasons. She or he had been reinserting unsourced and extremely dubious info into a BLP-related article, claiming that his or her "common sense" trumped verifiability - something I strongly disagreed with. SergeWoodzing, who's monitoring my talk page, readily joined FurrySings' bizarre stalker attack. The fact that SergeWoodzing pretends that calling me "very unreasonable, and stubborn" is not a "grossly insulting personal attack" is very telling. The fact that FurrySings' out-of-the-blue message is "bizarre stalking" has been all but confirmed by Andrew Lenahan; Andrew's comment, however, is probably irrelevant because he has "rather loose standards about civility".

SergeWoodzing is perfectly aware that the edit summaries were evidently not directed at any user but instead at a sentence or a template (something also noted by Andrew), but ignoring that enables her or him to accuse me of being "sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work" (in bold letters, of course). More than half of his or her contributions since 12 June are attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing that her or his common sense trumps verifiability. Who is falsely accusing whom of what is obviously transparent to neutral and uninvolved users (as some have already commented), and there is no need for me to say so explicitly. FurrySings (who is not above lying transparently) has presented all her or his evidence, and that "evidence" has been reviewed. I beg an administrator to end this witchhunt and to prevent these users from harassing me in the future. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not contributing very much in other ways at this time, it may be because behavior such as that of Surtsicna makes me tire and lose interest, and also it may be that I am awaiting some neutral, reasonable outcome of this discussion, aimed at improving our working environment i general and the behavior of this particular editor (with whom I often must interact due to similar interests) in particular. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. Might it be because you are pressed for time with other matters? (That has not prevented you, however, from going after me whenever you do have time for Wikipedia - at help desk, at AN, at ANI, at administrator talk pages, etc, for over a week after our dispute ended.) Anyway, the edit summaries show just how "impolite" my behaviour has been. Once again I ask an administrator to end this already. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at The Exodus

Note: WP:FORUMSHOP at User talk:Jimbo Wales#The NPOV policy has become a total sham and a fraud and at Wikipedia talk:Academic bias. Please try to centralize the discussion here rather than on multiple forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I commented at Jimbo Wales' Talk page, claims there and here that "forumshopping" has gone on seem overblown. And there, Guy Macon apologized and struck the "forumshopping" claim. Anyone is welcomed by Jimbo Wales to post at his Talk page, and it did not seem to me like forumshopping for there to be a posting there, directed to Jimbo. I agree that parties here do not need to repeat their arguments there, however. --doncram 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

There appears to be a problem with tendentious editing at The Exodus.

In particular, User:Til Eulenspiegel disagrees with the consensus among scholars that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. Which is fine -- he is certainly welcome to argue that -- but when asked for sources, he claims that none are needed because

"Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias" ... "NPOV is a worthless sham if it only allows one POV to be presented and if it does not allow all POVs to be given impartially."[128]

There are some related behavioral issues such as edit warring and personal attacks, but the main problem is a rejection of WP:V and WP:NPOV because they conflict with religious dogma.
Note: I ran across this one while investigating personal attacks by Til Eulenspiegel elsewhere. Other than that I have no real involvement with the page or interest in the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely dispute that there is any such "consensus" and make no apology for doing so. Those who say "there was never any kind of Exodus, nothing to see, please move on" do not enjoy the monopoly on all permissible discourse that they pretend to enjoy. Nothing has been proven, we need to give all significant perspectives, therefore this is a POV dispute, and adding POV tags are appropriate, not something to be reported as "tendentious editing' to try to get me "in trouble" and removed from the discussion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag I added was {toofewopinions} the one that says "More viewpoints needed". I have not even gotten around to looking for suitable sources yet, this is a tag stating that too few opinions are given and more need to be looked for. They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds or there is no neutrality dispute because I supposedly lack standing to dispute the one-sidedness of this pov-pushing, heavily biased article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds", you were first asked for sources on 26 March.[129] It is now 22 June. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In that summary from March, I see TGeorgescu flatly declaring that any sources for "Christian or conservative viewpoints" will be pre-disqualified. To state that I was "asked" for sources there seems like a falsehood on your part. But I was referring to today's "too few opinions" tag requesting further sources, not something else that was declared by fiat three months ago. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's blatantly false, because I put no time limit on when you should provide sources at all, never mind "in two seconds", nor insinuate so in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a stunt that Til Eulenspiegel has pulled time and time again. His M.O. is to show up on a talk page pushing some fringe or extreme minority POV, accuses other editors of censorship, bias and bad faith, and, when asked to provide reliable sources, fails to do so or provides useless fringe sources that do not meet the requirements of out policies, arguing something that boils down to WP:IAR, all policies be damned. He wastes a lot of other editors' time, and the result is indistinguishable from common trolling. It is very disruptive and tendentious. Particularly irritating is his penchant for turning content and policy disagreements into personal disagreements, focusing on editors rather than on content or policy. I have warned him about WP:NPA in the past, and this time as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are not "some fringe or extreme minority POV" except from your perspective, which is rather curious... that's basically the problem we're having. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that in fact I am not pushing any POV and never have. I have consistently been calling for "More POVS" to be included. Those who dominate the talkpage are setting it up so that exclusively their opinion gets included, others get barely a mention, and anyone daring to dissent gets branded a heretic and hauled into the heresy tribunal, everybody pick up a firebrand, blah blah blah yawn. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

They are fringe or extreme minority as far as scholarly topics like history and archeology are concerned. And your take on them is often fringe or extreme minority even within the religious community. Here's a classic example, complete with you making claims that were demonstrably not held by the religious group in question, attacking other editors, and failing to provide sources: [[130]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion you keep repeating that the religious teachings of churches, synagogues and mosques are a "fringe or extreme minority". I do understand that your goal is to portray these religions' views of the Bible as insignificant, as fringe, as minority, as unworthy of mention, worthy only of marginalization. But you are coopting wikipedia, a neutral project used by everyone across the spectrum, when you expect it to become a vehicle for your polemic agenda. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I see four recent edits by Til Eulenspiegel to the article, all about adding a tag because he thinks the religious POV should be prominently included, which seems reasonable enough to me. It might be that a POV fork is actually appropriate for this article, with religious scholarship handled separately from academic inquiry, much like how evolution and creationism are handled. But I have to say, to my layman's eye the academic line doesn't seem very convincing; it reminds me of how everybody said Troy was a myth. (Isn't it possible that "slaves" was a rhetorical exaggeration (or not) used when workers in labor unrest were told they couldn't quit their jobs and do something different? And that the miracle of the parting and flooding at the Red Sea, like Moses drawing water from the rock, involved some (humble and insignificant) involvement of engineers who played with the locks on the ancient Suez Canal that flowed from the Nile?) I don't know this editor, haven't looked at his other edits, I've made no attempt to see if he's had another account, and if you want to make this out as part of a broader pattern of abuse go ahead -- but I'd hate to see somebody get penalized for just a few edits suggesting what seems like a reasonable intent to fairly balance the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I will say this: I agree with you that there is not yet a need for any penalization. But don't limit yourself to looking at the article. When you read the talk page, it becomes very obvious that Til simply doesn't get it. this edit and others in that thread show that Til has both a profound misunderstanding of the neutral point of view as well as a severe battleground mentality. As is shown in that diff and others, Til considers the opinion that his point of view is insignificant to be an attack on his religious beliefs. So Til, if you're reading this, which I assume you will, you should probably just avoid this article in the future. Think about how personally you've been taking this content dispute, and you should realize how biased you really are on this topic, regardless of whether you have a point. But I don't think a few edits on the article and an argument going nowhere on the talk page required an ANI thread. So perhaps this can rest with normal dispute resolution practices unless something really serious arises. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What am I not getting? I think I got it perfectly right. What I was told by editors on the talk page (in most authoritarian terms) was that any "conservative Christian" views of the Bible would be pre-determined to be inadmissible and insignificant to the article. Oh, but there's no bias here at all, no NPOV violation, nahhh.... It must be just me, eh? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read again the policy on due weight. In an article about a historical event, Wikipedia is interested in the views of historians, archaeologists, and scholars of other relevant fields. Wikipedia is less interested in the views of religious bodies. That is not to say we don't mention them. There is an entire article on The Book of Exodus, which could stand to gain some significant expansion. Some confusion may also arise from the use of the word "fringe". Wikipedia's fringe refers to viewpoints that are held by few or no scholars in relevant fields, implies nothing about the total number of people who believe something. You've been on Wikipedia for over six years, so I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If the truth is that you simply don't like it, or you have a radically different interpretation of policy, your only recourse is to seek changes to the policies themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I work with hundreds of Bible articles and have done so for years. On the standard Bible article, if any denomination or sect has a view or doctrine on the subject, we always give it in due impartiality, without presuming to declare whose theology is "correct" or who is a "heretic" if they dissent. There are only a relatively few notorious POV backwaters like Exodus and Genesis that seem to attract a polemic mentality that says "Christians and Jews views of their own Bible are all disqualified - WE'LL tell them what to believe about it and only our approved sources count. Come here if you want to see an opinion piece written by wikipedians telling you what to believe about the Bible!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of placing tags, why don't you propose additions and boldly add them to the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Or is this really a whole dramatastic dispute over a couple little words like "consensus"? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a Template:Toofewopinions? Is it never safe to use it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You say there are too few opinions. Other editors disagree. It would help if, on the article's talk page, you actually provided, with sources, the viewpoints being neglected. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A historicity section in any article is going to consist exclusively of content drawn from actual historians. Due weight is determined by the proportion of adherents amongst respected scholars in the field - the raw number of people who believe in a point of view is irrelevant. If you want to change the policy, you are free to try, but you will be tilting at windmills. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If we did start using the raw numbers criteria and a major religion (15 million members) said that the Garden of Eden was located in present-day Jackson County, Missouri, would we have to give that equal weight in our articles about American history? How big does the religion have to be? How about the one that says that the 75 million years ago the Evil Lord Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs? Is that one big enough? How about the one with the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems like the disputed perspective goes beyond one section, and although it is a fundamentally religious story in today's society, there is little effort made to say what religious consensus is about the date and place issues. If you're going to write about the Scientology volcano story (see Xenu), you're naturally going to go on in depth about what that group has to say about it, and indeed, that article does. If that article focused only on "what academics think really happened" it would be one of Wikipedia's shortest articles. :) Wnt (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Exodus is an article about the historical migration of Jewish slaves from Egypt to Israel. Book of Exodus is an article about a religious text written about said migration. There could probably be a hatnote at The Exodus explaining this. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So Garden of Eden is an article about a historical place in what is now Independence, Missouri, and the Book of Mormon is a religious text written about said location. Gotcha. Unless, of course, you believe all of those pesky historians who say that neither the Exodus or the garden of Eden are historical. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, I look at it again, and I was wrong. Book of Exodus is an article about a religious text, and it needs major expansion. The Exodus is, according to its introduction, an article about a story within the book, and according to the body of the article, an article about historians' opinions of that story. It seems there could be some merging, or splitting, or...something. I don't know. It's like a bait and switch: The intro tells you this is an article about a story, but then spends only one paragraph talking about the story. So you follow the link through to the article on the book the story is in, and that doesn't have much either. And yeah, you make a great point. This sort of split wouldn't work for everything. 90% of article on old testament events would become "ain't nobody got evidence for that". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You want to split off the theology from the evidence that it didn't happen, and that doesn't sound like a POV fork to you? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I Don't know what I want, actually. I was simply trying to rationalize the existence of two separate articles, which is already the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this user is very problematic and probably he should be topic banned. Cavarrone 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. The editor has been pushing fringe views over a wide variety of articles, so a topic ban ought to include all topics related to religion, history, archeology and fringe and psuedoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can't see that this incident requires a topic ban. The claim of widespread problems is not currently supported. Such evidence could be gathered at an RfC/U if needed. But really all that seems needed is here is 1) ask the user what additions they want and what sources they are using, and 2) basically ignore the rest if no such specificity is forthcoming (with a reminder of NOTAFORUM). Edit warring and the like might, of course lead to edit warring reports. It is true though that tags and claims that a POV is not adequately represented, actually need specific back-up on the talk page of text proposals and sources, otherwise such tags should be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctantly, I support a topic ban in this case. Til Eulenspiegel has made it abundantly clear that he will continue demanding that the voice of God be given parity with the voice of historians and other scientists and that simply reporting what the religionists believe will not satisfy him -- religion and science must be given equal weight and both must be presented in Wikipedia's voice. It has become abundantly clear that Til Eulenspiegel is unable to maintain a neutral point of view on any topic where his religion and science are in conflict. The fact that his preferred method of pushing his POV is through personal attacks and edit warring simply exacerbates the root problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You evidently see the world's major faiths as illegitimate and want your selected "scientists" to have the only say on how scripture is to be interpreted on Bible articles. That is the problem, and it is a problem of your Bias. I want to be able to read what ALL points of view are on the topic, not just yours (or mine). There are differences of opinion when it comes to how scripture is meant to be interpreted, but you are claiming your "scientific" interpretation holds such a magical priority over all other theological interpretations that it alone even deserves mention. Furthermore, you are attempting to build a "consensus" of editors by throwing a muzzle on any party that dissents from your interpretation of scripture. That will never be a true consensus, and that method of getting "consensus" also has zero to do with the Scientific Method. The Scientific method takes things that can be proven through experimentation to validate hypotheses. Nothing like that has occurred here; the same viewpoints have existed centuries before any of us were born and nothing has ever settled the controversy; claiming that "we are right because everyone agrees and nobody on your side counts" is merely cheerleading and attempting to claim a priority for your own bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I will wait for Jimbo's verdict, meanwhile I would like to point that everybody would see that it is ridiculous to reject the Ekpyrotic universe on the grounds that the Pope stated that scientists should not attempt to research what was "before" the Big Bang (according to what Stephen Hawking once wrote in A Brief History of Time). It is easy to see this when we discuss theology vs. physics but people tend to conflate theology with history, they don't understand that what is a valid theological argument could be bollocks in history (as an empirical science). We have no right to claim that it would be wrong theology (since the "correct" theology varies according to one's church membership or lack of it), but it is OK to say that Til's views are fringe history. In an YouTube video (search for The Big Questions - Is the Bible still relevant today) a woman rabbi declared that it is the business of historians to decide the historicity of Exodus (or David's kingdom?), but she will continue to maintain her theology based upon the biblical story of the Exodus regardless of what historians decide; she said it is not her business to meddle with historians or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What are we trying to discuss here? Is that a red herring or what? I have never expressed any opinion on Ekpyrotic universe, don't even know what it means, nor on the Pope or the Big Bang Theory, nor on Stephen Hawking's book. Is there a point to this? I do note you are very good at drawing arguments by analogy to portray me as "fringe" however. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your standpoint was "theology trumps history", my analogy was "theology attempting to trump physics is ridiculous, therefore theology attempting to trump history is ridiculous". I did not get this wrong: you maintain that historicity judged historically gets trumped by a theological assertion that there is historicity (historicity through theological fiat). For Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner there are different kind of truths: theological truth is different from historical truth: a story does not have to be historically accurate in order to inspire true faith. In fact, no religious people except fundamentalists believe that religion should dictate scientific outcomes. So, you are not an ordinary believer, content with non-overlapping magisteria, you are advocating "theology/fundamentalism trumps science". Most religious people from my part of the world made peace with science being autonomous from religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You've yet again demolished that poor straw man good and proper, because my position has never ONCE been "theology trumps history". Complete and utter strawman. My position has always been "Don't just describe one viewpoint. Tell all viewpoints." I even want viewpoints I disagree with to be told, so when I read articles about them, I can get some insight on where these viewpoints are coming from. You on the other hand don;t want to suffer viewpoints you disagree with to be even explained or allowed a voice. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be a valid point, had you not chosen to tag the 'historicity' section of the article. You have failed to demonstrate that that section lacked balance, in terms of material appropriate to that section - instead, you seem to be arguing that it should be 'balanced' by material which is beyond the scope of a section on the historicity of the exodus. 'Other viewpoints' don't belong in a section which isn't discussing them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this like a willful refusal to comprehend? What I am saying specifically, once again, is that there are Other viewpoints about the Historicity of Exodus beside the one viewpoint represented in that section (as well as the "correct theological interpretation" endorsed in the very next sentence), and I am notifying all editors who come across the article, with this tag, that it might be a good idea to spend some constructive time looking for more viewpoints from various other schools of thought to be added. I know it is not something that can be discussed in terms of consensus and unanimity, and it's a classic tell-tale sign of "POV-pushing" to make claims of unanimity about something that is, in truth, still debated. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And when asked to provide citations for these other viewpoints, you have failed to provide them. vWhere are they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm just trying to convince you that there is more than one viewpoint on the historicity of the Exodus as well as how the Exodus is to be interpreted theologically, the two assertions made in the first two sentences, and therefore we need a tag for "more viewpoints". I haven't got anywhere, because you still seem to prefer to believe there is only one monolithic viewpoint, and everyone else is "fringe". I know what some alternative viewpoints are, but I might not even know the full range of viewpoints on these issues. The tag Template:Too few opinions is merely to state literally that there are "too few opinions". Its usage should not be an unpardonable offense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you "know what some alternative viewpoints are", why haven't you told anyone what they are, in spite of multiple requests? Nobody has asked you to provide all of them - just to prove that such viewpoints exist. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A very long page could probably be written with published sources for alternate views on the historicity of the Exodus and also how it is interpreted by various groups. With a little time I could surely be able to find a good representative. I really liked your comment on Jimbo's talk where you said See Moses#Historicity - our article does not assert that "the matter has finally been resolved". To the contrary, it makes clear that opinions differ. ANd as I replied, That sounds good, and I hope we will be able to say that about other articles on the topic. I am suggesting that if it can be conceded in Moses that there are multiple viewpoints on whether or not Moses lived, surely this is a good model for neutrality and we can similarly elaborate in Exodus on the various current ideas about the historicity of the Exodus or what exactly Moses did there if anything, without pretending there is a monolithic unanimity among all scholarship of all stripes on this question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to write 'a very long page' I asked you to demonstrate that the alternate viewpoints regarding the historicity of the exodus exist by citing one. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for a good one as soon as I get a chance. But in the meantime the stark contrast between what you get from reading Moses and Exodus should make a good point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What 'stark contrast'?. As far as academic scholarship (as opposed to theology) is concerned, whether there ever was an actual 'Moses' or not can clearly never be historically determined - it could be pure myth, of maybe it has its distant roots in oral traditions concerning a real individual. The events described in exodus however are simply incompatible with information derived from Egyptology, archaeology and other sources of data though - and accordingly, academia rejects exodus as an accurate historical account. The only 'point' is that there are some things that academic research can't prove one way or another, and some things it can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with rendering theology-as-theology. I have a problem with rendering theology-as-history. You were told on the talk page that including theology is OK, it just does not decide historicity, since historicity is a scientific matter, not a theological matter. The tags you added attacked the scientific soundness of the references and other editors were infuriated because such tags were an accusation that they have misrepresented the scientific consensus. You are of course free to include theology, but not to challenge the references in the historicity section. Just don't claim that theology would be part of the scientific debate: it isn't. Theology is theology, science is science. Both are notable, but just as oil and water they don't mix together in the historicity section of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about events that, if they happened, would be well before 1000 BC. It is false to pretend that there is a single view of history that has been "proven" correct by some science experiment. There are still multiple conflicting views of history, especially for anything that long ago. What's more, there is a Hindu view of history, a Christian view of history, a Jewish view of history, a Muslim view of history, etc. and these are all widespread views of history that exist in the world today; we cannot really declare any of those views incorrect "by consensus" especially without actual solid proof. That's why we originally had a NPOV policy, that's why it might make sense for someone to add a tag requesting for "more views" to be added to a historicity section on a theological topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How about "Science is about the facts and facts should be valid for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation"? Evidence for the Exodus does not appear by fiat, be it Christian fiat, Muslim fiat or Hindu fiat. And if there is no real evidence for it, then it is considered unhistorical until such evidence appears. Of course there can only be one sort of evidence: real evidence. Evidence is not categorized as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is no evidence one way or another, then normally (any other article) we would impartially say "There is no evidence one way or the other", rather than "This certainly never happened, because there is no evidence one way or another." On the same principle of the example given on WP:OR, that we don't describe the number of wars fought after the UN was founded as "only x number of wars" nor do we describe it as "golly gee look how many wars", we simply give the number of wars and leave it at that for the reader to form their own opinion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the Exodus ever happened, in lack of positive evidence no one could know that it has ever took place, so maybe only God Almighty knows if it ever happened. But to mainstream historians the probability that it happened at the time indicated by the biblical chronology is so microscopically small that they tend to think that it has never happened as described in the Bible. In this case it applies what I have already indicated: by default any event in unhistorical, it only becomes historical if there is evidence for it. The same way there has to be some empirical evidence before physicists could affirm that strings are real. That is why no physicist knows if the strings are real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since he has launched a pre-emptive appeal to Jimbo, let's await the ruling by Jimbo. Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon is now templating my user talk every few hours, stalking me and assuming authority to close my discussions on completely separate topics' talk pages. What gives with the WP:HARRASSment? Drop the firebrand already. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon was correct in putting that template in your talk page as you are patently forumshopping through the website. Frankly, your behavior is not helping your cause. Cavarrone 20:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not Forum shopping. You have made another unjustified reproach. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are literally forumshopping, as you are "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." Furthermore, "queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions" and you haven't done it. Cavarrone 20:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not in the least forum shopping. First of all, I did not open this ANI about myself. So I didn't exactly come here looking for any "answer". Yet some of my other conversations on other unrelated matters have been rediected here to this ANI about me, by Guy Macon. Where else am I "forum shopping"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that my placing warning templates on Til Eulenspiegel's is done out of basic fairness. His behavior is likely to result in a block, and I prefer that an editor gets plenty of warning before being blocked. I certainly would expect to be warned and given a chance to stop the behavior that I am being warned about rather than being blocked without warning. Til Eulenspiegel has been removing all warnings soon after they are placed (which he has every right to do), so we know that he has read them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at WP:AE. AN/I does not deal well with long term TE because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary. Sædon^talk 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Any sanction would essentially be for my boldly disagreeing that all the various Jewish, Muslim and Christian interpretations and views on the Exodus amount to a "FRINGE theory". Other than that offense, I ain't done no wrong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone in prison is innocent Sædon^talk 21:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, until they were proven guilty before being sentenced. Hence the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Without it, "justice" is a very different concept. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point, perhaps it is an idiom of which you're not aware. In the US there is a common saying among prisoners that they are all innocent (it may actually not be true of real prisons but it's common in prison fiction). The point is, it is expected that you don't think you're wrong because it's you who is thinking it. So when you say "I ain't done no wrong" it is superfluous because as the accused it is assumed that you believe you are in the right otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. And if you were to be sanctioned at a venue like WP:AE you would say that you've done no wrong just as convicted prisoners maintain their innocence. Sædon^talk 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I miss your point because getting it relies on seeing it from the "guilty unless proven innocent", or Napoleonic, view of jurisprudence, a view of jurisprudence I was not brought up under. THe point of "innocent until proven guilty", or English jurisprudence, is to protect innocent people from being wrongly punished on the mere whim of a more powerful person. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that. All it takes to "get it" is having seen Shawshank redemption or almost any other prison movie made in the past 20 years, or simply having had someone explain it to you as I did. In no way does understanding it require one to hold any sort of view on justice. All you need to know is that it's a common joke/saying/idiom in American prison fiction that even when it's obvious that some prisoner has committed and been convicted of a crime they still maintain their innocence. The fact that you can even somehow tie this in your mind to my or other people's view on jurisprudence is astonishingly ridiculous. This is not a complicated concept and the fact that it's taking so many words to explain it to you is a proper demonstration of how annoying it can be to discuss anything with you. You just don't get it. Sædon^talk 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why, I have no problem at all understanding your words at face value, but if I'm missing something else, it must be that you need to express it more straightforwardly, since I cannot read your mind. Basically, my conscience does not rebuke me terribly for my not agreeing that the doctrines and theologies of major world religions are now suddenly a "FRINGE theory" - but if that's my crime, then I admit it, guilty as charged. In addition, I do not believe my conscience was created to answer to your conscience. Is there anything else here you'd like to discuss? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Theologically, you are not fringe. There are many millions of fundamentalists, especially outside of Europe. You are fringe historically, i.e. scientifically. There is a difference between theology and history, the later is a science, the former isn't a science and does not require weighing of evidence, scientific method, falsifiability, review by peers, criticism in scientific journals, seeking to forge scientific consensus or to become mainstream and so on. You seem to think that because an argument is theologically valid it should also be historically (i.e. scientifically) valid. Theology does not trump history. History, as a science, is autonomous from every religious faith. Historicity can only be judged historically, it cannot be judged theologically. Five hundred years ago it was a different matter, but science in the modern sense and writing encyclopedias are products of the Enlightenment. We cannot behave as if the Enlightenment never happened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You don't know what I am "theologically" because I have not come here to preach or tell anyone what to believe, and you are unjustified in labelling my theology "fringe" or "fundamentalist" when I have not even shared what it is and consider it private. Once again, maybe you'll get it this time, I am calling for "MORE VIEWPOINTS" to be added to the article. I may be considered a fool for thinking the Exodus is relevant to theologians more than scientists. I may be considered a fool for wanting the article to explain what various theologians of all stripes say -- instead of the single, one-size fits all, "this is the only allowable correct interpretation of scripture" given in the article that I am being pilloried for questioning. Once again, you may find this utterly mind-boggling, but our role is not to make a determination about who has the Truth and who doesn't. Another concept you may find mind-boggling is that more than one viewpoint can actually coexist on the same page, side by side, without either one "trumping" the other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had politely stated that you don't challenge the scientific consensus and that you don't accuse other editors of misrepresenting it, we would not have had this discussion on ANI. Nobody objected to describing the Exodus theologically in other sections of the article. From the vanilla assertion that many millions of true believers think that it really happened, it just does not follow that the Exodus was historical. As simply as that: don't conflate historicity with theological dogma and you won't have problems in editing the article. On Wikipedia you are an advocate of fundamentalism and what flavor of fundamentalism you subscribe to is less relevant. But it is clear that you are discontent with the academical arrangements which arose from the Enlightenment, I added once a quote from Allan Bloom about it in your user space. I think you object to the scientific study of religion in general, since you think it is a sacrilege. Bloom more or less made the same point, albeit in a very elegant and palatable way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not consider myself a fundamentalist and I think you are trying to use that as a pejorative label for me, or something I am not associated with at all, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean you made a reasoned defense of fundamentalism at User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon and you don't even buy your own arguments/quotations? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On that page, as anyone can see, I have quoted Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints to demonstrate that there are a wide range of disparate viewpoints represented about a topic that some are claiming a monolithic monopoly of allowable interpretations on. Obviously, I do not myself subscribe to all of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints I have quoted on that page. In fact, I don't believe I have ever said whether I myself subscribe to any of these viewpoints, or none of them entirely, because of my firm belief that what theology I believe or don't believe is my own business and irrelevant to wikipedia articles being neutral, and should be left out of it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that page is propaganda for fundamentalism in general. It's Wikipedia:Advocacy and the tags you have added in The Exodus are making a point in accordance with your advocacy for a fundamentalist understanding of the religious narratives. In fact, your whole apologetics, talk page by talk page and article by article, that myths cannot be called myths is an ad nauseam. You cannot reform the way Wikipedia handles myths, since it follows from how the academe works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Exodus where I tagged it, currently states: "The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history." I have no problem with such a viewpoint being mentioned and properly attributed alongside other viewpoints. However I believe this particular viewpoint is not a consensus, but reflects the chosen favorite viewpoint of some editors, because it basically says in so many words "Everyone now agrees this never happened at all, but is merely a myth or fairy-tale invented by the Jews to feel special." And I'm sorry, but no, I do NOT subscribe to that point of view - and it really bothers me to see it represented as a "consensus" when obviously it's not. "Opinions differ" just as the Moses article says and Exodus should also say. And it bothers me even more to see editors being required to accept and go along with this "consensus" out of fear that they will be threatened with being muzzled, ejected and banned from the discussion if they even dare to ask for "more viewpoints". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is actually not such a bad point. Things to consider with this sentence in the lead of The Exodus and at the beginning of the Historicity section:

• The general context of the article (not the Historicity section) is religion more than history.
• "biblical scholars" suggests theologists more than people working primarily in history or literary criticism.
• Claims of academic consensus require very strong sourcing per WP:RS/AC. (I don't have access to the source cited after the sentence in question -- Dictionary of the Old Testament --, so I don't know whether it meets this standard .)
• I have a hunch that such a consensus exists in Europe but not in the US, and among scientifically oriented biblical scholars but not among theologically oriented biblical scholars. There might be implicit assumptions in the source to that effect. (Again, for lack of access I don't know.)
• Theological opinions are only of marginal interest for the Historicity section. If there is such a theological consensus, it's worth mentioning (as is the case at the moment), or if there is none, it's worth mentioning in one or two sentences that opinions are divided. But overall, in the Historicity section it's not the opinions of "biblical scholars" in general that matters but the opinions of those academics approaching the topic with the primary goal of finding facts, not religious fulfillment. Hans Adler 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past there were more sources in the article, so the case for consensus was even stronger, but it seems that it has been edited with brevity in mind. See e.g. [131]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I should note that while looking into the general subject further, I see we have a big difference in our perspective between the secular presentation of Jericho and the Biblical emphasis of Ammon. I think that the right approach is somewhere between the two, incorporating all the data on both perspectives - when people look up articles on this topic, they will often have heard of it from a Biblical context, and they definitely should see a presentation of all the details of the story, but they should also see all the details of the archeologists' approach. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang?

User:Guy Macon has more or less admitted that he began stalking my contribs today simply because he didn't care for something I said to him in an unrelated AfD deletion discussion about the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. He followed me onto the Exodus page, opened the above ANI about me, directed four nuisance templates to me that were unjustified, and then followed me to Talk: Jimbo Wales claiming the right to close down my conversation there (where I feel I have a right to raise matters with an editor whose opinion I value and judgement I trust more than many other editors) as well as to Wikipedia talk:Academic bias, a user essay that had a BLANK TALK PAGE until I posted feedback about the User essay there today, and he accused me of using that hitherto EMPTY TALK PAGE as a "FORUM" to solicit new opinions about this ANI, insisting that the conversation be closed and redirected to this ANI he opened up about me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC) At this point I simply want him to drop his fire brand, get off his high horse, and stop persecuting me, find something else to do on wikipedia today. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Guy has apologized for accusing me of using Jimbo's talk to "Forumshop", and has retracted the accusation. In the interest of "keeping the conversation to a centralized location" I am also accepting his apology here, and hope there will be no other hard feelings arising from factual issues we may differ on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite his previous apology it seems as if Guy has hardened his heart for the sake of the Exodus once again, and has again picked up his firebrand. He is now stalking ALL of my contribs and undoing them with impunity. Talk about vengeance. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be policies against stalking and harrassment. Oh wait there are, they just need to be enforced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When I see an editor who is violating Wikipedia policy, I am allowed to examine that editor's other contributions. If when I do I see that you have inserted utter gibberish into an article, and that when another editor reverted it because it doesn't actually mean anything], I see that you are willing to edit war to keep the gibberish in while having the unmitgated gall to quote BRD while you yourself follow BRRD, then yes, I do have the right to remove the patent nonsense and ask you to follow the basic rules of grammar. If you don't like it, start following the rules like the rest of us have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I didn't "insert" that phrasing, it must have been another editor. Yes, I did revert to it as the previous wording, because at the time I believed it was preferable to the newly changed wording. (and I am not certain it is "patent nonsense" either.) After more tweaking by other editors, it now reads completely differently, and apparently nobody objects to the current wording. No problem. This is all par for a day's work on wikipedia, and usually it's not a federal case. But I know how it is, when you are desperate to find a pretext to have someone muzzled and removed but don;t have a good enough reason, you will then go over their work with a fine toothed comb looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. I am trying very hard not to get you into trouble (not that I think I could; admins have this habit of looking at the evidence rather than just doing what Guy tells them to do.) For example, right now we are discussing this not because I reported you or in any way tried to get you in trouble. I just saw that you had written something that isn't actually English and quietly corrected it. Then you made another change that was standard English, and of course I did not touch that change. Then you -- nobody else -- decided to raise a huge stink about it here, accusing me of "stalking" you, "harassing" you and (yes, you actually said this) "persecuting" you. So how exactly is my quietly fixing your grammar error "looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble"? You are the one who brought it up here as evidence of me "persecuting" you. "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Did you hear that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?" -- http://www127.pair.com/critical/food-05.htm --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have examined the recent diffs at Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.  An IP changed the word "claims" to "assures", which leads to the subsequent exchange of edits.  According to www.m-w.com, each of the two words involved are vt.  An applicable meaning for "claim" is, "to assert in the face of possible contradiction", and for "assure" it is "to inform positively".  I think the issue here is the extent to which the new construct is awkward.  An awkward construct is neither "utter gibberish" nor "patent nonsense".  Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This may help explain the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't view youtube, so I don't know what you are seeing there.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it really true that "you're not allowed" to have User names in a section title? Because that would be news to me, I've never heard such a thing before, and just looking at the table of contents for this page at the moment, I see about fifty violations of this "rule". So is this really a "rule", or is someone just making up "rules" here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can have usernames, but not accusations against users formulated as if they were statements of fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

'assures its earliest origins from' = 'informs positively its earliest origins from', ergo. . ! Good grief. No native speaker would accept either form. If not gibberish, it is patently mangled or garbled English, and supporting 'assures' over the limpid alternative has only one function, i.e., misusing the word 'assure' to validate a claim as though there were some authority to trust it. That's the kind of niggling bible-bashers indulge in to weave around, over through, the neutral or sceptical analytic spirit informing modern scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins, please note that Guy Macon is continuing to WP:STALK my contribs today, follow me into every article I edit, send me templates threatening me with blocks for petty things, and make my experience here unpleasant as possible. He has made it clear that he doesn't believe WP:STALK and WP:HARASS apply to him, because in his mind I am illegitimate, I am "guilty" of something (presumably, not subscribing to his views on theology). Once again, I repeat, I JUST WANT THE DOGGING TO STOP. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Close and send to WP:AE?

I would like to focus on the following comments:

"Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up?" (Quoted from post by IRWolfie, 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

"I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at WP:AE. AN/I does not deal well with long term [tendentious editing] because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary." (Quoted from post by Saedon, 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

Given the above, should we close this and refer it to WP:AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who opened this ANI on me, and you have been the main one repeatedly urging for my voice to be removed on any possible pretext from the equation, because that is your method of forming "consensus" on Exodus - have all dissenters ejected, and presto, instant "consensus". And it stinks. You spent the better part of yesterday dogging my contribs list, all day I kept seeing your name popping up on unrelated subjects where I had recently made an edit, undoing my work. You claim you are justified in doing this because in your mind I am guilty of some "policy violation" and therefore you have probable cause, rules like WP:STALK and WP:HARASS therefore do not apply to you. I have been convicted of no policy violation, and I do not even know what policy I have supposedly violated. I have not forum shopped, despite a whole pack of accusations, made under the presumption that now I've challenged Exodus, anything and everything else I say or do on any topic can and will be held against me. I don't know how many more days this dogging me and harassment of me is going to continue -- but I just want it to be stopped now. Your only other answer to it being pointed out that stalking and harassment are against our rules, has been to mock and disdain the rules that say this, to try to make harassing others seem "cool". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

[EC] The policies that you have violated are linked to in the many user warnings that you have received.[132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151]...

I would also point out that it isn't just me. Many other Wikipedia editors have "persecuted"[152] you by asking you to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards.

This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, you are the only one who has declared me "guilty" of all these violations and attempted to execute punishment by following me into several other articles I have edited. You think WP:STALK doesn't apply to you. You need to come down off your high horse. We don't have a king, and you don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one, declare me guilty by yourself with your abundance of silly templating me, and then punish me by stalking my contribs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You've written the following at talk:The Exodus: Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias. There are hundreds of million according whose mythology the earth was once held on the tusks of a boar are you suggesting anyone not taking these stories seriously is biased against religions? I'm surprised at the rope given here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very clever "spin", but not a logical argument. No, I do not believe that is what I am suggesting at all. In fact, I don't believe I suggested any such thing. (Have you ever studied "logical fallacies?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain? To me it looks like beliefs vs knowledge, the later verifiable the former not. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you a whole course in logical training here. Basically, whenever you formulate an argument in terms of "Are you suggesting xyz" when xyz is something I have not actually suggested at all, and then proceed to castigate me as if I had suggested xyz, that is a red flag giveaway of a fallacy in logic. See strawman fallacy for more details. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we take beliefs seriously, the more the adherents, the strong their case? Correct me if my understanding is wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong, because you are taking what I actually said and transforming it into a different argument in your own words that is easier to attack, and attacking that position, but missing my actual position by a country mile. Again, read up on strawman fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You made a statement and Yogesh Khandke made a quite logical inference from it, and to clarify, used an analogy. This is not 'spin', unless you wish to dismiss 95% of Plato's diaslogues and their logical methods as 'spin'. You're dodging a legitimate query, and worse still throwing out vague remarks about logic while showing none. There are many problematical deductions and assumptions in that remark, like the idea of several Christian churches and other religions (?) teaching Exodus is 'historical'. You are not required in mainstream Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism to believe in the historicity of OT stories like the Exodus. The small number of fundamentalist Christian sects do not constitute, unlike the former, hundreds of millions of adherents. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There are currently around 1.99 billion Christians and 2.04 billion while Muslims, so we really need to rewrite Gravity along the lines of Intelligent falling#Precursors. :)

So it's a "logical inference" that I would have some opinion on the "boar tusk" theory, which I've never even heard of before, and not only that, I can be held accountable for that opinion even though I never spoke it, because you have "logically inferred" what it is? LOL I have no idea how many people take the boar tusk thing seriously. My understanding of "significant point of view" is that if a vast proportion of the Earth's inhabitants believe something and take it seriously, and there are like millions of sources verifying that they do believe it and take it seriously, then it is a "significant point of view" and it deserves to be explained on the wikipedia artile about that belief, along with any significant views to the contrary. That would include the "boar tusk" belief, if that is indeed a widespread belief that is taken seriously, I have no idea if it is or not. The other way of looking at it is to say "We know whose beliefs are correct and whose are incorrect, therefore we will decide this for everyone else on every article, and harass or threaten anyone who resists us." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "boar tusk" story is a belief, just like the belief that God created the earth in six days and then rested on the seventh, or that a virgin delivered, or someone died and then became alive again, or that a stick was pointed and waters parted, or that all the species on the earth fitted on one boat, those are beliefs not knowledge, we don't take them seriously, however strongly they are held or how many soever hold them. This is of course what I understand Wikipedia is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok Til Eulenspiegel, I would like to know, do you think beliefs ought to be reported as facts on Wikipedia? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't and have not been advocating that any such belief ought to be reported as fact. I suppose this is a good question, it is important to clarify that this is not what I have ever called for, not even once, because often those I am arguing against will misrepresent me and deceptively attempt to re-cast it in those terms, using bad logic. I also do not think it is neutral to report such beliefs as "fiction" or any synonym. Neutrality for me includes recognizing that our readership around the world believes different things, and allowing this to be so, without trying to be an activist "force for change" to push things this way or that. Kind of like the prime directive on Star Trek. It is incumbent upon us to report and describe all the major points of view on every subject, not just our selected favorites. That is what the NPOV policy says, that is why the NPOV policy is so very important and not to be scoffed at or taken lightly, and that is why if an article is skewed by presenting only one POV as correct, it should be permissible to add a tag requesting second opinions beside just the one. Articles like these are telling readers who have other POVs "Sorry, but your belief system you were taught is wrong. We have never actually proved why it is wrong, but a bunch of people who are just plain smarter than you, all got together and agreed behind a closed door, that your belief system is wrong, and you weren't invited or included in the discussion, so you'll just have to accept that, too bad. And don't even try to change it or you will be pilloried as a dissenter." This is "neutrality"? This is what Wikipedia is good for? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So you seem to say that you would be happy with "XXX is what historians agree to and YYY is the popular belief" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If historians happen to agree, which in truth is rarely the case. We have to avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and not try to redefine "historian" in any exclusive sense, which a lot of historians would love to be able to do to get rid of other historians that disagree with them, but is nevertheless not neutral. Remember, there have been historians since the time of Herodotus, and not all of them have been correct, and it is a deceptive illusion to suppose that there is a monolithic consensus or some universal credential-bestowing board of approval among the historians of every nation in the world. If there are several schools of thought in evidence, the formula should be "XXX is what the AAA school of thought says [1], while historians from the BBB school of thought have argued YYY [2]. The popular belief is ZZZ. [3]" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right about historians agreeing or dis-agreeing for that matter. I for now am of the opinion that in the context of the subject, your statement looks kosher to me. [3] ought to be a secondary source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at it like this: in the history of Romania (or what is now Romania) there is a 1000 years gap or 1000 years silence. No historical evidence of anything happening there. Millions of Romanians believe that the Romanian people has historical continuity. Millions of Hungarians think that's false. How would you write such an article? If you take for granted the beliefs of millions Romanians, you make millions Hungarians unhappy and if you take for granted the beliefs of millions Hungarians you make millions Romanians unhappy. These cannot both be true at the same time, so writing an article affirming both beliefs as true is writing gibberish. Since in that gap nothing could be proven to be historical, no real event which happened then can be shown to have historicity. The same applies for Exodus (or Troy in 1850). Anyway, I find your line of reasoning quite weird: if you take for granted the faith of millions, then physics classes should teach about the World Turtle, on a par with geocentrism and heliocentrism and flat Earth. No more physical experiments agreed behind a closed door and then taught to pupils in order to indoctrinate them with facts about the real world. No longer calling flat Earth a delusion. It seems to me that your denial of science and scientific facts is a way wherein you want to eat your cake and still have it. And then accuse others of flawed logic because they point out that there is a contradiction between eating your cake and still having it. Your position has been shown to be absurd. I agree that the discussion among historians and theologians that myth cannot be simply equated with falsity is a lofty, sophisticated, high-brow concern, but pushing it to such practical extremes is untenable, even ludicrous. Not everything one learns in cultural anthropology classes could be transplanted in real life. Postmodernism may be fine and dandy as an epistemology of the social sciences, but mix postmodernism and physics and you get the Sokal affair. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem of Romanian and Hungarian historians each filling a 1000 year gap totally differently shouldn't be that big a problem for us. Presumably we would simply allow all points of view from all sides to be fully explained in their appropriate sections, without endorsing or refuting any of them. More than one POV can coexist on the same page, and the readers can make their own determination. What's so hard or mind boggling about that? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a technicality: popular opinion does not establish historicity. Only evidence establishes historicity. If you want to affirm that most Christians, Jews and Muslims think that the Exodus really happened, I have no objection. But don't conflate it with establishing historicity, since history (as a science) is not a democracy: when writing history books historians don't decide matters by popular vote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a No true Scotsman definition of "historian", I think. Actually, historians when writing books use a whole range pf all kinds of methods to "decide matters", some of them we may never know. The point is, and this may really blow your mind, but if there is no evidence about something, but plenty of disagreement, then in those cases it is not our role to decide matters. It really is possible to have articles that state that there is disagreement among sources, without having to tell readers whose opinion is correct and incorrect. Even in Eastern Europe. It really is possible. I have heard that people there grow accustomed to always being told by authorities what to think about every subject. I am talking about a radically different philosophy, that may be new to you, called "using neutral language that lets the reader decide for themselves and make up their own mind what to think about a controversial subject". There doesn't always have to be a "winner" on every article, and our job was never to decide who the "winner" is, but only to give all major points of view as sourced, describe the elephant from as many angles as possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, Schliemann had what is takes to convince the mainstream historians, your millions of believers just don't have what it takes to convince the mainstream historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The person who once told you it sounds like you would probably prefer "Citizendia" was right! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Schliemann was an amateur and he harmed the site, but he produced evidence for his claim of discovering Troy. That's more than all modern and contemporary Jews, Christians and Muslims have done in respect to producing evidence for the Exodus. This is not about Wikipedia or Citizendium, it is about how science works. You fail to see that while on Citizendium only experts are allowed to edit, Wikipedia and Citizendium have the same criteria for reliable sources. I.e. they have the same view of who counts as a scholar, so stop insinuating about no true Scotsman. You fail to see that through such attacks you disqualify your own stance. Any competent editor knows that there are scholars and that there are wannabes, and that the two categories should not be conflated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: First of all, popular opinion or the opinion of non-scholars on scholarly topics is of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Second of all, WP is very much biased toward real qualified academic scholars from real universities writing in real academically reviewed journals and books. If you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong place. Third of all, we cover only significant views, not extreme minority or fringe views. Last of all, and most important, you have not explained why you failed to provide any reliable independent secondary SCHOLARLY sources when asked to do so to support your contention that other significant views exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and I do not see that as the reality that popular beliefs are of no encyclopedic significance to us. (Especially on the articles that are ABOUT those popular beliefs) Over the years I have heard this shrill voice coming from only a very few users such as yourself. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you assume Dominus Vobisdu that the "popular belief" citation wouldn't be from a reliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strawman. That's not what I wrote. Nice try, but no cigar. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfair and biased topic ban imposed

Bear with me.

1. Context: There is a pair of very controversial articles, namely

   2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

   Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

   User Darkness Shines is pushing an obnoxious agenda in each one of them. He created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as category of the same name and vehemently defended both of them in the AFD, DRV as well as CFD, blamed the closer, even when multiple editors tried to make him understand the issue. Darkness was blocked and then unblocked and that unblock was controversial to put it mildly. Let's not forget I told that this editor will not only lead to his own block but also others'. Now, it's no secret that because of some recent changes in his proclivities he has managed to garner a few hardcore sympathizers who would want to see an exclusive and utterly one-sided focus on only anti-Muslim violence in India, who incessantly strive to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom". For more on Darkness Shines see this temporary repository.

2. I expanded one article few weeks ago, added literally hundreds of sources, 116 to be exact, but later it was reduced down to 3 sources with an allegation that I have turned it into a political screed by none other than FPaS. And with warning that seemed to me more like a threat that if I try to restore any of it again I will be banned no questions asked, and I didn't because I was scared I didn't want to be banned. I obviously felt bullied. I didn't like it even one bit. Save me all the repetition see this. I have asked him to explain what the problem was, I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Maybe that I could have handled it more finesse but he didn't even bother to explain anywhere what the issues were. Still I refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article because I respect the warning. I don't believe that I have IDHT yet. But when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing.
3. What happened in the past 24 hours has really managed to put big doubts in my mind about the whole establishment. Now in a separate article 2002 Gujarat violence added other sourced content which I think is pertinent enough and none of the involved editors protested against it (even the extra-scrupulous Darkness Shines let it stay). Again, maybe I am wrong in some subtle way but that is not a ground to assume bad faith on my part? I did not misrepresent the source, I encourage you to check it. I don't believe Wikipedia is censored but that belief is steadily languishing. Instead of talking with me or discussing with me, FPaS deemed it okay to ban me based on a subjective pretext for SIX months from any India-Pakistan related article. I have been editing that article for weeks, what happened this time that triggered the ban you may ask, I can only point to this banality. Note What Admin Spartaz wrote:

   ″I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages.″

   And he did it properly. I have no complaints against him.

4. BTW it is only me who is banned, not Darkness Shines whom FPaS himself recently warned by saying, [153],

   ″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″

I have in past in this very venue see things that have boggled my mind and yet I am astounded. I was in the middle of a discussion with Dlv999, Sarvajna, DS and Dharmadhyaksha. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, or misrepresented any source deliberately, or behaved uncivilly or any other way tried to disrupt wikipedia in last 7 days. What is the problem that I'm creating? Tell me and give me a chance! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pretend I understand the subtleties on this affair, but based on [154] the banning admin was WP:INVOLVED in editing the topic area and was in a direct content disagreement with the banned editor. So someone else should impose the ban if it is necessary. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look at it carefully and in detail it is actually dead-simple. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why was the appeal made here and not at WP:AE using the standard appeal template? The topic ban was issued according to discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBIP. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed on ANI and, better yet, on AN (as a personal note, I prefer these venues to AE, but there are fellow Arbs who feel differently). That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After that, I will be blocked? WOOW! The things you call personal attacks are observations that are indispensable to my appeal. Most don't get how critical the situation is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I particularly like this, but I have just blocked MrT for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

*blink* You did whuh? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear assumption of bad faith by the admin who awarded a topic ban to MrT, he is very much involved with MrT in some other articles and was not happy with MrT so he banned him, and for what? Some edit made by MrT was given as the reason, so how many people felt that his edit was problematic? No one except that admin. I feel that we should not only remove the topic ban of MrT for this good faith edit but also there should be some action against this admin for misusing his admin rights. -sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be some sort of background between Mrt and FPaS (I have no idea when/how it started) and probably FPaS should had avoided any administrative action towards MrT and let an uninvolved admin doing eventual actions against him. In any case these two edits are problematic but likely not even worthy of a talk page warning (even if I don't consider reverting both of them as a wrong action). And even if FPaS was correct in imposing a ban, a six month ban is absolutely beyond measure. However, waiting to hear FPaS'explanations... Cavarrone 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In a normal situation what you say may be correct (obviously the details would need to be examined to determine whether "let an uninvolved admin..." is a reasonable summary). However, in a topic under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA), the situation is very different. Several major battles in real life are echoed in Wikipedia with editors on one side fighting editors on the other side over a wide range of articles for years. Little details such as the name of a town may seem incidental to the casual onlooker, but can have epic implications to those involved who recognize that one sequence of letters means their side is right, and another sequence of letters means the other side is showing their POV bias. In such circumstances, it is impossible for order to be maintained unless one or two volunteer admins adopt the dirty task of following the skirmishes, and every enthusiastic editor quickly becomes acquainted with the one or two admins who monitor the topic. If INVOLVED were hyper-applied, chaos would develop because it is not possible for completely uninvolved people (with no knowledge of the background and history) to follow all the details—that's why the problem went to Arbcom in the first place. Wikipedia is not an exercise in justice. An appeal should address the precise points mentioned in the topic ban, and should assume the admin is working in good faith—the purpose of an appeal is to show that the admin was incorrect in the particular case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The admin FPaS who unilaterally decided this ban is unfortunately WP:INVOLVED in making content decisions in the topic area. I was uninvolved in editing this area before this thread started, but it was easy for me to notice his !voter AfD participation in [155] and his decision to twice-stub the other article sans discussion. (Mr. T's version of the article had a horribly unfocused prose flow, so I found it easier to expand/[re]write from scratch rather than try to massage Mr. T's text toward more NPOV, but that's obviously a content decision.) This is unfortunately another regentspark-like situation, with an admin being closely enough involved in content-making decisions taking actions which are normally reserved for uninvolved ones. I realize from my own experience the difficulty in getting uninvolved admins to look at cases of long-term problematic conduct, but this is unfortunately how Wikipedia's policies and admin community are currently structured. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I too had edited the article on Minorities in Pakistan and I think I too should present my perspective. I am concerned that Wikipedia is doing a piss poor job of noting human rights violation in Pakistan and I have been trying to correct the situation as much as I can. FuturePerfectatSunrise seems to be super-sensitive to negative content about Pakistan and had edited that article whitewashing almost all of the (well sourced) negative content about Pakistan. I had created a section on "Women" and FuturePerfectatSunrise has deleted that too (without any explanation). They had threatened to block (without warning) anyone who edits the article in an "obviously non-neutral" way but would not explain what that "obviously non-neutral" thing might be. (Mrt3366 has requested them to explain things several times.) So, the result is that if I edit the article at all, I am at immediate risk of being blocked for editing in that mysterious but "obviously non-neutral" way. I am afraid I cannot deal with an ed who is whitewashing an article and is likely to block me (by doubling up as an admin on the same article). So, I had given up editing that article. If FuturePerfectatSunrise had explained their concerns, I would have liked to work with them, and address those concerns. But FuturePerfectatSunrise remains completely uncommunicative and just keeps waving the admin-gun and shooting. Looking at the way Mrt3366 has been victimized, my impulse to edit that article has eroded even further. As a non-admin, I cannot be expected to deal with an ed who wants to whitewash negative content and can block/ban me. It is up to the community to see if it is OK for admins to block/ban eds that they have content disputes with. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Women, in general, are not usually considered to be a minority. So that section is probably off-topic in that article, unless only women of some religious/ethnic minorities face extra discrimination, and in that case the issue is better phrased in those terms and diffused in some other section. Human rights in Pakistan and Women in Pakistan is an appropriate home for the general issue of women's human rights [violations] in Pakistan. Better communication/explanation from the editor deleting that would have saved you some aggravation, no doubt. On the other hand, some level of WP:COMPETENCE is required in writing about such topics. I've seen other editors who I suspect are motivated by deep personal biases throw in everything and the kitchen sink in some article, probably attempting to make some entity look as bad as possible. That's not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be structured. And it usually ends up badly for editors who repeatedly don't get that point; see this case for an example. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have two thoughts for those concerned about this case. First, it would be great if there were enough admins prepared to monitor topics under discretionary sanctions so that each admin could spend an hour justifying each statement, but such resources are not available. Second, any editor wanting to show unfair treatment should start with a diff of an edit where their change was to the advantage of one side, and another difff showing an edit on the opposite side. Neutral editors in a contentious area should find it easy to locate material that expresses each side. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I obviously agree, let's focus on my topic ban for now please? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. If you go through my edits carefully you will see as a whole I have never blindly opposed something. Again, perhaps I could have handled the situation in Minorities of Pakistan with a bit more tact but I wasn't even told anywhere what the issues were. Still I considered the possibility of me being biased with regards to that article and refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article. Does it not mean anything? Does it not mean that I am willing and I don't out-of-hand disregard such warnings based on a perception of my biases? I am not saying I am 100% neutral editor, I mean who can self-certify like that? It may very well be that I am biased right now. If that is the case then tell me what did I do to get accused of bias? Bear in mind that without a fair hearing, accusations of bias is tantamount to personal attack. Silence is not admission of guilt. Did I distort a source? Did I obdurately refuse to listen to others? Did I delete sourced content? I am the one who constantly gets vilified for adding sourced content, yet I usually don't outright retaliate by attacking others; I simply ask them to focus on content. If I get cautioned by an editor/admin that I am attacking someone (even unknowingly), I pay heed to that and rewrite my comment almost immediately. I mean does it not freaking say anything about my character? I have been asked to keep it focused on my topic ban but amidst all the disparity it's gradually becoming very hard not to point to other cases where greater NPOV violations have been dealt with much much more leniently. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the edit which according to the admin "the straw that broke the camel's back" for him. If you check that article, that content is still present in the article, it was not opposed by anyone, there was no discussion on talk opposing the inclusion of this in the article.I would consider this a good faith edit, did anyone try to explain MrT that there was some issue with that edit?No. Now the admin thought that it was some kind of tendentious edit, so he conveyed that with a topic ban. My conclusion is if an admin do not like my edits which were not opposed by anyone else then I run the risk of being banned. This is a very dangerous situation.-sarvajna (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that much-touted "tendentious edit" is still inside the article nobody removed it since then, it can mean only two things:

1. My edit is not seen as inappropriate till now, by any involved editor (who I must say have been very, very scrupulous about almost every other thing)
2. The banning admin's aim was not improvement of the article, had his goal been the improvement of the article he would probably have talked with me about it, at least reverted that edit. What was his aim then?

That means I am unilaterally banned for six months by an admin, who few weeks ago was involved in a direct content dispute with me on Minorities of Pakistan, for making an edit, in an article about a highly emotive subject, which nobody else (including those who were vehemently opposing me) deemed worthy of even a complaint? I am flabbergasted. Yet, I am expected to assume good and believe that everything is alright. And amazingly enough I am still assuming that people will see the inconsistency. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: Given how this has unfolded so far, I think it would be appropriate to get an uninvolved admin to look over this specific situation, and either advise MrT on what he did wrong (he cant fix his behaviour if he doesnt know what the issue is, the point of any non-permanent ban is to allow time for reflection, and behavioural adjustment); and to check the banning admins' rationale and then extend/reconfirm/minimise/remove ban as necessary (if required). If MrT has behaved incorrectly at some point, without being made aware of what exactly is the issue, it is extremely unlikely he will be able to modify his behaviour, and hopefully return to the topic as a changed man. -- Nbound (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is horrible! COMMONSENSE (or lets say ARBCOM, for people who follow book) would say that a non-involved admin should take up brooming tasks. We have like thousand admins and why do these same faces come up for imposing blocks and bans??? They are very involved as editors in these topics and they themselves, with a bit of dignity, should be avoiding using admin tools. Mr. T should not be banned as this admin is involved.
  In fact, various other admins should also rest their broomsticks when they are editing South Asian articles and at the same time acting as admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary sanctions says: "Administrators must also follow the Committee procedures set down at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions."

And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Discretionary_sanctions

"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

When Future perfect at Sunrise warned me he said, "You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this [15] edit is completely unacceptable. You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit." (my emphasis)

I didn't like the dismissive and angry tone of his comment yet kept my cool.

I later asked him specifically,

"I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again, What do you want to ban me from and based on what?"

His reply was, and I think this is the warning,

″Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions.″ -Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he ever explained to me what exactly he saw that deserved a ban. He kept on harping on my intellectual incompetency but never bothered to explain anything. Read the thread. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Mrt3366 was requested by Salvio giuliano to remove the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his initial report. He was very briefly blocked when Salvio misread a response of his. Since his unblock, he has not modified his initial posting. Several editors active in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA have commented here. A block issued under discretionary sanctions is hard to overturn and almost certainly that cannot happen based solely on the views of a small self-selected group of editors. The advantage of WP:AE is that discussions are more orderly and must stick to the point; there is also guaranteed input from uninvolved administrators, usually familiar with both the topic area and discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason comments are so orderly at AE is because few watch it partially because input from outsiders to the AE in group are generally ignored. MR T is clearly getting agitated which isn't helping their cause but a very quick 15 minute review shows that the user is telling the truth about one thing, that there does seem to be some evidence that some admins where out of line. For example, I personally get irritated when I see notices like the one here that all non-admin's are blocked. A seemingly automatic assumption that if your an admin, you must be right or that since their an admin they'll just unblock themselves, neither of which is a good response. I also agree that discretionary sanctions are hard to unblock but a consensus here should be enough to over rule it on a case by case basis. With that said, the articles in question have massive NPOV issues throughout them, they should both probably be fully protected to ensure discussions occur on the talk page and are only implemented after a consensus is reached. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit that broke the camel's back

I see two problems with that edit [156]:

• Ashok Patel is also identfied as a Bharatiya Janata Party member in the source, but this was left out in the edit. But, more importantly,
• How does that hearsay of some phrases allegedely uttered qualify as "Post-Godhra violence"??? And how is Patel's opinion about who started the original event relevant in the section about post-event violence?

In light of the previous problems of a similar nature in the article on Minorities in Pakistan, I think this edit was a case of breaking the camel's back as far as WP:COMPETENCE is concerned. Whether willingly or not Mr. T is adding enough irrelevant, WP:UNDUE material to require some sort of remedy to relieve others from repeated/massive clean-up after him. That's my take on this. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And I also note the rather unsurprising edit-warring over that addition from another editor apparently deeply vested in this [157]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't bring up Minorities of Pakistan I didn't repeat my edits and left it to others. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the first time somebody has come to talk to me about it. Bear this in mind while trying to justify the SIX months ban.

Second, it was added as an opinion, not an assertion of fact. That article is fraught with such assertions. I was not the first one to add opinions. (WP:GNG doesn't limit the content of an article.)

Third, I attributed all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. (cf. WP:BURDEN) I added a source which I found on the net [158]. Since that was the only thing missing from the article, I was actually trying to balance it (cf. WP:BALANCE). Needless to say, it may seem offensive to some. And this is the problem.

Fourth, do not assume bad faith please, I didn't willingly leave Bharatiya Janata Party-member part out. In fact, I think, it makes his claims more significant not less. We should NOT sit on judgement on whether an witness, who is BTW DEPOSING before an investigative commission, is telling the truth or not. That's not our job.
Also have you seen the article Saffron Terror? Anti-Muslim pogroms in India? Was the creator of that article also banned? I made an edit, one wrong edit maybe for which I was not approached by anybody, yet basing on that edit I was directly banned. Another guy initiates WP:RM to move a page from a neutral common name to an utterly biased name, initiates RFC to justify illegal reports from unconstitutional commission (see this) as though it matches the credibility of the official verdict from a court of law, creates an utterly deceptive and derogatory article based on selective sources, biased comments, nobody asks any questions about it. He is blocked and then unblocked and then blocked within days and then unblocked by an involved admin. Nobody cares to reblock him. That is bias. Yet, I make one edit, one edit, just one single edit that is not a contravention of any policy that I know of, I am right away banned for six months by an admin who clearly angry at me and was involved in content dispute with me. WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're posting in bold, allcaps, and have a template in your signature? What on Earth is wrong with you people? Any goodwill you have built is pretty much being torn down very quickly by the above - well done. You're effectively ensuring your topic ban continues, and putting huge walls up against any future complaints. Well done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And your signature has some symbols that i dont like. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha I think BWilkins is trying to help. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but his attempts to help are not actually helping. That observation about my signature was uncalled-for here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't changed upper-case to lower case, and as I said this place isn't for those who are sensitive to criticism especially when when they are the subject of a discussion. I know it is difficult, but that is the only thing that will work. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, goodwill and all. Yeah. This is your first comment and that too when I am starting to loose my calm. What is the use of such goodwill, if it can't make you comment on the right time at the right moment on the right thing. HUuuuuH? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you will recall that I have on several recent occasions predicted that topic bans would soon be enforced for various people contributing to articles such as these, Narendra Modi etc. You, DS, Dharmadhyaksha, OrangesRyellow and others are all going at it hammer-and-tongs, you are all displaying huge amounts of POV and the number of times that you were appearing on this board were bound to draw attention. The only thing that surprises me here is that the ban is not indefinite and that it has not been imposed (yet) on others. Go contribute to some subject matter where you would appear to have less of a vested interest and/or less of a battleground mentality. There must be at least 4 million other articles you could work on. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to count yourself as one of us, Sitush. [159], [160], [161], [162] Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 railing and ranting is not going to get you unbanned, I suggest you strike off or rephrase what has been considered as "personal attacks", unbold the bold etc. I've been the subject of a ban discussion motion against me that was carried and trust me drama doesn't help. Keep your cool. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What personal attack are you or anybody else referring to? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Savio wrote: "That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked." You ought to ask him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So you mean you yourself don't know what the issues are? BTW, I implored Salvio to explain ABF issues on my unblock request, here, he didn't say anything as of now. I am not creating this "drama" intentionally you know. I have been forced to make strident and explicit observations. That's all they are, observations from my stand-point. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No Mr. T, I don't know what is bugging Savio, I didn't say you were creating drama, I just said that drama doesn't help, my experience. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• This topic ban could have been seen coming from a hundred miles away. Mrt666 clearly chose not to get out of its way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Mr. T. His responses above indicate that he isn't likely to change his approach. I would support topic bans for a couple of other editors in this area, but that should be proposed separately, I suppose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom

While I think Mr. T's edits are biased, Future Perfect seems to be acting in an extremely heavy-handed manner when plainly WP:INVOLVED. This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124#Future Perfect at Sunrise. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to a temporary desysopping by ArbCom in the WP:ARBMAC2 case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that I have an "involvement" here is plain wrong. I have followed the current set of disputes involving DarknessShines and others from a neutral distance, and my engagement in it has been in an administrative role. I warned Mrt the other day, as an uninvolved administrator, and now I followed up on this warning. That was, as best I can remember, my first ever interaction with Mrt. I have given such warnings to several users, on all sides of these issues. In a small number of situations, I have also addressed and corrected issues of obviously bad use of sources and obvious tendentious content editing, including a handful of content edits on some of the disputed articles. These were "tie-breaker" edits, made in situations where I felt the opponents were so much entrenched in their POV squabbles, and their understanding of NPOV writing was so poor – on both sides – that it would be unreasonable to wait for them to work out a reasonable solution among themselves. These interventions fell on both sides of the dispute, but most of them were, if anything, in favour of Mrt's side. The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. (I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.)

As for the objective justification for the sanction imposed, as I clearly said here [163], the individual edit I pointed out was merely the "straw that broke the camel's back". Other admins had been making it equally clear to Mrt that his behaviour was unacceptable and that possible sanctions against him were being considered. The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus. This is sanctionable, and Mrt's repeated claims that he doesn't understand what he did wrong doesn't really make things any better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal for an arbcom case centred on Future Perfect at Sunrise is not new. A similar proposal was made in late December 2012. That proposal was fairly speedily rejected by the arbitration committee. Given the comments from informed parties like Bwilkins, Sitush and Maunus, a similar case would almost certainly be rejected now. RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not commented so far. He is an administrator who has an in-depth understanding of the POV-pushing going on around WP:ARBIPA. His comments would be valuable in interpreting the cumulative edits On Minorities in Pakistan.[164] (In his only actions on the page, FPaS protected the page on 7 June, returning it to a previous state prior to the large number of changes mainly by Mrt.) As I wrote before, it would have been better if the appeal had been made at WP:AE, where it could have proceeded in a more orderly way. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why people like RegentsPark, Sitush and Maunus should get greater weight in an arbcom case. Except for Bwilkins, you can see all the people you name on one side of the fence at talk:Narendra Modi and its archives. Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get Nazis to lord over Jews. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV. If you think Template:Userlinks:RegentsPark is Western POV, instead of looking at his username, you should look into the type of articles he edits constantly. Does that look like a Western ed to you?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) Madhu Kishwar an activist and scholar has referred to false propaganda that has been the feature of the coverage of the incidents in Gujarat in 2002.[165] (2) I draw attention to the report presented by The Council for International Affairs and Human Rights headed by D S Tewatia, a former chief justice of the Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana high courts" that Godhra was an "act of international terrorism planned and executed in connivance with jehadi forces based there",[166], Arvind Lavakare quotes an India Today report alleging that 157 riots were started in retaliation to the violence sparked in response to Godhra.[167] (3) How different are statements in (1) and (2) from what Mr. T has written, described by Future Perfect as the proverbial last straw[168] "After nearly 10 days of the train carnage, Pakistani flags were unfurled on top of a public tank in Ramol area and Muslims shouted slogans like 'Pakistan zindabad [Long live Pakistan]'... According to Mr. T's edit riots were sparked off by Muslims who instigated the Hindus "with an intention of spreading fear". Mr. T's edit is well sourced,[169] and is written in the manner Wikipedia wishes views to be reported. (4)The Tewatia report whose excerpts are available in this Arvind Lavakare post and which is available in its primary form here and here reports as mysterious incidents like: (a) Very high traffic of telephone calls from Godhra to Pakistan (mainly Karachi) before 27.02. 02. (b) Holding of istema - religious gatherings - at Godhra that were attended by foreigners in large numbers. (5) This looks like nothing but a content dispute and not a candidate for being described as "The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus."; Future Perfect's, argument regarding why he banned Mr. T isn't convincing. (6) https://toolserver.org isn't working for me at the moment, but as far as I remember I've had no major contribution to the page, so if I'm missing any fine points it is all my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You edit-warred with Mr. T over the Minorities in Pakistan article. Saying it was "obvious tendentious editing" doesn't change the fact that you blanked a huge amount of sourced content, removed many constructive edits, and emptied four different sections all while threatening to block anyone who reverted your action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend asking arbcom to put FPaS and regentspark under administrative supervision. Under this scheme, their admin actions in the area would need to be approved by another ArbCom-approved admin. While this area is undoubtedly dogged by editors who engage in non-neutral editing and who either lack WP:COMPETENCE to take feedback on board or persist by sheer WP:IDHT, the problem is compounded by admins taking action while clearly WP:INVOLVED and then denying it with a straight face. I guess all regulars editing this area, admins and plebeians, fall in MastCell's 85% by now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Going to ArbCom is always an option, but it's very doubtful you will get the result you are looking for. FPaS is one of the few administrators willing to be involved in these cultural disputes, and they're not going to do anything to stop him from helping out when no one else is willing to do so. AniMate 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal and other threats from IP 76.12.126.18

76.12.126.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be making a clear legal threat in this edit. Can someone else review this, please? -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some more. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And this also contains another implied threat, namely: "there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you." -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment on the rest of your complaint but I fail to see any implied threat of anon retaliation ops in the last diff you provide. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the diff, quote: "Your avid discomfort in the truth is leading to an investigation into your own bias toward Spamhaus and/or Cloudflare and there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you." -- The Anome (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright I see it now. Well the threats certainly exist as you say. We should proceed as we usually do with IP-legal threat accounts then. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still not seeing a legal threat. "Leading to an investigation"? Where? On Wikipedia? In my livingroom? Not even an attempt to chill the conversation - more trying to huff and puff about something, plus a little WP:OWN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you conflating issues. The threat mentioned is the suggestion of retaliation by 'Anonymous' in some form, obviously not legal action but most likely some other form of action, itself potentially illegal. The investigation thing wasn't AFAIK of so much concern although we taken together with the earlier suggestions of legal action seem to be problematic. While technically the claim was not in the form 'we will do this' but in the form 'someone else will do this' it would likely have the same chilling effect and since it's referring to retaliation it's a fairly questionable warning if taken seriously. The legal threat is the claims of libel, including the statement "The Homogeneous Party, a registered Political Party in the State of Florida and we will not tolerate deliberate libel to be published on your site and you continue to revise corrections that mitigate the damages of libel" which implies not just that they feel they are being libelled but that they are considering legal action. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is also about me, can I just add that I really can't take these IP's messages seriously and aren't in the least bothered?  Yintan  13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he jumped IP and sent me "We are filing for an injunction of your site today" and "We will also be launching an Operation against Wikipedia for being libel-mongers and will test the capabilities of your staff, system, and personal lives. That, my friend, is a promise!" and some more stuff[170]. It gets better all the time.  Yintan  21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month by TParis. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding and Repeated Harrassment by User:AmericanDad86

I'm sorry this is coming up again.

Quite recently I opened an ANI case regarding User:AmericanDad86's conduct towards me.[171] AD86 was blocked in late March for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Despite this, User:Blackmane closed my ANI filing claiming that it stemmed from a content rather than conduct dispute. That said, when I asked Blackmane for clarification, they cited a lack of admin involvement and acknowledged that there had been incivility (User Talk:Blackmane#Cofused), though they also recommended that I pursue this as a content dispute and go to DRN. I did so, and the finding there was in my favor regarding the content matter, though AD86 neglected to participate and little was said regarding their conduct, which admittedly would have been off-topic.

Both before and after the DRN filing AD86 continued to make, IMO, incivil and inappropriate comments regarding their views of my conduct: [172], [173], [174], [175]. This despite being encouraged to desist by other editors: [176], [177].

I had nevertheless hoped that AD86 might move on once that dispute tapered off, but they have once again begun participating in a Talk page discussion and are showing an inability or unwillingness to focus on content rather than contributor.[178] Given the fact that they have never contributed to the underlying article, it is very difficult for me to believe that this is anything other than wikihounding by AD86.

It seems clear to me that despite AD86's claim of wanting nothing to do with me[179], they in fact are interested in actively harassing me. Please review this and take whatever actions you deem necessary to get this disruptive behavior to stop. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I only went through some of the diffs and saw nothing particularly shocking. What I DID see though was accusations of you forum and admin shopping. What say you? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was really hoping that I would not be pulled into this madness and that this had been concluded, so I'm still perplexed to have received an invitation to this incident. After all, I only provided my input on the American Dad! talk page once.

Anyways, on the subject matter, I would like to give my input. I would argue that Doniago may have reacted explosively to this dispute in the first place in a conflict that could have been avoided in a much less convoluted manner. However, I did look at AmericanDad86's latest contributions, which includes visits to Doniago's frequent collaborations and was shocked to see that AmericanDad86 has indeed been looking to discredit and salt Doniago's credibility, based solely on their past dispute. I will continue to be scarcely involved with this ongoing dispute, but I find this conduct unacceptable. DarthBotto _talk•cont 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem both parties are at fault then. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to acknowledge that I may have overreacted to the initial dispute, but I certainly have not made any effort to follow AD86's contribution history beyond the scope of their disagreements with me, nor have I ever accused them of "whining" or otherwise made any conscious attempt to miscast their editing patterns. DonIago (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a DRN volunteer which helped with this when it was lodged as a DRN case, I would largely agree with DarthBotto's summary, the content matter is over and done with, AD86 should now WP:DROPTHESTICK / WP:LETGO and get back to editing. -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached? AD86 drops the stick and we all forget about it? Time to close this? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all I'm looking for, but thus far, as I noted in my initial post, they've seemed unwilling or unable to change their behavior even when asked by other editors to chill out. But again, as long as they stop targeting me (and ideally don't treat other editors in the same manner) I'm content. DonIago (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Close on the basis that this is a warning to ALL involved parties that this behaviour MUST stop or there WILL be sanctions. Can we agree on that? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, probably best with the addition of user warning templates (eg. Template:Uw-npa3 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, or as otherwise appropriate) -- Nbound (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Errrrr...we're closing a complaint as having consensus, even though one of the parties has not even participated? How exactly does that happen? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The dispute seems fairly minor, but your right it was an oversight on my part. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. RetroLord, I would suggest that you not declare threads closed on the basis that "if people don't stop, there will be sanctions" - you're not an administrator. While this does not reduce the value put behind your opinion, it does mean that you would have literally no way of enforcing that threat, or of guaranteeing that your statement is true. Please try to limit consensus decisions you reach to things you can enforce. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would be interested in hearing AmericanDad's reason for intervening here. The stats at the Sherlock Holmes article show that AmericanDad has never edited the article. If he's tracking Doniago through his contribution history then Doniago has a legitimate harrassment concern, and that needs to stop. I encounter Doniago quite often and his edits have always appeared sound to me, and since I have never encountered AmericanDad before it would be unfair of me to judge him either way; but if he has genuine concerns about Doniago's editing patterns—in fact any editor's editing behavior—then he should raise them at RfC/U rather than engaging them on articles that don't come under his editing concern. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Betty. I'm not going to claim that everything I've done in the course of this apparent dispute has been beyond reproach, but if in the end the consensus is that I'm to be Warned (or worse) for my own conduct, then I would ask for a clear explanation as to what I've done wrong and what I could have done better. My perspective as it stands right now is that I may have overreacted initially, but when things went to ANI the first time around I was directed to DRN, AD86 continued with their behavior after things at DRN had resolved, and I waited until they engaged me on a different matter before coming here again. If I was at fault in some manner, then by all means take whatever actions you feel my conduct merits, but please give me some guidance so that I can ensure this does not recur and take more productive actions in the future. Thus far the only editor who seems to have anything strongly negative to say about my conduct in this matter is the same editor who I felt obligated to report and can't consider credible with regards to this. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As said on WP:DRN, I am not going to take sides on this matter but I will say that this conflict is intense and extensive as all get out. It appears to be causing Doniago a lot of frustration, and AmericanDad86 does seem to be somewhat opinionated concerning his perceived accuracy of his editing style. I don't know whose more to blame, but I have offered my own perspective on this dispute.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I followed this back from Doniago's AN3 filing, having read it quite by chance. After doing a bit of homework, it's clear to me that Doniago has a legitimate complaint regarding AD68's actions; one needs only read AD68's comments on the 3RR filing by Doniago, which attempt to make the issue all about Doniago, to see there is some effort to act on what appears to be a grudge to my outsider's eyes. To write this off as a content dispute would do Doniago a great disservice, and will only give AD68 license to escalate his harassment. I might also add I'm a bit uncomfortable with Retrolord's efforts to interpret events for everyone, then rush this to closure, particularly given he is not an admin, and seems to have some recent issues of his own. It's not helping the situation, and I appreciate DWatkins' reminder that there are procedures we adhere to. --Drmargi (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me say right up front that I have been contacted by DonIago about this. To this point I have chosen not to comment but the wall of text below more or less proves DonIago's point. When an editor is being attacked the way DonIago has been I can well understand the need to ask for input from others that know how they have edited in the past. While there is clear evidence of stalking there are only two items germane to this page. First, the constant violations of "Comment on content and not the contributor" need to stop. Second, if AD86 thinks they have a legitimate concern they need to open a RCF/U. To this point I can't see blocks being handed out as they are "preventative not punitive." I would suggest an interaction ban between these two editors may be needed. Also I would also ask that some admins add there input so that this thread does not continue to spin on and on. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising Doniago contacted you to defend him before you said that. As I have evidenced in detail down below, the user's tactic is going from editor to editor and admin to admin INCESSANTLY to get them to defend them and if they don't he bickers with them, which I have presented down below. Marnette, you are not the first user I have had to contend with because Doniago has sent them after me and you likely won't be the last. As stated down below, he's bounces around Wikipedia trying to get numerous users to defend him and if they don't, he bickers with them until they do or leaves in a huff. A quintessential example is when he told user:Blackmane to explain what happened on an Administrative Noticeboard dispute to me on an article's talk page of all places so that he wouldn't look as bad, as shown here [180] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." This was following a long debate Doniago had with this editor to get him to defend him. It results in Blackmane coming to the article's talkpage stating "Doniago sent him" with this: [181]. If users refuse to come and defend him, it turns into a bickering argument also as evidenced down below. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My piece

Quite frankly, I'm thoroughly ticked off that user:Doniago hasn't been blocked for what he pulled in our recent content dispute that he even finally admits he overreacted to in this very discussion as shown here [182]. Every few months, Doniago instigates trivial edit wars with me. It started with a heated verbal war he started over the placing of a period, as shown here [183], here [184]; after I dropped the heated matter over the placing of a period and let the edit go his way despite other editors encouraging me to fight it out and not let it go (as shown here [185]), the user persisted in trying to start petty edit wars with me which I had been brushing off for several months, as shown here [186] and here [187]; here where he tries to initiate another verbal war with me over petty grammar concerns before realizing his antics resulted in an unconstructive revert, as shown here [188] and here [189]; and most recently here where he starts yet another trivial edit war with me on stable edit that had existed for over a year on the article in question of which I didn't even incorporate, as shown here where user:TBrandley makes an edit that the show always starts with parental rating in early 2012 [190], Indiasummer removes that edit a couple weeks ago here [191], I restore it here with a source and Doniago immediately removes it with the edit summary to me of "WP:Trivia! Don't include ratings unless they're significant." [192], and an admin comes and restores it here [193] and also informs Doniago that he is wrong for trying to remove a stable edit that I never made in the first place [194].

I'm the one to follow policy and initiate a debate on the matter on the article's talk page rather than engaging in a revert war with the user, as shown here [195] but user:Doniago doesn't even debate the matter, but makes repeated threats that he's going to report me on the Administrative Noticeboards, as shown here [196] and here [197].

With that, he proceeded onto the Administrative Noticeboards where he was bickering with the administrators, criticizing them, and expressing impatience with them that they "take too long" to make decisions. His case was closed and he was told to treat the matter as a content dispute: [198], [199], here [200] and here [201].

When that didn't work, Doniago began going to the talk pages of numerous editors to try to assist him in his aims to get me blocked, as shown here [202], here [203], here [204], here [205], etc., etc., etc.

He was repeatedly told to treat the matter as a content dispute. When that didn't work, he started complaining on help pages. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Wikipedia administrators and the way they do business and the system of Wikipedia altogether, as shown here [206], here [207], here [208], etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: [209] and here [210],[211], here [212], etc., etc., etc. etc. Several times, Doniago is told to treat the matter as an content dispute and stop making attempts to get me blocked, as shown such as here [213], here [214], etc., and when he isn't told things such as this or anything that isn't scolding remarks to yours truly, he bickers with the person, as shown here [215].

And Doniago didn't just admit to "overreacting" above in this very discussion. In his attempts to get me blocked, Doniago admitted on Blackmane's talkpage (of whom he was criticizing for telling him to treat our matter as a content dispute) that he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at the user's talkpage: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here [216]).

Meanwhile, I was busy ignoring these shenanigans and debating out the dispute in the multiple forums Doniago had opened up (such as shown here [217] and here in a debate Doniago opens up but is not involved with because he's too busy bouncing around from editor to editor and admin to admin trying to get me blocked: here). Finally, the user obeys the commands of other editors and opens the matter up in the dispute resolution process noticeboard, which really isn't needed because he had already opened up the debate in multiple other forums. Honestly, I didn't even know where to debate out the matter with this user as he had opened the matter up in several forums I'd been debating in by the time he had opened it up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

At the dispute resolution noticeboard, the rules of discussion were not to bring in any other matters outside of the content dispute but to focus centrally on the content dispute, as shown here [218]. But Doniago blatantly disobeys these orders and yet again with no provocations began complaining about his failure to get me blocked on the Administrative Noticeboards and everyone's failure to see things his way (as shown here [219] and here [220]).

As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit. To do this, I finally refrained from getting involved in his dispute resolution process (the umpteenth place he opened up the matter) and let him have his way on the edit in question, as shown here [221] and here [222]). Again, that matter involving his outrageous behavior was resolved because I had to be the bigger man again and let this user have his way on the edit. The edit was rather trivial one that I didn't originally incorporate at that and I had tired of user:Doniago's bouncing around from editor to editor, admin to admin, venue to venue, telling them to assist him in getting me blocked without him being blocked for violating numerous policies, from clear violations of WP:FORUMSHOP and telling other editors to use article talk pages as a venue to essentially make him look good and scold me, as shown here [223] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that."

Moreover, Doniago was also subtly antagonizing me at my talk page during all this harassment. Following compliments I had received from User:Willondon (as shown here [224]), Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here [225] where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"

Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others, I become concerned that he's doing it to other editors when I see this [226], this [227], this [228] following what appears to be edit warring behavior, as shown here [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], etc.

Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere. Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him, he seems to have gone to her talk page to ask her defend him [234]. As said before, Doniago instigates trivial editing disputes every few months in which he tries to get me blocked but ends up bickering and whining to admins because he is unsuccessful. As always, the matter ends up with me having to swallow my pride and let him have his little way with the edit as I know he could care less about the edit in question and is simply intending to get me blocked. I move forward, he leaves in a tizzy because he was unable to get me blocked and then it starts all over again in a month or so unless of course I brush it off. This is all detailed above. Because he clearly gets a kick out of this, I became very suspicious that he was doing it with other editors when I saw him engaged in an edit war literally 2 days later. I have every right to express my concerns when he goes to the edit war noticeboard, as shown here [235] and tries to get other editors blocked despite the fact that he too is engaged in edit warring with them within the same dispute as I document here [236]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - You need to trim that down to 500 words at the most if you expect anyone to actually read it.--v/r - TP 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Doniago's misconduct is a long story and to correctly understand why user:Doniago is out of line, the issue needs to be presented from start to finish. I've provided all the diffs right in front of your faces as evidence. I can't do much more beyond providing the full story combined with all the evidence. How this user has managed to stay active despite the behavior which is detailed in full above is beyond me. My stepping in another matter in which I thought he was engaging in his same behaviors he did with me doesn't qualify him to scurry on to the Administrative Noticeboards again. Basically, he was engaging in edit warring with another editor as shown by a slew of reversions yet reports the other editor for edit warring and I present the diffs that revealed his edit warring in the matter he reported his antagonist over. Again, here are his examples of edit warring and I have every right to report it: [237], [238], [239], [240], [241]. He proceeded to report me for reporting his edit warring behavior of which he left out when reporting his antagonist at the Sherlock Holmes article. He seems to use this venue as a means to try to get his way which needs to be nipped in the bud. When he's unsuccessful, he harasses everyone to get involved and get me blocked to no end. He has now admitted to his behavior being an overreaction. Is his own admission not enough? He states to being critical of Wikipedia's administrators and administrative noticeboards because he had other issues with users outside of myself here at the ANI noticeboards also as documented above (again, as shown here [242]). Is that admission too not enough that there's a problem with this editor? AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't just explain the story. You inserted a bunch of fluff that isn't necessary. Examples are:

• "Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere."
• "Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him"
• "Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others"
• "As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit."

It adds nothing of context to the narrative. Cut the fluff and present strictly the facts. What happened? "This happened [1], then this [2], then that [3] which violated WP:THISPOLICY". If you don't, no one is going to pay attention to you. Your first paragraph does this well, and then you lose it.--v/r - TP 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I've taken the time out of my busy schedule to present Doniago's misconduct in full. If you want only half the story and are too lazy to investigate the matter in its entirety, dismiss yourself from the discussion, and stop being a nuisance. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Im going to agree with v/r here, on any forum on WP, if you want action. You need to explain just the facts, adding your take on the situation rarely helps, leave that up to a fresh set of eyes. Failing to do so will either; not get your point across, or backfire. -- Nbound (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

v/r is shorthand for "very respectfully." @AmericanDad86: We all have busy schedules and no one is going to take time out of theirs to read your novel. I, for instance, just spent 8 hours building houses for Habitat for Humanity. So reading ten paragraphs is bottom on my list of things to do tonight. And folks like me are what you're going to get. It's about etiquette. If you're too lazy to revise your statement to conform to internet etiquette, then good luck to you. Don't be surprised if things don't go your way.--v/r - TP 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TP, I don't think you're going to get anything respectful out of AD86. I never have. I blocked him back in March of this year for edit warring. I warned him in April based on a report at ANEW. Then, I made a mistake and in late May forgot about the previous history and engaged in a content dispute with him on Judge Judy, an article he edits a lot (and badly). He reverted me, highlighting some apparent typos (I assume I made them but I'd have to research it more deeply to be sure) with this charming edit summary. Just to make sure I got his point, he left this message on my talk page. Because of the content dispute, I am, of course, involved and can no longer take any administrative action against him, much as he might deserve it. As for this particular dispute between him and Doniago, I have not evaluated the merits of it, so I can offer no assistance there. But if you're looking for a civil, collaborative editor, AD86 wouldn't be my first choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb, that edit summary is one of the dumbest I've seen. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ars longa, vita brevis. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Too long, didn't read it" is respectful?! Anyways, guys I don't have the time to get in different debates as a result of Doniago. I have a job to get to. I also don't have the time to figure out how to distort these long-drawn out matters in which Doniago has embarked on a long course of harassment against my self into a few paragraphs. If you rather focus on the diffs as opposed to anything else, simply focus on the diffs and ignore everything else. Administrative Noticeboard policies don't say anything about solely presenting diffs. I explained my side of the dispute just as Doniago explained his side of the dispute while admitting to his overreactions in this very discussion. Anyways, I've put the user's misconduct out there for everyone to see from A to Z. I encourage admins who want the full story to review it and no one else. This will be my last comment here. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remedy

I've now looked at a lot of the complaints by Doniago (his diffs) and a lot of the complaints by AD86 (which are subsumed in Doniago's diffs and also a few of the beginning diffs by AD86 here). I'll jump to my conclusion and then try to explain it. Doniago is sincerely trying to work out content disputes. AD86 is uninterested and manipulative. Doniago's biggest "fault" is he's not as adroit at presentation as he could be, which is why his original ANI complaint didn't go very far (even I reluctantly criticized Doniago for not presenting sufficient evidence). In addition, through sheer frustration, Donaiago does indeed try to get other editors to help him, although AD86's implicit accusation of canvassing is a bit much as sometimes Doniago is just trying to understand what other editors mean.

AD86 has an unconstructive approach to content dispute resolution. He freely admits that he tries to ignore Doniago, hoping I suppose that Doniago will just go away if he has no one to argue with. That may be acceptable in some circumstances where an editor is being belligerent or circular, but I don't think Doniago is being either. AD86's alternative approach is to bombard the discussion with complaints about Doniago (as he's done here). It's a scattershot approach where some of the complaints may be valid, some may be partly valid, and many are simply wrong. However, given the avalanche, much of it is likely to stick.

What troubles me the most is the avoidance of real content resolution and resorting to defeating Doniago's arguments by character assassination. For example, AD86 simply didn't participate in the discussion at WP:DRN. Another example is highlighted here by AD86 itself and has to do with WP:LQ. As any of us who have been at Wikipedia for any length of time knows, Wikipedia uses what it calls logical punctuation, so if we refer to an television episode, we say "TV Episode". We don't say "TV Episode." Even though at least in most American English the latter is more common. Doniago rightly changed a few instances of that to put the period outside the punctuation. He met with resistance from AD86, and AD86 decided to let it go (big of him) but at the same time said other editors felt he should fight it, and the diff he uses to support that is this one by an editor who essentially argues that WP:LQ should be eliminated because the editor is a "trained writer" and he knows better. That kind of garbage at Wikipedia goes nowhere. If someone wants to challenge a policy or guideline, they should do so in the appropriate venue; otherwise, they're pretty much stuck with it.

Now comes the hard part. What's the appropriate remedy for AD86's behavior? My sense, given my past interaction with AD86, is that this goes beyond AD86's interaction with Doniago and involves an aggressive, non-collaborative style (unless, of course, you agree with him). He called me a vandal. He called TP a "nuisance". Even when he doesn't call another editor an asshole expressly, he's clearly doing so by his rhetoric. He's dismissive. One of his favorite ploys, as seen here, is something like "I've done my part and have nothing more to say." This followed by "Goodbye!" It's an arrogant, I-know-best tactic and is not conducive to editing here. I don't see a topic ban being effective here as I don't know what it would cover. An interaction ban would not be particularly useful as it's not just a problem with Doniago. Civility bans are very difficult to implement and enforce, but of all the bans would probably be the most applicable. That leaves us with blocks for personal attacks and failure to collaborate. Unless, of course, we can get an acknowledgment from AD86 that his behavior is unconstructive and that he will improve. This is all assuming that AD86's conduct is sanctionable at this juncture. I think it is, but as I said earlier, I'm can't be the admin who blocks, and, of course, a ban would require community consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize it's not applicable to this forum, but I endorse your comment and thank you very much for the time and effort it must have taken for you to put it together Bbb. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, my stating goodbye because I've presented the entirety of my case on the matter and am leaving it up to administrators to make a determination is an "arrogant I-know best tactic" to you?!!!! You also flat out label a user's comments that supported me as "garbage" and I'm somehow the aggressive editor. All righty then! By the way everybody, administrator bb23 was among one of the admins who harshly criticized Doniago for coming to the admin noticeboards the last time over Doniago claiming he was personally attacked on basis of my complaining about his removal of stable edits without first discussing and other baseless, petty reverts of my material over the past several months, one edit in which he had to make a self revert on. He claimed my reference to him as "belligerent" for this repeated behavior was a personal attack and came running here whining about it. All the admins and Bb23 included found his case had no merit. Suspiciously, when admin bb23 saw I was involved, he just so happened to change his entire position on the matter. This administrator has just admitted to a previous editing dispute he and I had in which he repeatedly inserted typos and other misinformation so his actions and commentary in this matter are nothing more than vindictive. On his own, he has admitted to the typos in question but conveniently didn't do much to point them out. Included with the typos, Bb23 made a drastic revert without discussing anything on the articles talk page. The fact that he is commenting so heavily on this issue and has changed his position so drastically is nothing more than vindictive.

Also, how exactly am I the manipulative one when Doniago is going around making deals and bargains with other editors to defend him, such as shown on Marnette's user talk page here [243], this leading to her subsequent comments in this very discussion. Doniago has been incessantly using these tactics of bargaining, begging, and/or harassing editor after editor to come and defend him and make him look good and make me look bad in all of our dealings with each other. He did this with a whole host of editors after his failure here at the admin noticeboards and then by the way criticized everyone here at the admin noticeboards and the entire system. Meanwhile I complain about all these underhanded ploys and focus on content disputes and bb23 labels me as the manipulative one. For the most part, this matter has been commented on by users Doniago has begged, bargained with, or whined incessantly to and a two vindictive admins. This is exactly why a lot of people complain about the site and stop using it. People badmouthed it all over the Web for exactly this reason. Seems Doniago's ploys and politicking around from editor to editor has worked. I'm really not in the business of politicking around from editor to editor begging and making bargains with other editors to make me look good and make other editors look bad. I simply call it as I see it. Perhaps I'm using the wrong web site if success here requires Doniago's ploys and politics. AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AD86, your distortions of everything only make your defense of yourself and your accusations against Doniago (and others) that much weaker.

• I didn't "harshly" criticize Doniago in the last ANI report. I criticized him and said so in my post here. Nor did I criticize him in the rather inflamed way you described. I just said he hadn't presented sufficient evidence to support his complaint.
• No one found the previous report to be without merit. We never got to the merits.
• I was well aware of who you were when I posted at the last ANI report. I think my comments there show fairness, hardly vindictiveness.
• I haven't changed my position on anything. I thought your editing at Judge Judy was awful, which is in part why I reverted. However, I didn't continue to revert because I felt that to do so I would have to engage in a protracted content dispute with you, and I don't do that as much as I used to since I've become an admin. At the same time, if I wasn't willing to do so, I couldn't insist on removing your edits, so I stopped editing the article.
• The rest of your comments are just a continuing, repetitive rant of what you've already said in so many places. It doesn't warrant any further response.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, you have just called another editor's comments outside of my own as "garbage" because they agreed with me; you call me every name in the book from "arrogant" and "manipulative" to "i think I'm better than everyone" on basis of saying "goodbye" because i completed my say on my side of the dispute. You've also said things like all my edits are horrible. In the same breath, this admin has said im incivil. Bb23 you are a nothing more than a vindictive hypocrite engaging in a behavior you're trying to make criticisms about. Bb23 needs to be stripped of his admin tools. He is a quintessential example of why people leave this web site, never come back, and complain about it all about the Internet. He is an incendiary user. Again, I had planned on having my say on the matter and being done with it but this admin blatantly taunts me for my desire to have my say on the matter and be done with it and lures me into an altercation by labeling me as arrogant and that I think I'm better than everyone for this reason. I have only been blocked once at Wikipedia and it was by this very admin. His behavior was why i was getting ready to retire from Wikipedia once before. His behaviors in this very discussion should example primely what I had to deal with the first time around. This admin is looking for petty revenge through an altercation so for now I'm not going to read any more of his commentary. Doniago has a habit of harassing and bargaining until he gets his way as evidenced above. The sore bb23 seems to be here to give him credibility because he feels a second opinion will strengthen doniagos. Anyways I'm not going to continue arguing back and forth nor read the antagonism from the biased and personally attacking admin. I will simply await the result. I've told it straight up, called it as I saw it, didn't politic or forum shop, so now what happens happens. If I haven't made clear the in appropriateness I've dealt with from the two individuals in question beyond verbal accounts and diffs, then there's nothing I can do. I was told by a random editor just last week how valuable my contributions are and how he hopes i dont retire after he viewed one of my edits. however, it is hard not to when dealing with editors like the two in question and they are not penalized or brought to order... Well, Doniago was but disobeyed and now seems to be getting his way because of it. But at this point with these two editors engaging in outrageous behavior and not yet receiving blocks makes me shocked. Again, numerous people do not return to this site and make complaints about it because of behaviors like the ones of bb23 and Doniago. If these two users are to get their way in despite all their behavior, very well. Ill simply vouch for all the complaints made against the web site for the very behaviors they engage in and add my own. No arguing, altercations about it. Simple as that. Bb23 further comments by you won't be read because of your crudeness and vindictiveness over me reverting your typos. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have just warned AD86 for the personal attacks in the diatribe above. One more such outburst, one more time such unacceptable accusations, and it's a block. Bbb, have you, in the meantime, come up with a solution of sorts? The only thing I foresee is escalating blocks. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP behavior + an unwillingness to communicate.

For the past several weeks I've been dealing with the edits from the IP address 222.237.20.155, who has been removing arcade system information from a handful of articles such as Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of the Super Heroes and Giga Wing. I would have reported this at blatant vandalism but, looking at his other edits, the IP does seem to be interested in improving various articles and appears to be acting in good faith. However, despite multiple reversions asking for explanations and various warnings on his talk page, I have yet to hear anything from him as to why he's removing the arcade system info. I've checked myself and I've made sure that the removed info was correct and that the arcade infobox still supported info on what system was used. I really don't want to have to revert his edits every few weeks but I would like some help in establishing communication with him. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been blocked in Togo, and parts of Benin.

Trolling ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Sir/Ladies I can confirm to you today, that English language Wikipedia, and the French, Swedish editions, have been blocked by all ISP and governmental servers in the Republic of Togo, and small areas of the Republic of Benin. We have had reports coming in to our journalism office in Ghana that this is the case. --Togolaís Díplomátique (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for letting us know. Do you have any idea whom we may have offended? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC) The government of Togo has blocked the viewing of Wikipedia due to 'incorrect sources' and 'blatent lies'. Just censorship really. This will hit African medoa attention soon. --Togolaís Díplomátique (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I have mentioned this at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where Togolaís Díplomátique would have been unable to post due to the page being semi-protected by User:Fram, despite Jimbo asking Fram in the past to stay away from his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC) That's unfortunate but these would hardly be the only countries that block Wikipedia. It would be helpful though if they could give some examples of what they refer to as 'incorrect sources' and 'blatent lies'. They might be right and we might need to look at those but without knowing what they are its hard to say for sure. Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) "We have had reports coming in to our journalism office in Ghana that this is the case" Please I don't think this user lives in Ghana. And which part of Ghana is their located? There are no external links to prove also. Since am near to Togo I will try and check. Thanks. --Enock4seth (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, that would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) For reasons I won't go in to, I have some doubts here too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC) http://allafrica.com/stories/201306121229.html Seems they are torturing their way to an election in July. It may just be a temp block.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) It's Technoquat. A SPI/CU will confirm this. Cheers. 24.46.162.17 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Yep, even I recognize him and I've only seen two other socks of his. I think he wants to be discovered relatively quickly. There's not much in the way of WP:BEANS to be spilled here... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know if this is related, but we had some serious problems with the coverage of that region when the editor MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) attempted to carve the Igbo speaking region of Ghana into a country unto itself around new year 2013.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC) We should refer the matter to the UNSC. Count Iblis (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone think of an alternative to blocking this editor?

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

---

I'm off to bed but BiasEXPOSED (talk · contribs) expects to be blocked quickly and all their edits so far indicate they are right. See their userpage User:BiasEXPOSED to see their intentions. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Being banned is not my "intention" but just a predictable consequence of speaking Truth to Power. Silencing criticism is the liberal way -- just ask Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. BiasEXPOSED (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Stalin, Hitler, or Mao were 'liberals' probably deserves to be silenced ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not supporting a ban, but I am moving towards supporting a block, this shouldn't even be on AN its just a plain conspiracy vandalism account, along with a promotional userpage going against liberals. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I have trouble believing how things work in this place. That's a simple vandal, how can he have stayed unblocked this long? Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

And user page deleted. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you or another admin revoke this user's talk page access? The user just posted something on his/her talk page that's clearly an attack towards another user. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Ryan Zich

Can I ask for someone to keep an eye on Ryan Zich (talk · contribs)? I pointed out why his edits to the infobox in Tim McGraw went against what Template:Infobox musical artist/doc said, but he has not only reverted me, but also personally insulted me. His edits on my talk page suggest he's insistent in having his way and only his way, and I'd like someone to set him straight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the best start for a new user, worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see need for admin action yet.--v/r - TP 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would like someone to straighten out TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) There is no need for administrator action yet. There is just something about how he has been arguing with me that is a little bit scary. Its Just worrying me. Thank you. R.Z. Edwards (Did I screw something up?) (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you intentionally trolling or do you just not understand what's going on and you're trying to put on a tough guy attitude?--v/r - TP 03:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd also note that there's a series of page moves that appear excessive, and I think at leas tone of them needs to go, as I believe it may have created a double or triple redirect. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Zich, calm down and understand that a "tough guy" attitude doesn't work here, try a "rational guy" attitude instead. 173.58.60.143 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting summary block, and speedy deletion of all images uploaded by, User: Ontopgg

Account created earlier today, used only for promotional editing of Teri Ann Linn. Editor is edit warring without discuss to add back both inappropriately promotional text and multiple copyvios, both text and image. All of Ontopgg's image uploads, here and at Commons, are clearly copyrighted material from various sources, including Hachette magazine covers, claimed as their own work. Ontopgg has removed warnings from their talk page without responding. Enough whack-a-mole has been played already; time to speedy the images and block the editor until they agree to stop this; they've likely been editing the article from other accounts (both IP and named) for a while. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All done on this wiki, but the two files on the Commons are still awaiting deletion. I am not an admin over there. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is clean I think; there's no difference between the current revision and revision 523924084 dated 6 February 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now for that unblock request. Anyone feeling friendly? Drmies (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to log off now. I am posting a message on their talk page first. If they show a sincere understanding of copyright law and conflict of interest before I return in the morning, please feel free to unblock. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, again.

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

---

PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to show conduct that I have concerns about, such as an aggressive stance on several NFCC 1-related discussions. He has also publicly accused several editors (such as me and Masem) of being "deletionists", and listed them on his user page; which I had removed for being an attack page. After being warned of this policy, he then refactored the warning given on his page to say "Please do not create pages that show the truth about their subject. These pages and files are not tolerated by the people having the truth revealed about them." (in violation of the talk page guidelines). He also removed further comments clarifying the rules on refactoring talk page comments with increasingly aggressive remarks ("Is this YOUR talk page now" "EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK I AM ALLOWED TO DELETE SUCH COMMENTS ON MY OWN TALK PAGE" "Again; WHO'S talk page is this!?" "Stop harassing me about removing comments from MY talk page")

He was blocked for edit warring an image out of Xbox One that he felt was of a poor quality (and then began campaigning to have a non-free image restored because his interpretation of NFCC 1 does not consider the free image to be of good enough quality), on the condition that he stop edit warring over PlayStation and Xbox images. I don't think any of the things he's done today are worthy of blocks, but I'm becoming concerned about his conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not a molehill. As has been explained in a statement that you deleted with no apparent effort to read and understand it, if you repeat an edit like that, you will be blocked again. I'm unlikely to repeat the last go round where you were unblocked after a few hours, as your behaviour since your last block has been pretty abysmal, including using your user page as an attack page.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well pardon me for pointing out how stupidly powerful free content purists that always prefer worse content that is DETRIMENTAL to the encyclopedia because free have become! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to fail to understand that the exception to using non-free content is when suitable (note: I did not say high-quality) content is available, AND your attitude is going to be one where you create attack pages to disparage those who actually uphold the law, the rules, and policies, then I do not foresee your username appearing on Wikipedia for much longer. Do it again - ever - and you will be blocked, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if you're going to express your opposition to our non-free policies, it is probably best to (a) dial back the attacks on people with different opinions, and (b) perhaps choose an issue to debate which isn't actually cut and dried - the PS4 image issue was absolutely straightforward as regarding our policies and not even close to a grey area. People are far more likely to engage with you if you make your points in a reasoned manner. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No; the only problem here is how free image purists have brainwashed people into thinking that fair use is bad and the crappy and unencyclopedic free > encyclopedic fair use. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your level of cluefullness < 0 ... you have not read a single fricking thing that has been presented to you? You can't make your own shit up - especially regarding copyright and fair use. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think claiming that anyone on a project that contains many dozens of thousands of non-free images - most (if by no means all) of which actually do meet WP:NFCC - is a "free image purist" is never going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

~473k non-free files exist on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like everyone sees what's going on pretty clearly, but just to chime in: this user has been rather difficult to work with. There's no discussing policy with them, every time its "I want to use this image, so IAR!" And every time they're told "No, that's not how it works", then we get an earful about "power hungry admin", "conspiracy", etc etc. Its one continuous example of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest topic ban from NFCC and related areas since this user refuses to get a clue, is extremely hostile, combative, and rude. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support that, but will note that I am "involved"- I have been discussing non-free content issues with this user this morning, and I am one of the people listed on the deleted userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think that a very clear warning that such a topic ban will be imposed if the behaviour continues would be better at this stage. A very last chance, but leaving no doubt as to what the next step will be. That'll probably still mean we are a bunch of brainwashing dictators, but at least we will have offered every possible opportunity for change before sanctions. I know, I'm an old softy... Begoon ^talk 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we add IMMEDIATELY that ANY referring to an editor or group of editors as "deletionists" lead to immediate block? This guy is quite clearly creating a WP:BATTLE by his sheer forceful lack of competence and compassion for the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If we were to apply that as a criteria, Dream Focus would have been banned ages ago. For better or worse, we've legitimized the use of that term by not acting on it in the past.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that's a very good point. But regardless of the use of that term or not, WP:BATTLE is the crux, and that's what mustn't be allowed to continue. Competence can sometimes be learnt or taught, battling with other editors is a style choice. Begoon ^talk 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, being called a "deletionist" as a pejorative merely elicits a "yeah, whatever" from me and an assumption that the person using it isn't capable of creating a policy-based argument; however the major problem here is incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia, which definitely is a personal attack. That needs to stop. As I said above, it isn't constructive and will result in editors not engaging with even any reasonable points one makes. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As on involved presently and in past issued with DF, at least DF argues the point for decent debate, which is the core of consensus building, even if DF refuses to budge. On the other hand, PantherLeopard is making no attempt to understand the rational of non-free and thus making any chance of debate nil. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Still going - [244]. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That kinda undermines my earlier suggestion of a "very last" warning, doesn't it? You'd have to assume he's reading this, and that's his reaction. I support the topic ban immediately now, since I agree with incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia ... definitely is a personal attack. Begoon ^talk 00:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my cynical take; what we have here is a generation gap, a wave of new adolescent-to-young-adult editors who grew up in an age of having every virtual thing at their fingertips. Want a song or movie? Torrent it. Want a picture for meme generation? Google it. Welcome to the collision of Web 2.0 and the 21st century, this is just a taste of things to come. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's cynical at all. Just observant and realistic. A whole new use for the term "free culture" perhaps..? Begoon ^talk 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

De-archived section. A near-unanimous topic ban shouldn't slide off into archive land without someone closing it.—Kww(talk) 06:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Although User:Werieth proposed it, let's formalize the wording, as it appears to be necessity:

I propose: User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, participating in all image-related discussions, and from any other mention of images or those who have uploaded images across the English Wikipedia, added broadly construed. This topic ban is for a period of 6 months. After 3 months, User:PantherLeapord may appeal for a loosening of these restrictions on WP:ANI. Violations of these restrictions will be met by escalating blocks. The restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - if an editor won't abide by image policies, then they should not get to work with images at all. (Though I think any future appeal should be at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I can understand Kumioko's concerns about "broadly construed", below, and I prefer BlackKite's alternative wording - it's not enough to make me withdraw my support as worded, but I do think we'd be on more solid ground with the more specific wording -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as above. — Richard BB 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with clause, it should be indefinite, (IE until it can be demonstrated that the user's behavior has changed) setting a hard time limit just delays the issue. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with regret, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the repeated attacks on other editors, after warnings, who are actually following policy is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose with the broadly construed language - As mentioned in detail in the subsection below.Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The user has continued the behaviour without any sign that they even acknowledge the concerns. After 3 months of non-disruptive editing elsewhere they can appeal for relaxation. It would be a different matter if there were any indication that they recognise this problem and intend to address it. I don't see that, and continued personal attacks and disruption of discussion must not be allowed to continue. Begoon ^talk 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously some harsh re-education is needed! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - As per reasons given above. (wasn't sure where to put my vote so i put it here, dont hesitate to move it if its in the wrong spot) ★★RetroLord★★ 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - well, if the subject of this topic ban seems to support this (hurr), so shall I. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  Lol, I was about to point that out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 I'm not seeing any truly troubling links. Kww's link is certainly combative, but it's own his on talk page. Modifying a templated message isn't that horrible. His edit warring on images is a more serious problem, but he was blocked for that. He needs to have it made clear that he needs to act like a reasonable person. That said, his views on NFCC are fairly similar to my own. I don't like the idea of banning someone from an area because they hold a minority view. Especially when (IMO) the view is quite reasonable. I feel this is moving into WP:CENSOR range. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• So what you are saying, is that editors are free to (clearly, and absolutely) violate our policies and then (clearly, and repeatedly, after warnings) personally attack those that point this out, calling them destructive? Interesting idea, can't help thinking it wouldn't be generally constructive though. Although, given that the issue is NFCC it doesn't surprise me; there appears to be some sort of exception for WP:NPA when it is aimed at editors upholding NFCC. Nothing changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You make a good point. I will point out that NPA isn't exactly our most enforced set of rules--I think you'd agree many editors get away with personal attacks stronger than these. Though yes, this user has going past what I think is blockable under NPA (Kww's block was a good one and further blocks for NPA would have been quite reasonable). But I'd personally prefer a short block for NPA (week?) rather than a topic ban in the hopes of improvement. That's what we generally do I think.

Further, I do think our NFCC enforcement is broken. And I can fully understand why people get extremely frustrated with it, because I'm extremely frustrated with it. When we have people speedying pictures when it is claimed to be the only picture of the creature (and that wasn't disputed at the time of the speedy though it is false) or arguing that a picture of an 80-year old is sufficient for an article on a person famous for his boyish looks. Yes, it's frustrating. And yes, I understand the anger. Further, and more generically, I really don't like topic banning people with minority opinions without first trying other options. Mentoring, escalating blocks or other options haven't been explored. Not sure it would work, but it hasn't been tried. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the other side of that one. I would have thought, given that the user does have constructive edits away from his obvious problem with images, that a topic ban on images would be better than escalating blocks, especially as it would keep them away from the issue that clearly irritates them and which is likely to get them blocked (if that makes sense). I agree that our NFCC enforcement is broken though; that's because it's actually impossible to enforce - even to the extent of admins backing up those violating NFCC - which is why we have so many non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a 6 month topic ban shouldn't be the first step--especially on a wiki-political topic. A block associated with the NPA policy would have been a better first step. I don't think I've seen a topic ban before with only one previous block on the account. I'm sure they've existed, but... And if you think the NFCC policy is broken on the side of over-including non-free images, I can't imagine what you would want FfD to look like. I suspect the delete rate there is already over 90%. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Fair use is a respectable and well-established part of copyright law. It is therefore quite reasonable to use this and we do so extensively. The fuss about the images for the Xbox One is ephemeral as we'll soon have all the images we want, when the device is released in a few weeks time. And trying to block or ban someone for using the word deletionist is blatantly partisan. See deletionist. Warden (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Except that that's not what the issue is about, as you'd know if you'd actually read the diffs. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• There don't seem to be any diffs in this section and hardly any above. What there is indicates that there was some bickering on the User:PantherLeapord's talk page, where editors are usually permitted to speak freely. It all seems quite petty. Warden (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, to start off with, there was repeated edit-warring, multiple occasions of violations of NPA, and a userpage (since deleted under G10) which listed all the editors that PL had issues with, entitled "Editors bent on degrading the encyclopedia". Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I take this as anything regarding files/images. Upload, FFD, DRV, NFCR, and anything else that we may have forgotten to spell out in regards to files. This basically means anything to do with files is topic banned. Using a broad brush prevents attempts at wikilawyering around the edges Werieth (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But it also allows 1400 people with differing views and interpretations of the rules that they can do whatever they want. If you say anything to do with files fine. But adding broadly construed some admin that doesn't like the editor could justify that editing Photoshop is a blockable offense because its releated to files "broadly construed". It has happened a lot. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pushing it a bit, but I get your point. How about "User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, commenting on image files or their usage, and participating in image-related discussions or discussions of policy related to images, across the English Wikipedia"? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No admin would make that leap. You are building quite the strawman. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I think that's much better thank you.

@Djsasso, I wish I was just building a strawman, but I'm not. It has happened many times. Liberal blocks have been doled out many times by admins, frequently involved ones, for things that are far removed from the purpose or intent of the block. I've seen it here on this page, at Arbitration Enforcment and in other venues and frankly I'm tired of editors being beaten up over poorly worded sanctions. I'm also a little disappointed you think so little of me for trying to improve the project....but I don't really care either. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Commenting specifically on the language as I've not read the rest of the thread. The counter argument is of course that many editors have tried gaming a ban by editing a closely related topic in the same problematic way while technically obeying the wording of the ban. This is an attempt to avoid this happening. Although I agree somewhat with your concern we also don't want editors gaming a ban. Striking the right balance is difficult. I do hope however that if a single admin interpreted "broadly construed" too broadly their action would be overturned here. Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that as well but historically that has not occurred. I also understand and I sympethize to a degree but we shouldn't be dealing in what if's. If we say they can't edit images because editing images and we are afraid they may start editing videos, then by all means say images, video's and files. But we should leave it completely to the discretion of the admins becaue unfortunatly best intentions aside we don't operate in a utopian society where best wishes prevail. If the user starts editing something else (infoboxes maybe or Portals) in the same problematic manner then they can be brought back and we can revisit the issue. But we shouldn't be so generic that we have this "and stuff" language. On a related point and although I didn't fight this issue yet we should be specifying a duration. Is it 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, forever? The way these are written they infer forever when in many cases 6 months might be sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kumioko and Dpmuk's views. Not to mention that having a "broadly construed" topic ban implies that the editor being topic banned has been consistently disruptive in too many places such that a broad ban is required when in reality this is not necessarily the case. It's analogous to being banned from going into all bars in a city because you got rowdy in one or two places. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - In seeking out the information after my own encounters with the subject, I think a topic ban is warranted. The user is unnecessarily hostile; even in areas outside NFCC, but it appears to be supported by PantherLeapord, himself/herself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement from PantherLeapord

Someone probably needs to close this and make the topic ban official before this thread is moved by the bot to the archive... PantherLeapord (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would, but since I proposed the wording then !voted, I'd hate for you to ever suggest that it was enacted by someone who was WP:INVOLVED. You're right, however, it's the easiest consensus ever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Rahuljain2307, again

User has possibly abandoned his master account User:Rahuljain2307 and has created new account User:The Rahul Jain. He has redirected his master account and other two accounts User:Jain.rahul2307, User:Rahul2307 to new account. As per this, he should not remove sockpuppet template, block notices on userpage and talkpage of User:Rahul RJ Jain but he has redirected these pages to new account. Somehow he has not touched User:The Fake ID). He has resumed his vandalism like removing cats at whims, merging contents, redirecting pages. This is my third complaint about him. I know admin Bwilkins gets 'sick' when I ask admin help and all admins remain silent. This is just to inform you that I am prepared for long headache to counter his vandalism. He always try to trap me in 3RR. So I think slow motion edit war may be appropriate to counter his vandalism. If that's OK, then remain silent.

neo (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw another user mention this on a talkpage I watch. I've blocked the newest account. I don't know exactly what the idea is, but if he wants a new username, this is not the way to go about it; these actions appear to be a way to avoid scrutiny for his past blocks. He needs to pick one account and use it. Once I find out what that is, I can figure out what to do with all of the other accounts and user pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has agreed to edit only from User:The Rahul Jain. Neo, could you please provide diffs of exactly what problems you think are occurring now? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:How to lose weight

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

---

This user is currently in the middle of a vandalizing rampage creating redirects etc.. kind of a mess. Can someone block asap? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The user stopped after being given a final warning. If problems continue, WP:AIV is the place to report simple vandalism. This noticeboard handles more complex issues. Pakaran 10:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd indef blocked before I saw there was a final warning - but it's a blatant vandalism-only account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If I'd seen all the redirects in deleted contribs, I'd have done the same. Pakaran 11:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright why is this on AN? It's just plain vandalism and should go to AVI. Prabash.Akmeemana 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Very strange issue

Purely content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone. Today, I worked extensively per WP:BOLD to upgrade and improve list at List of Knesset speakers article. After a while, I posted this version of that list: Knesset Speakers (1949–present) Colour key style="background-color:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color" | Mapai/Ahdut HaAvoda/ Alignment/Labor/One Israel style="background-color:Template:Likud/meta/color" | Likud style="background-color:Template:Kadima/meta/color" | Kadima A total of sixteen people have served as Speaker of the Knesset, one of whom, Reuven Rivlin, have served two non-consecutive terms. Speaker Knesset No. Portrait Name (Birth–Death) Term of Office Political Party style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |1 Yosef Sprinzak יוסף שפרינצק (1885–1959) 1949 1959 Mapai 1, 2, 3 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |2 Nahum Nir נחום ניר (1884–1968) 1959 1959 Ahdut HaAvoda 3 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |3 Kadish Luz קדיש לוז (1895–1972) 1959 1969 Mapai, Alignment 4, 5, 6 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |4 Reuven Barkat ראובן ברקת (1906–1972) 1969 1972 Alignment 7 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |5 Yisrael Yeshayahu ישראל ישעיהו שרעבי (1908–1979) 1972 1977 Alignment 7, 8 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |6 Yitzhak Shamir יצחק שמיר (1915–2012) 1977 1980 Likud 9 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |7 Yitzhak Berman יצחק ברמן (1913–) 1980 1981 Likud 9 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |8 Menachem Savidor מנחם סבידור (1917–1988) 1981 1984 Likud 10 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |9 Shlomo Hillel שלמה הלל (1923–) 1984 1988 Alignment 11 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |10 Dov Shilansky דב שילנסקי (1924–2010) 1988 1992 Likud 12 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |11 Shevah Weiss שבח וייס (1935–) 1992 1996 Labour 13 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |12 Dan Tichon דן תיכון (1937–) 1996 1999 Likud 14 style="background:Template:Israeli Labor Party/meta/color; color:white;" |13 Avraham Burg אברהם בורג (1955–) 1999 2003 One Israel, Labour 15 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |14 Reuven Rivlin ראובן ריבלין (1939–) 2003 2006 Likud 16 style="background:Template:Kadima/meta/color; color:white;" |15 Dalia Itzik דליה איציק (1952–) 2006 2009 Kadima 17 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |(14) Reuven Rivlin ראובן ריבלין (1939–) 2009 2013 Likud 18 style="background:Template:Likud/meta/color; color:white;" |16 Yuli-Yoel Edelstein יולי-יואל אדלשטיין (1958–) 2013 Likud 19 Sometime after that, User:Number 57 reverted my edits, saying my prefered version of the list is "awful" and restored earlier (and current) version: Knesset Speakers (1949-present) # Image Name Party Term start Term end Knesset 1 Yosef Sprinzak Mapai 1949 1959 1, 2, 3 2 Nahum Nir Ahdut HaAvoda 1959 1959 3 3 Kadish Luz Mapai, Alignment 1959 1969 4, 5, 6 4 Reuven Barkat Alignment 1969 1972 7 5 Yisrael Yeshayahu Alignment 1972 1977 7, 8 6 Yitzhak Shamir Likud 1977 1980 9 7 Yitzhak Berman Likud 1980 1981 9 8 Menachem Savidor Likud 1981 1984 10 9 Shlomo Hillel Alignment 1984 1988 11 10 Dov Shilansky Likud 1988 1992 12 11 Shevah Weiss Labour 1992 1996 13 12 Dan Tichon Likud 1996 1999 14 13 Avraham Burg One Israel 1999 2003 15 14 Reuven Rivlin Likud 2003 2006 16 15 Dalia Itzik Kadima 2006 2009 17 16 Reuven Rivlin Likud 2009 2013 18 17 Yuli-Yoel Edelstein Likud 2013 19 As per WP:BRD, I went to the Talk:List of Knesset speakers to discuss the matter. I was shocked to hear that Number57 thinks that adding of the Hebrew name and birth/death year of the officeholder represents "introduction of unncessary information", as he put it. I was even more shocked when, after I told him that I added that data to make the article more like the List of Presidents of Israel and List of Prime Ministers of Israel, he said that "both lists are awful", and continued: A recent discussion between myself and another user agreed that the format used in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Israel) was the best way forward (as the colours were felt to be a distraction), so I have slowly been implementing that on Israeli office holder lists, but hadn't got here yet. I find this case really disturbing, because I thought we as editors here have a mission to make articles better than before, not worse. I'd really love to hear your opinion on this very strange issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC) The Hebrew names are quite useless to the 99.9999 % (not a scientific figure) who cant read it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Not to mention this is a content dispute. Take it to WP:DR. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) And you have not notified other involved editors, as required. RolandR (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive self-promotional SPA

BlakePolzl (talk · contribs) has been promoting his form of Satanism at said article, spamming his personal website. Multiple editors have reverted him, and he even edit warred over this on June 1. He has failed to respond to or acknowledge any warnings. He's on his last warning for advertising, but based on his prior behavior and my prior experience, I don't expect it to matter (either he'll advertise again and get blocked, or he'll come here and try to say that he never got all the warnings and explanations, maybe with some bad faith accusations thrown my way). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Blakepolzl has been notified of this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Clear cut, blocked.--v/r - TP 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee, again

Prior discussions: (blocked for edit warring) and (blocked for edit warring). Also blocked December 2012 for vandalism and personal attacks, used a sock puppet during a block to state "I am banned....I'm going to ignore all of you and keep changing the article until Wikipedia no longer exists or someone comes to my home and cuts off my fingers so I can't type."

Along with problems with heat>light in a religious discussion, THC Loadee is repeatedly adding material against consensus at Coconut oil. [245], [246], [247], [248]; new sources:[249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256]. Note that most of these are simply reverting various editors with no explanation/edit summary.

Reactions to prior blocks have not been productive: "Fuck off." (promptly self-reverted), It wasn't me! You're taking me out of context!, I know I was just blocked for this, let's try it again followed by I know I was just blocked for this, restored it anyway and was reverted, maybe THIS time...

Now we have a new personal attack and the same Coconut oil edit.

Argh. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've assumed 99.14.132.112 (talk · contribs) is the same person. The previous ip that was blocked as a sock was 99.106.108.141 (talk · contribs) --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock case ("I have nothing but time.") and RPP added. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be admitting to be a troll here. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, consider indef andsemi protecting affected articles for a bit. Zad68 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

David Eppstein

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

---

I found administrator Eppstein's comment to be insulting and disrespectful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't an optimal choice of words on his part, but your deletion nomination is extremely weak and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The deletion nomination for Hayford Peirce was made in good faith. It's practically a two-page article with no checkable references at this point. At this point it is a clear-cut violation of WP's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you suppose you want done? Do you want David to be harshly criticized for his rough language? Ok, it's not polite. But I can't see how you'd expect anything to be done on those grounds alone. I wouldn't block an IP for such mild language. Why did you even ask why he removed a PROD? PRODs can be removed for any reason by anyone. They are for non-controversial deletions only. Even the merest hint of controversy, say by someone removing the tag, means you have to take it to AfD. So go there. This doesn't belong on ANI.--v/r - TP 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Eppstein's administrator privileges be removed. Eppstein makes all administrators look bad by such behavior.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment was disrespectful, and perhaps he could be trouted, but I wouldn't expect anything else to be done based on one instance of momentary frustration.

Taroaldo ✉ 22:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do we think that everything is ANI worthy? This is not. Yeah, Eppstein's words aren't exactly kind, but to ask for a desysop is completely over the top. I'm going to close this right now. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption by User:Up and in

User:Up and in has started a campaign of petty disruption. I believe that he is a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto who is now avoiding all the traps by which sockpuppets are normally caught out: a WP:SPI investigation last month was inconclusive. In the last few hours he has been subtly disruptive:

• He changed the article Charles Etienne Boniface to Charles-Etienne Boniface on the pretext that Boniface was French-born. The first time he merely changed the article content, after I reverted and request a justification from him, he changed the article name as well as links to the article. Rather than enter into an edit-war, I demanded a restoration of the situation and gave two citations showing that Boniface himself never used a hypen in his name. User:Up and in ignored my request.

In an earlier incident in this same article I had to revert changes that he had made when he mis-read a piece of Afrikaans text and got a piece of Seychelles history wrong – my justification is here.

• In the article Abraham Faure he changed the text

"he was ordained as a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he was called to be dominie of the"

to

"he became a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he became dominie of the".

(I bolded the changed words). I reverted, giving this explanation. His response was to replace the word "ordained" by the word "inducted" (which is totally inappropriate in this context), to edit the article Dominie and remove the South African connections and then in the article about Faure to state that "He wasn't a Scottish schoolteacher" (a reference to the way in which he had left the article Dominie.

• This change on its own might be innocent, but in the context of other changes, including this one by User:Up and in (which I [257]] to this one.

The way in which user:Up and in is conducting himself suggests to me that he is looking for a fight. Hew knows that I have South African connections and that I am reasonably fluent in Afrikaans and I believe that he is leaving this trail of subtle changes to wind me up, but in so doing he is also vandalizing Wikipedia.

I would also like administrators’ view on his choice of user name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I notified Up and in (talk · contribs) of this thread. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Up and in is a euphemism for a basket in basketball, generally a jump shot or a layup. I see nothing offensive or disruptive about it. Not an administrator, but I am thinking if you feel it is improper it is due to a lack of familiarity with American sports lingo. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:LordZebedee ignoring consensus

User:LordZebedee has been repeatedly adding trivial/pop culture mentions at Welrod despite consensus that they should be removed and refuses to discuss the issue. He has, in one form or another, added this material 1234567 times over the past 2 weeks. The section is discouraged by WikiProject Firearms pop culture guidelines as well as WP:POPCULTURE as the source is an open wiki, not anything we would consider reliable. I have explained why he's being reverted, invited him to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture section at Welrod (where further consensus is to remove the material), and issued a warning, none of which have helped. An IP editor created a section at Talk:Welrod#Layer Cake Reference explaining why the mention isn't appropriate and User:Trekphiler has assisted with reverts as well, so it's not simply me vs. him. I'm wondering what more can be done. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• One more time and it's a block for edit warring/disruptive editing (editing against consensus): the next admin can take their pick. I've issued them a templated edit warring message for good measure, and will leave a note as well. Thanks, and keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Jennings

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD requires closure as it has gone on for 10 days and not been relisted. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I'll forgive you the dangling modifier. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)