Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Wikipedia group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Wikipedia has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take this accuation of trolling by User:Br'er Rabbit to be a completely unprovoked personal attack. —MistyMORN 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick. —MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? [1]. I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have now found Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• A simple topic ban from TFA for Pigsonthewing would appear to be the simple and easy solution here. It still leaves him 4,000,000+ articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The snark has been going since last November with no end in sight. Would you mind at least linking to bit you snipped? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. This has value. The rest has none, but it is important to remember that editors write these pages and only so much snark can go so far. Unwatching here now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).

However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.

It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.

I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of [BOLD] and [OWN] and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.

Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.

Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?

Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.

Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The guy has already received two year-long blocks from ArbCom for this kind of behaviour. He's also apparently on indefinite probation. Maybe take this to Arbitration enforcement if necessary? --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per the comments above. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Wehwalt. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above...Modernist (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• No, a site ban. I'm sick of these uncouth bullies. Get rid of him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Peter cohen and Wehwalt's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the way to handle this. Secretlondon (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• So we juist continue to hand more rope? Life is too damn short for that. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ceoil's comment follows this edit (edit summary: "go pleasure your lazy self, seriouslyu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He has a point - if you shotgun {{cn}}s all over an article, instead of say using {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} on a section, it could be interpreted as laziness to find the sources yourself. I found a few sources myself and added them to the article in question. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Wikipedia, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Don't be silly: hypothetical software-mediated "re-users"

  Try maps.google.com and turn on the Wikipedia layer. Amazon has all the books. They download the whole database, over and over again. That includes all the structure, templates, /everything/. Get with the information age, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Or Dbpedia. Or the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from TFAs, and would be willing to expand it to articles in the que for TFA. Andy seems to have a bit of a fixation with these articles, as per comments above, and it seems that his conduct of himself in the process is far less than acceptable. One does get the impression that these edits may be motivated more by an urge to get attention than anything else. And I think common sense would indicate that making substantive potentially controversial edits to FAs, on the day when they are most visible, is a very bad idea. WP:COMMONSENSE would seem to apply here. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when did single edits to just two articles, with one reversion, amount to a "fixation"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,

I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".

reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA

the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.

claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.

again making accusations of WP:OWN

No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see [{WP:OWN]]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.

attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day

No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.

things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day

I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.

There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware

Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.

he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article

Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?

the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too

If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Wikipedia. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Wikipedia is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is beyond shortsighted to suggest that the dichotomy is between "content builders" and "troublemakers", and outright insulting to exclude an editor with 45,000 articlespace contributions from the former on the basis of that dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - [in that: he choose to raise the issue of infoboxes in a classical-music article (which he knows is in a tense stalemate based on his many past participations and readings) on the day of TFA. Whether he did it through lack-of-foresight, or wp:pointy intent, is almost irrelevant. But does he recognize and understand why we all think it is a problem? why we're discussing it at length.
  If he refuses to acknowledge that, then it points towards a fundamental inability to work with others-of-opposing-viewpoints, and I'd support some sort of strong repercussions. If he does acknowledge that he made a poorly-timed decision, then I think it would demonstrate the empathy that is currently missing.
  I.e. the mistakes that are being made, are entirely based on (1) timing that he should have known was bad, and (2) the-specific-words-chosen-by-him-in-explanations (which often inflame a situation, eg regularly dismissing people's comments as, "straw man", which can often come across as arrogant and hostile). [tl;dr: His goals are good, but his tactics are sometimes very flawed, which he needs to acknowledge] -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm loathe to stick my oar into this too much, but I just want to pick up on this point. I don't really know Andy particularly well, I haven't seen any form of edit warring or any edits he's done that haven't improved the encyclopaedia from at least some angle, and his enthusiasm for the place is a great asset. I see his point of view that you should be bold and improve stuff if you have a sincere belief it will result in an overall benefit. What I am seeing a lack of is not so much that he made a bad judgement call (I'm sure he'd argue otherwise - remorselessly) but an acceptance of the other point of view. Something like "I believe my actions were correct, but you know what, I see why you'd be annoyed. It's not the end of the world, after all. Sorry about that." Exactly what we can do about that, who knows. Probably nothing. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both: I told Quiddity in email I'd post a reply on Tues, but in the light of Georgewilliamherbert's request, below, I'm going to hold off for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question According to Wikipedia:Probation#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee, it states "Pigsonthewing may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." It has an indefinite expiry date. Does that mean we don't actually require a full consensus for a topic ban, and hence can quickly resolve this before this discussion goes on and on and on even more? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Close request

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

---

This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not the right venue for the introduction of complicated editing sanctions at the behest of a mob (whose suggestions run the gamut from a ban on editing TFA to a full site ban). It's not at all clear that there is a consensus here, and it's absurd to suggest that this has somehow met some sort of upper threshold on desired community input (twenty editors, most of whom are either long-term advocates or opponents of Andy, chipping in over a weekend). This needs a formal resolution and not an arbitrary close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Close it. Clear consensus here merely confirms the findings of two Requests for Arbitration. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Thumper, while there are clearly related issues that need resolving, there is no consensus that there is an "Incident" here that needs admin action.

Propose the section is simply hatted and we move on. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Yeah. See Secretlondon's comment: "This is not the way to handle this." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban from TFA has broad support above, and it's not such a big deal as to require another arbitration case. 99.99% of editors wouldn't even notice being topic-banned from TFA ... JN466 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

99.99% of editors don't work on editing TFA. That means that the 0.01% who do (and that estimate is still several of orders of magnitude too high) are precious. They shouldn't be shed lightly on the basis of straw polls in which the majority of the participants have significant reasons to either support or exclude Andy's efforts on the project outwith the rather narrow domain of TFA. By and large straw polls on user conduct don't work after an editor reaches a certain threshold of fame / notoriety. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should Andy be allowed to continue editing TFA if his editing there is disruptive? I'd understand the need for an exemption if a Featured Article he had been a significant contributor to was at TFA, but as far as I can see, he's never written one. JN466 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

People who judge contributions to FAs on the basis of accumulated stars are why we shouldn't have a star-accumulation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just assume that anyone who makes a nuisance of himself at TFA is someone who has made unknown but nevertheless vital contributions to Wikipedia's featured content, far more vital than the contributions of those who actually wrote that content. That makes a lot of sense. JN466 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that perpetuating the false dichotomy between "nuisances" and "those who actually wrote that content" indicates that you understand the point being made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misjudging the arguments. They aren't saying we should judge Andy based on his abundance or lack of stars; rather, they are stating that his lack of involvement in the process highlights the disruptive nature of his edits at TFA, and that he is not a "precious" editor to the TFA process by any means. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As ArbCom has ruled: Mabbett "disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation." Nothing has changed. He's still on probation (see ArbCom list here). This should be a routine matter of enforcement, despite what a small minority of his sympathisers claim. An editor who can't or won't moderate his behaviour despite repeated sanctions has to be reined in (again). Plus, we don't have vested contributors. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That essay describes ("long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority") not my behaviour, but the behaviour of your fellow classical music colleagues in regard to one ("consensus among those who work on articles in this category"; not to mention repeated references to a bogus instruction; see above), and others in regard to the second ("the main contributors who got this article up to FA... You have made one drive-by edit... As far as I'm concerned If [X] doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and [Y] otherwise"") of the two single TFAs mentioned at the top of this sorry thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And that ArbCom statement describes your behaviour in this and other areas. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If this were genuinely a "routine matter of enforcement" then it wouldn't be generating this level of heat. Rather, the matter is complicated by a) the significant period of time between the sanctions and the present and b) the quite obvious desire for certain notoriously insular wikienclaves to rid themselves of a perceived pest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

For the record, my tally (ending with Riggr) was, reading from my envelope, 5 +PC, 13 +TB, 3 +cmt, 3 +opp, 2 +ban. The range of solutions is not all that complex to analyze. Also I need to pay an instalment on my contents insurance. :) Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin (that does not include the admin who hatted the discussion) please close the discussion and implement any sanction which the community may have decided on?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exhaustion of community patience?

Reading the specifics of the close request discussion above, I think that I have to restate this in terms of a "exhaustion of community patience" case. This is an established, if relatively rare, sanction basis. The specific incident that precipitated this seems not to rise to the level of actionable, by itself (though an argument is being made that the pattern of prior action and probation might make it so). It and Andy's response do seem to have raised a high degree of ire in a wide swath of the community.

We have been bad about setting up better criteria for when someone has exhausted community patience. Exhausting one users' patience doesn't count; exhausting a bunch of users' patience also doesn't count, though at some point a bunch becomes enough. Andy does have an extensive history of various sanctions, but also extensive good editing. It's clear both that the number of upset people is in the tens (at least); it's not clear if that represents a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters.

With this in mind, I would like to request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please look at Andy's edit history as well as prior sanctions and the current situation. A consensus of otherwise uninvolved users would be far superior to an attempt to find consensus of ones who largely seem involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statement of history. I know nothing about any of this. I haven't even been following the discussion above. For my own benefit and for the benefit of any other uninvolved editor, I thought I'd try to list Andy's "bad" history:

1. Andy's block log. Note that it shows the largest number of blocks in 2005, decreasing over time but still robust, and then a large gap between 2009 and 2012. Other gaps may be partly explained by bans listed below.
2. At the end of 2005, Andy was placed on indefinite probation. According to the Remedies section, Andy could be "banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." On January 25, 2006, he was banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. There are other "remedies". Andy is still on probation.
3. On August 19, 2007, Andy was again banned for one year.
4. According to the block log, on March 22, 2012, Andy was indeffed because of "BLP concerns" and until he "agrees to leave Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) alone." On the same day, the block was lifted because of a "clear emerging consensus for topic ban; block hopefully no longer needed". On April 2, 2012, a Hawkins topic ban was proposed. On April 7, the discussion was closed as no consensus for the ban.

That's all I'm doing for now. The next step would be for me to figure out what's happened more recently. But at least this history might help some other uninvolved editors who want to comment on the proposed topic ban. (If I've left out anything relevant, please let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no topic ban regarding Jim Hawkins (nor idneed anything else), as a result of or connected to the March 2012 block either, and the blocking admin was criticised by others for his actions (Example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In this connection, I do note that Jimbo said "At least in terms of what has been presented, it is clear to me that a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article for being annoying for no encyclopedic purpose, and it should be indefinitely semi-protected." and also said "I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. ... Both of them [Pigsonthewing and another editor] should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject." --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There were at least three topic ban threads, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Topic_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban_request and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing, . They carried on for weeks and eventually petered out. Also related are [2], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Jim_Hawkins, [3]. In this section Jimbo Wales, Fæ, Kim Dent-Brown, Errant and Skyring pleaded with Andy to stop editing the article; he refused. --JN466 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, invoking my status as uninvolved, I have to say that Andy's comments about the blocking admin being criticized (and reiterating that there was no topic ban, even though I updated that in the history) and Jay's comments generally aren't helpful for this editor. I can read those kinds of comments in the discussion above. I can't stop you from commenting in this section, but I sure wish you wouldn't and that you'd remove them. They will no doubt provoke more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the editorialising, but left the links I researched in response to your earlier query about the topic ban history. JN466 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I regret to say that I find Georgewilliamherbert's comments to be rather unfortunate. He repeatedly characterizes those who have called for a sanction against Andy as emotional (and accordingly, not as clear-thinking as he sets himself up to be) by referring to "ire" and people who are "upset", and at the end is rather dismissive in terming them as "largely ... involved". Plainly Gwh doesn't agree with action being taken against Andy, but I wish he would not make characterizations about the positions of other editors in that manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that "largely ... involved" is an unbiased description of the activity above. If you want to break it down commenter by commenter in toto and that disproves the generalization, I will accept a correction.

I do not disagree with action being taken in the sense of registering an OPPOSE (either publicly or privately concluding such) - I have not been involved, and we want un-involved admins to assess and engage on problem discussions and community action proposals. My assessment is that a large group who largely are involved want Andy banned, in general and for an incident. My assessment of the incident - personal admin assessment, not overriding either the community writ large or another admin's judgement - is that the incident showed misbehavior (slightly disruptive disregard for other parts of the community) but not bannable behavior, even for someone under sanctions already and with an extensive record. My assessment of "in general" is that - as always - the community writ large can exhaust patience but a pool of involved editors cannot.

I understand where your and Jayen's frustrations are coming from. But we really, really need uninvolved input to determine community exhaustion of patience. Please. I am disregarding people because I see what appears to be involvement, yes, but that's the point: exhaustion of community patience needs that separation.

Again, if you want to identify specific people who commented earlier who aren't involved, if that stands up, their input is back in consideration. I would very much like to see additional input by others as well.

I'm not "in charge" of this - but I care about how the community sanctions process works and have been very involved with developing it over the years. I can't override other admins who may chose to do something, but I believe I'm doing the right thing here with this request and framing the question this way. If you think I'm being biased against action, the process is biased against action - by design, and explicitly. Enough uninvolved people need to comment strongly enough to establish whether the wider community really does want a severe sanction or not. Please respect the process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add to it by referring to "your and Jayen's frustrations". It's the same style of argument. You're setting yourself up as the reasonable person and suggesting that those who don't agree with you are acting in an emotional manner. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c w. GWH) Speaking as someone who you would have to invoke a multiverse with wormhole travel and time-distortion fields to consider involved in any way, yeah I'm not happy with the precise wording. But I do think that the previous commenters should back off, and that includes Andy, and let some more people chime in. Otherwise we're going to wind up with a "no result" as the same participants regurgitate, which isn't going to help anything. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• While you folk duke this out, I propose a topic ban for Franamax for articles related to wormhole travel, narrowly construed to only those articles on another Wikipedia on a different Internet far far away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is community support for banning Andy from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Would an uninvolved admin please close this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than that. If I were as desperate to "get rid" of "uncouth bullies" as you in this case, I'd actually be keener on a formal resolution which might enact that than on the quickest punitive action that could be flung together at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it is more complicated than that or no, I think the community has spoken, and that a closing admin will bar Andy from the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment As the original poster, I wish to popint out that the only other place I have posted about this thread is on Andy's talk page where I was obliged to give notice. I have not been to any of the classical music projects, the featured article project, to Wikipediocracy or to anywhere else to drum up support nor have I sent messages to anyone who had not already contributed to this discussion. Therefore the suggestion that this discussion involves more involved people than any other ANI ban discussion needs some justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would join with that. I found the comments referred to condescending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether editors were canvassed into commenting here or not (and let's point out that nobody has suggested any impropriety on behalf of Peter Cohen or anyone else in that regard), the overrepresentation of comments here by editors who have previously had some sort of major dispute with Andy certainly makes it less clear-cut that the current input represents the consensus of the general community. The classical music project, for instance, is plainly overrepresented, including one commentator who described himself as only coming to ANI once a year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But not in this discussion, which is the most important aspect of determining whether this represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FA process

What FlyingPigs said earlier has merit, as follows: Rather than targeting some overly-"helpful" individual, it should be a matter of etiquette, and of "not harming wikipedia", if not outright policy, to act as follows: "Once an article is a Featured Article, don't modify it without consultation. It has gone through the FA process and been seen by many eyes. Don't take it upon yourself to subvert that consensus." Or words to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA team have made clear that they explicitly consider the use of an infobox (or coordinates), or not, to be outside the FAC process's consideration. Surely, therefore, the fact that an article is an FA does not mean that that issue has been considered, or decided by the community, or has consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I think you wrote "many" where you meant to write "at least three or four".

Also, as per the example I gave earlier, where I see something wrong in a Featured Article, I boldly fix it - I don't go looking for "consultation" first - unless the fix is likely to be controversial. All editors are encouraged to do the same. The original incident under discussion here, allegedly has factors making it a bit different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixing something wrong, such as an obvious misspelling or some such, is fine. Screwing around with actual content should be done with something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The example I was discussing was fixing a major factual error in the article. That certainly is "screwing around with actual content". But "don't modify it without consultation" is a non-starter here. Wikipedia policy hasn't changed on that, and I don't see a consensus to change it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A ghastly thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting the readers ahead of egoistic editors - yes, what a ghastly thought. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way of putting what Bugs tried to say is that you shouldn't make major alterations to a FA without discussion, or should not object to a reversion and be willing to talk it out. The lack of an infobox was not the same thing as a misspelling or a misused dash. And TFA day is difficult enough (especially since Raul's gone to a "just-in-time" scheduling practice) without having to deal with such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's already codified (1e in the FA criteria). This is a stronger proposal. I'm not even getting into the discussion about whether the addition of an infobox—routinely applied to every biography on the project without anyone batting an eyelid, unless the person in question wrote classical music for a living—counts as a major upheaval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"be willing to talk it out" In both (yes, there are just two) of the examples given at the top of this "Incident", I was involved in the talk page discussion; I started one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Surely the whole point of the FA process is to attract people to editing articles, isn't it? For example, we take pains to avoid protecting the day's FA so that we don't stifle new interest in editing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

... it seems that some editors, who have “bust a gut” producing an FA, even several years ago, get a little 'uneasy' when editors who are “too ignorant and lazy” to direct their attention elsewhere, try to improve it. Even when they open a discussion on the Talk Page to do just that. Perhaps what is needed, once an article has achieved FA, is a big permanent banner proclaiming who still owns the article – a whole new exciting direction for WP:OWN? I’m sure this would be welcomed by some editors. Although not by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Write one, and we'll talk again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously mature enough not to be so flippant on ANI, so are you honestly suggesting that input into this proposal (made by another editor who hasn't any successful FA noms AFAICS) should be limited to people with stars on their user pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what I replied to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had thought the process was meant to be collaborative and not quite so exclusively competitive. But then, I used to have that view about the whole project. Still, good job we can't talk again, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comments directed at those who write FAs are uncalled for, and as I pointed out, uninformed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Uninformed by the recent personal experience that has prompted my decision to consider leaving the project? Apologies for using direct quotes there, Wehwalt. And apologies to all the other, perfectly reasonable, FA writers. I do hope Andy is treated reasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's all take a deep breath, relax, and wait for a closing admin. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that while some such idea would have merit, this particular proposal might not. I haven't been that heavily involved in FA process, but there do seem to be, and perhaps have been, several articles which have been promoted only to be rather quickly demoted again later. This might be because few people were involved initially, or that there was a "trend" in the field which later faded, or whatever. I would myself favor having the FA process explicitly involve reviewing the content of similar published reference articles on the subjects, which I think would help reduce the percentage of demotions. But, without that, yeah, academic opinions do change over time, sometimes quickly, and I think it is reasonable to make allowances for them. Particular concerns might be about politicians who see a major scandal in the brewing who might want to get their pointmen to write their bio up to FA level without any indications of the scandal in the offing. If we could make review of extant reference sources more of a factor in the FA process, then maybe instituting a later step like this might be a good idea, but we should probably try to get things done in the right order. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day

Above, Thumperward (talk · contribs) recommended a formal resolution be put regarding Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Same basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's not the time to start edit wars when something is TFA. The focus needs to be on fixing any errors or vandalism not on controversial cosmetic issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comment1 Should the header for this vote be changed to level 3 not level 2?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment2 There were some people above who voted for a ban. If they wish to do so again, could they consider doing this as a separate motion with a separate header so that !votes don't get split 3 ways which makes it harder tor each a consensus? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per previous comments (based on ArbCom findings). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two instances of Andy making policy-compliant edits that the folks who WP:OWN the articles don't like. Despite Andy engaging on the talk pages, he's still pilloried. It's just a convenient means of silencing those who have different opinions. Additionally, it is now proposed that he be banned from editing any article scheduled as FA of the day. There has been absolutely no evidence brought forward showing any problems with Andy editing articles scheduled as TFA. If the TB is to be broadened that far, then it had better be debated first - rather than tacked on like a pork bill. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said "formal resolution" I meant ArbCom, not all the same people as the above section bold wording their opinions again just in case anyone had missed the bold text behind the original (bonus points for Peter Cohen doing it thrice). Lord knows how this was misconstrued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood. Shall we close this thread and take it to Arbitration, or let it run and see if this makes the consensus any clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be best, lest some naive admin count heads here and be embroiled in what would seem to be the inevitable future ArbCom discussion on accounts on enacting a controversial topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it rather annoying that you would characterize an admin who closed this on the same side as the numbers are as automatically "naive", as I do your suggestion above that I'm part of some mob. You've basically tried to set this up as some "no reasonable person would close this with a ban result", and that's just plain rubbish and insulting to those who are just tired of Andy's behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So you would suggest that counting heads is a sensible option here? I notice that you're semi-retired yourself, and that you've made less than a dozen articlespace edits since the start of the year. That doesn't do much to shift the notion that this is a petition rather than an assessment of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support it, as it seems to me to be within the bounds of the existing ArbCom ruling of the editor in question. But, if others wish to, I could see that this might be sent to WP:AE for input. I rather seriously doubt that it would necessarily be taken up by ArbCom itself, though, given the rather straightforward nature of their previous ruling on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly its necessary, but as John Carter says I have no problem with it being sent to AE. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I also have no problems with it being sent to WP:AE for input, and I feel that Thumperward's resolution is necessary to prevent further issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I put the resolution. I misunderstood Thumperward who suggested the case should be taken to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. JN466 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, alas. I personally am in the camp of those who believe each and every article should have an infobox - however, as mentioned above, mucking about with an article that's on the front page sends wholly the wrong impression. If Andy would just say "whoops, my bad, I'll be more careful in the future - and remember that there is no deadline", this wouldn't still be going on. The fact he hasn't (as far as I can tell in all the nearly WP:TLDR debate above) said that, however, indicates that this is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support and to be clear, based on the methodology of the edits, rather than on the merits. --Rschen7754 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, rationale already provided above. And I don't see any need to escalate to ArbCom here, unless we're going to suggest that the community isn't allowed to implement sanctions any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the same reasons as The Bushranger. Actually, I wouldn't quite go so far - I agree that it can be a valid application of WP:BOLD to update TFA with an infobox (eg: "I don't have much time on WP so I had to do it now", "I wasn't sure of process, so I just did it", "I'd never heard of the article today and wanted to help"), but my sense from the above discussion is we don't have a reasonable excuse that addresses everyone's concerns. Even so, an apology would go a long way to fixing all this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - perhaps we can avoid escalation? GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on a failed RTV

Please see [4]

Short summary:

• • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
  • I ask Magog about the deletion
  • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
  • I also notice that the contributions are missing
  • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
  • I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason. In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah [5], I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in the original report, right above you.

I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."

I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe ε 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation:

• User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
• The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
• User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
• Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Wikipedia by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock). JN466 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Wikipedia unless it is maintained by the user. I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account? As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name. Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • User:ChrisO is indef-blocked already, per his block log. JN466 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"? Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. --JN466 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of. It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process. I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first. I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in. My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats. If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now? JN466 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that the appropriate route to resolve this would be through Arbcom. It would be inappropriate to try to use a community process to overturn arbitrators' decisions. Their decisions are not usually subject to amendment by community processes. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were a clear and specific decision made by ArbCom, you would have a point. "Horse trades" madeby ArbCom are not, howeverm in that category. ArbCom, for example, does not have the power to say "Editor X is exempted from Policy Y because we made a deal and for no other reasons" which is the case at hand. This is not an "amendment" to an ArbCom decision, and thus is properly discussed here, whether one likes it or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the community may now feel entitled to take Prioryman's continued refusal to answer the question whether or not they authored the contributions of User:Helatrobus as an admission that he did, and that this was yet another account he operated after the RTV. The Helatrobus account stopped editing a while ago, but should probably be indeffed as well. JN466 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take to AN and Vote?

Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also second this motion. --JN466 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much benefit here. We are interested primarily in what editors are doing now and in the future. If there was contested behaviour in the past that is documented a Arbcom case, then the additional benefit of spending admin time on attributing every single edit seems slim to none. Seems like something where we can usefully move forward, rather than living in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Apparently the effort involved is minimal according to Dennis above. I don't really see the rest of your comment as an argument against correcting this. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't personal, and I'm not beating a drum over the issue, but unless there is a specific reason that Arbcom has to handle this, then it would be a function of WP:AN, not Arbcom. The policy clearly says it can be reversed by the community, not by ArbCom. Again, it has been a slow process, to allow plenty of time for someone from ArbCom to come in and present a reason, assuming you would ask them to. If not, an editor has asked for it to go to a vote, and I've just said that WP:AN is the proper venue, based on the fact that the last unvanishing was done there. That doesn't mean it will be unvanished, but there is a policy based reason why the editor would like to start the process, and regardless of how I feel about it, I don't see any policy based reason to deny it. Once again, no one has rushed here, and we are all ears as to how this is counter to some previous agreement, even though it is doubtful that an ArbCom agreement has the authority to bypass policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours, to allow ArbCom to respond if they choose. My understanding is that they have been informed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. JN466 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't help but feel that this AN issue has been initiated due to some other cases that may be under discussion elsewhere involving Prioryman's participation. In the interests of getting on with other stuff, I don't believe there is anything to be gained at this stage by revisiting the RTV issue at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks, possible off-wiki dispute

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

---

• Random5555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DiasMi012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Somehow I stumbled on a dispute between these two individuals on articles related to Los Angeles-area public transportation, particularly Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). On 12 July I gave both users a level 4im warning ([6] [7]) as they were making personal attacks on each other's talk pages. In particular, Dias created an attack page on Random's main user page (since deleted so I don't have a diff), and Random has taken to edit summaries ([8] [9] [10]). Dias even placed this comment on my talk page in response to the warning. I haven't had the time to wikistalk these two in the weeks since, but now that I've looked through their contribution histories I see that both have taken to edit summaries to continue their personal attacks ([11] [12] [13] [14]) and some of these edit summaries tell me that these two are continuing an off-wiki dispute ([15] [16]). This is a combination of edit warring, ownership of articles, and personal attacks, and I'd like some admins to take a look to see if blocking is warranted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well. I consider that an EW warning might be the way, and if they continue with it, maybe a severe sanction would be on the way. I have read the diffs and they don't are substantial enough to be considered personal attacks, IMO. In relation to the ownership of articles, this may also apply, but not totally sure, as EW is still the main issue and none of them have created the article nor being the major contributor. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, they seem to have stopped editing on August 11, and as a result, the edit warring issue may be over. Unless the users start edit warring again, i'm afraid it may not still be any problem. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dias stopped editing on August 11, but Random is still active as of today. Kurtis (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I hope neither of the parties take offence at my comments here, but am I the only one who thinks it's a very slight possibility that these two accounts are operated by the same person staging a sock battle on the article? They just seem to have a lot of vitriol directed at each other, and I can't for the life of me figure out what would provoke such bad blood between two people with virtually no interaction outside of Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. DiasMi012 has been editing since April 2011, whereas Random5555 has been here for just over a month; yet many of his edits are antagonistic towards Dias.[17][18] Likewise, Dias has responded with somewhat snarky rebuttals, clearly out of some degree of frustration with Random. I think the best solution in this instance, assuming they are completely different editors (which I still consider likely, despite my sentiments above), is to strongly suggest that these two cease interacting with each other. It's pretty clear that nothing good will come of them having any further direct contact, given how they can't work out their differences in a reasonable manner. I also feel as if Random5555 would be best advised to edit elsewhere, as he obviously has very little control over his emotions while editing the article in question. If he does not prove to be constructive anywhere else, then I actually recommend a block — thus far, he doesn't appear to be able to collaborate effectively with other editors. In DiasMi012's case, I think a stern warning to avoid edit warring and to keep his cool, even when the editing gets tough, will do. If problems persist with him, it might also be best for Dias not to edit Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. Just my $0.02. Kurtis (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and give some more warnings, but Random has been warned about civility already, and I think that this taking to edit summaries to make their jabs at each other is just a backhanded way of evading direct contact (e.g., on a talk page). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Users Still-24-45-42-125 and The Four Deuces - Section Blanking at Conservatism

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

---

Reporting a pair of disruptive section blankings at article Conservatism, in violation of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:VANDALISM. Two editors are guilty, both are claiming an imaginary consensus to support unilateral blanking, even though there are clearly other editors who both (1) object and (2) are willing and have been making efforts to correct issues.

This problem is aggravated by the fact that this is a political topic and the editors involved are divided along political lines. This is unfortunate because just some simple cooperation would go a long ways here.

Here are diffs of the offending edits: [19] [20]

Here is a link to the ongoing discussion: Talk:Conservatism#Compassionate_conservatism Note that there are three editors in favor of keeping the section, and three against. There is no clear consensus either way, which requires that the section be kept and fixed. Thus, these were disruptive edits.

I am requesting that an admin deliver some user education on the topics of policy and Wikietiquette, and in particular a caution against claiming consensus when no consensus exists. Belchfire-TALK 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"requires that the section be kept and fixed" What? really? News to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the talk page, where we've tried to find some sort of citation that might support inclusion of this section but haven't yet. There's already an article for Compassionate conservatism so nothing is being lost but a summary. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this, I would lean towards default inclusion until a stronger rationale for removing it emerges. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm rather apathetic about this issue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that as an encyclopedic topic, compassionate conservatism is part of the historical narrative. The question remains, how much space should it be allotted? Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has its own article, so we should only summarize it here. The version I removed was too big, particularly since it's not clear how important this slogan is to conservatism in general. As a rule of thumb, the summary should be no larger than the lead of the summarized article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the best ways to approach this is to stick to notable figures associated with the concept. That forces editors to stick within a framework dictated by the sources, and avoid undue weight. The strange thing, however, is that the majority of "compassionate conservatives", the people who actually practice the concept, have been pushed out of the Republican party. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's really just the one. And you're right that the concept is no longer current within the GOP. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources that note this change, it could be a win-win for both sides. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources are already in the main article.[21][22] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I appreciate your sudden interest in the article's content, but I doubt this is the place to discuss the merits. Veriditas, thanks for acknowledging that the blanking was improper, that was helpful. Beyond that, I don't see much that addresses the policy violations we are here to discuss. Belchfire-TALK 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And Still-24, that's a very interesting comment you just made, considering that you just posted not 10 minutes ago that the were no citations in the section. [23] Belchfire-TALK 07:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you already know, I don't consider it "blanking" nor a policy violation. It might be best to keep this discussion on the talk page and try to negotiate a solution. As I said, I don't support outright removal because the rationale is too weak, but concerns about undue weight are legitimate. Still, there isn't any hurry to remove it at this time, so I recommend filing an RFC. I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do, but others might disagree. We should reserve the admin boards for issues needing admin attention. Since this is a content dispute involving edit warring, you know where to go. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, we're requesting citations to show the relevance of compassionate conservatism. These two citations show its unimportance, stressing that the GOP has moved past even talk of compassion in its conservatism. So, in short, the citations I just found serve only to undermine your argument, not support it. Please be more careful in the future with regard to misunderstanding the content of citations.

Viriditas, I have no idea why this was reported, much less why it was reported here. I agree that this is not the place for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, no disrespect intended, but I didn't come here to get your views on this. And I disagree.

Illegitimate blanking is vandalism. See Blanking, illegitimate "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense." Similarly, Refusing to get the point is disruptive editing. When an editor looks at a Talk discussion where there is clearly a 50-50 split and claims he has consensus to do whatever he wants, RFC or DRN isn't likely to achieve results. This editor, in particular, has a recent history of disregarding 4-1 and 5-1 consensuses against his edits at DRN. In light of that, I'm not inclined to waste my time pursuing lengthy processes that seem likely to be blown off. I believe admin intervention is both necessary and appropriate. As I specified above, education is needed, from an authority figure. He won't listen to other users, and voluntary compliance isn't working so far. Belchfire-TALK 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it isn't "blanking", it's called a content dispute involving talk page discussion and edit warring. "Blanking" has a specific definition and this isn't it. There's nothing for an admin to do here except block everybody who participated in the edit war. If that's what you want, then ask for it. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase here is "without any reason". There are good reasons for that section to be removed or at least significantly cut down. As such, you should not have bothered coming here to complain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that this is a content dispute and not "blanking", and I see no cause for admin action. Admins cannot make judgments in a content dispute - if a discussion on the talk page does not yield a consensus, you all need to consult WP:DR and follow the steps there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A suggestion

I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page, and these are my observations:

1. The central issue of the dispute is whether or not the main conservatism article should contain a subsection covering compassionate conservatism.
2. There are two opposing viewpoints on this issue: one side argues that the term is not in widespread use, and is entirely irrelevant outside the U.S. (possibly even the Bush administration), while the other side reiterates their understanding that the main conservatism article should cover all concepts branching off of the conservative political doctrines (including its various different interpretations), and not just a limited definition based on the ideologies of famous classical conservatives such as Edmund Burke.
3. There is not a firmly established consensus on the article's talk page, and the dispute has resulted in an edit war.

So, bearing all this in mind, I've come to the conclusion that the best way forward from here is to try and establish a clear consensus one way or the other. To do that, we will probably need more people participating in the discussion. Therefore, my suggestion is to open a request for comment on the article's talk page, following the instructions laid out here, and listing it under the Politics, government, and law category. That way we can get a much broader perspective, hopefully establishing a clear consensus and alleviating the confusion caused by this situation.

Thoughts? Kurtis (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what was basically said in the last post of the thread and the close - no need to make comments outside of a closed thread. WP:DR includes RFC's, etc. dangerouspanda 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I had typed this up prior to the thread being archived, and decided to post it anyways. More importantly, I've gotten the discussion started at the article's talk page — though, unfortunately, it seems as if the situation has only gotten more exacerbated since then. And I think being more specific as to which aspect of dispute resolution ought to be used in this case is important; I can't see 3O being especially useful here, as this content dispute would need an even broader consensus than what would be gotten there. Kurtis (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

201.81.2XX.XXX

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

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

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

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

The edits are all inflammatory remarks in articles relating to former Yugoslavia (ARBMAC). User was warned about adding personal information, but has continued (these revisions and edit summaries should be deleted immediately). Most of his comments should also be deleted per personal attacks, NPOV, defamation, etc.--Zoupan 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hunt the Jew?

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

---

In the articles Siege of Sidney Street and Tottenham Outrage, every source used which mentions the perpetrators' ethnicity states that they were Latvian. Not a single source asserts that they were Jews. Despite this, one recently-created account has repeatedly removed their description as "Latvian", adding an unsourced assertion that they were "Jewish immigrants". Among other edit summaries, the user has stated that "They were not Latvian" and "Latvia did not yet exist", though it doesn't seem to occur to the editor that by the same logic they should not be described as Jews either. I have posted on both talk pages[24][25], but the user has not responded there, and continues to make the same unsourced edit. The editor's behaviour is more disturbing when it is noted that all of their other edits consist of reverting my own edits, and adding unsupported or weakly-supported ascriptions of Jewish ethnicity to other historical figures. Could someone please assist in drawing this new editor's attention to the importance of reliable sourcing, and the unacceptability of unsourced and irrelevant ethnic tagging. RolandR (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This source clearly states that those involved in both incidents were Jewish, so this hardly seems to be an issue. The source also describes them as Russian rather than Latvian (as Latvia was part of the Russian Empire at the time). Number 57 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That source was not cited in the articles. In both cases, the editor was using several reliable sources describing the perpetrators as Latvian, to describe them as Jews. This report is about editor behaviour, not about content. RolandR (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

ec2(And incidentally, other reliable sources state explicitly that they were not Jews.[26][27]) RolandR (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about behaviour, why did you simply revert, rather than check that they might be right? It took me about 30 seconds to corroborate their edits after Googling. You also accused them of inserting untrue material. Combined with giving them a warning template and reporting them on here, this looks a little WP:BITEy. Number 57 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You only posted on those talk pages today! This is a content dispute really. This says 'misplaced antisemitism' was triggered by the Tottenham outrage, which might imply that they were thought to be Jewish but were not. The Jewish chronicle says we don't know how many were Jews, but some were. Calling them Latvian seems to be difficult as Latvia didn't exist at the time. Edit warring over Jewish vs Latvian doesn't bring out the complexity. They were anarchists from the Russian empire, presumably not religious. Did any of them identify as (ethnic?) Latvian? Did any identify as (ethnic?) Jewish? Secretlondon (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the JC does not say that "some were" Jews. It says they were identified as Latvian, but that "it is a safe bet that some were" Jews. RolandR (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot and hoax content

In this edit User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot added hoax content to Larry Storch. In this edit to Talk:Larry Storch he indicates that he did it intentionally, knowing it to be a hoax. It seems to be part of larger experiment to see how long it takes Wikipedians to catch this type of vandalism. However, when an anonymous editor removed the vandalism with this edit, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot simply reinserted it with this edit. In my mind this behavior is very detrimental to Wikipedia, but I would have been willing to let it drop. However, on several occasions (here, and here) I have asked Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot if he has similarly introduced hoax material into other articles, but he has refused to supply an answer. I have no choice but to conclude that there are other articles out there which still have hoax material in them that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has introduced. I am bringing this here to a wider audience so that others can look at his edits and help identify any other hoaxes/vandalism that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot may have added to Wikipedia articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. On July 10, I added some information, cited by Kinston.com, about an alleged noise pollution sentence by a Judge to Larry Storch, requiring him to play the teapot song in his car. I originally did not realize that this was satire, so I thought that I was adding valid information. However, a few days later, I realized that it was satire, but I decided to keep it because I wanted to conduct a little experiment to see how long it would take for the material to be reverted. The information was reverted by Gnome de plume on August 13, over one month after the material was added. This actually tells me of a potential weakness in our policies, or our enforcement of them, such that material in WP:BLP articles can appear to be well-cited and sourced yet still not be valid. So we, as editors, must be vigilant and cognizant of this, as well as aware of WP:RS issues. So no, I wasn't "vandalizing". I was just trying to illustrate a point. I apologize if I was seen as a common asshole vandal. WTF? (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. "Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize about that. I didn't realize that my little experiment went against WP:POINT. I'll try to be more careful so that this doesn't happen again. Also, to answer Gnome's question about whether I have inserted hoax material into other articles, I think if you review my edit history, you'll find that the vast majority of my edits are valid and not considered vandalism. WTF? (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't question the vast majority of your edits - I can see that you are quite a productive editor here. However, I think your reply continues to be completely evasive about the direct question of whether you have similarly added hoax content to other articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so to be more direct in answering your question, no, I have not added similar hoax content to other articles. This incident is a one-article incident. WTF? (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How is anyone to trust you on that? Consider this a single and final warning on breaching experiments on the encyclopedia: if any editor notices such again (including existing cases that WTF has not disclosed), ping me and I'll indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has still not accounted for this reversion of an editor removing their hoax insertion. This was done August 12, long after "the couple of days" that Foxtrot claim they had become aware it was a hoax. That edit doesn't really match their explanation about it being a "test to see how long before the material was reverted". --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth saying it again: We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. [28] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider the possibility of a one-week block. This would be intended to reduce the frequency of unwanted experiments in the future. "Trying to illustrate a point" is something that our policies strongly frown upon. WTF's last effort in that direction was on August 12 so this isn't a long-ago problem. He was revert warring two days ago to restore information to an article which he knew to be incorrect. Any assumption of good faith faces an uphill struggle here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be punitive. WTF should hopefully now understand our zero-tolerance approach to inserting false material into articles. If not, his next block for the same will be his last. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the previously mentioned edit on August 12, I didn't say anything about that because I didn't see that as that big of a deal. To be honest, it was more of a reflex reversion instead of a hard-and-fast revert -- done before thinking -- and assuming that the anonymous IP in question was vandalizing. Looking back, that was a mistake. I don't think a block is really necessary in this case because I have already learned that this type of editing is wrong and not acceptable. I can assure administrators here that you won't see my username on this side of the fence at this page again. Thank you. WTF? (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I propose an experiment. Block Wiki Tango Foxtrot for a week and see how long it takes him to appeal the block. JOJ ^Hutton 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Rather than raise hell and blow this out of proportion. Just make this a one time warning not to disrupt/vandalise to make a point and leave it at that. Assume good faith this time and leave it be. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately AGF is running low when somebody gives themselves a trolling sig. GiantSnowman 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't bright orange, doesn't have a drop shadow and isn't three lines long. I've seen worse. For now, WTF has had the only warning he should need (and the only one he will get) not to do this again, so I think we can close this off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

91.74.118.88

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

---

This user 91.74.118.88 has been warned several times regarding using Wikipedia as a soapbox, in response to posting multiple complaints on the Flydubai page. They have also been blanking their own talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp71 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IP address blocked following report to WP:AIV Noom _talk ^stalk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

132.3.29.68

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

---

The user 132.3.29.68 has been warned multiple times from the talk page about vandalism and other things. This IP recently edited Soledad O'Brien twice, both times were vandalism [29]. Before that, editing Brokeback Mountain, here, and then Detroit Pistons, here. I am aware this is a shared IP address but at least we can disable anonymous editing? Toasty (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't see enough recent vandalism to justify a block; additionally, most of the warnings on the talk page are stale (>1 month old). I'll issue another warning; if vandalism continues please report this IP at WP:AIV. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks

User:Trasamundo call me "Sockpuppet Santos30" 3 times in the Talk:Spanish_Empire. After I give clear explain in the Administrators notice board he call me another time: "Sockpuppet Santos30".[30]. I feel as a personal attack when he call me Sockpuppet after I give an explanation. It is a long discussion and I'm worried this brokes my Talk. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be a personal attack, yes. But it will not break your talk. pablo 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That calms me thanks--Santos30 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles

Jack Merridew, user:Br'er Rabbit, has been harassing me for the last six months or so. This is continuation of the same behavior (harassment and sockpuppetry on a grand scale) that caused him to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee for the last six years or so.

For the last few weeks, it's gotten especially bad at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests‎, a page which exists for the sole purpose to help me coordinate requests for main page featured article scheduling. Jack has been trolling there something fierce over the last few days.

I removed some of his trolling from that page, and he began revert warring with me. So I've taken the unusual step of arbitrarily banning him from that page. I've removed all of his posts to that page, and protected the page until he's dealt with.

I know I'm not the only one he's harassing. He seems to go from harassing one person to the next with alarming frequency. I think it's about time we discussed a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that an interaction ban could be a more helpful alternative. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it keeps him off the FA pages, that's fine where I am concerned. It doesn't really help the other people he continues to harass. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

better to fix the FA process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FPP for snarky remarks? Not consistent with involved, and since when can a single admin declare a ban? Nobody Ent 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(misuse of tools;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Full protecting the page on which you are having a dispute with another editor is not supposed to happen. You have used your tools inappropriately here, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - using admin tools in a dispute in which you are clearly involved is an abuse of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, at least Raul didn't simply block Jack. I agree that he has gone overboard with the full protection, but it is also obvious that Jack is both disrupting the process and acting in a fashion designed to piss Raul off, likely to make a WP:POINT. I think both need to back down here. Resolute 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it.

And I did it not just because of the snarky remarks -- it's that he's graduated into actively subverting the rules (rescheduling featured articles himself [31]) and encouraging others to do likewise [32][33]. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The discretionary powers of the FA director cannot extend to the abuse of admin tools. Not gonna happen. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being FA director does not mean you can ignore the admin rules that the rest of us have to abide by. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA pages don't operate like articles do. It's not abuse - it's reasonable discretion. And note to anyone reading that DIanna has been one of Jack's long-time apologists. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I respect the job you do, but man, you've gotta accept that you've overstepped yourself here. Please reverse your protection. The only thing you are accomplishing here is to let him bait you into becoming the focus of attention. Resolute 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotecting the requests page provided other measures are taken to curb his trolling. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules regarding the use of admin tools are not restricted to their use on article pages - they apply to all pages. And you don't get to impose conditions before you agree to follow the rules regarding use of admin tools - you need to reverse your abuse of the tools unconditionally, and then *ask* for help, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x4) Just looking over this case from afar, I can see a case to be made that Raul's removal of Jack's comments and subsequent lock of the page meets the "only involved in an administrative capacity" exception given by WP:INVOLVED. However, indefinitely full-protecting the TFA requests page because of one user's conduct seems... unwise, to say the least. And I'm also not certain that Raul has the authority to "ban" Jack from the page in question; that would seem to be something that should be decided by the community at large. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The rules regarding the use of admin tools also acknowledge the existence of discretion, like the clerks on arbitration pages, or the FA director on the FA pages. So you can shout "Abuse!" all you want, it does not make it so. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans can only be given out by the community-at-large or arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is flatly untrue. Arbcom clerks can ban people from arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in my time as a clerk, we have only banned a person with arbcom's consent. I see us as the messenger. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean from the Arbom pages, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is at least partially incorrect. A lot of decisions have been kicked up to the Arbitrators, but individual clerks have the authority (and probably should use it more) to ban disruptive editors from ArbCom pages. I'm actually surprised here that everyone seems to be against Raul's original premise that he has the authority to remove Br'er from the TFA/R pages. Is the office of FA director powerless? NW (Talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Teh Power. Taht wut tihs iz really all about. Wiki is not supposed to be about Power™. It is supposed to be about collaboration. FA is supposed to be about our best. The office should be abolished. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, would a well-structured RfC produce sufficient evidence of disruption to justify a site ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Any look at Jack's behavior over the last six years would show an extensive history of harassing others. Whether this would justify a site block in some peoples' minds, I cannot say. Long-term harassment isn't exactly easy to demonstrate in a few short diffs, and RFCs don't have the best history when it comes to long-term compliated misbehavior. And Jack has a pretty well-established cadre of apologists. (Witness this very thread). So I think it's much more likely to turn into a huge time-consuming drama-fest. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be time-consuming, and may not result in a community consensus to site ban him, so that would require then taking it to arbitration. But it's worth doing, if there is enough evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried that in May. The arbitration committee's response was appalling. Essentially, they invented out of thin air exceptions to their own previously imposed sanctions. So the previously imposed sock puppetry prohibition became a green light to use as many sockpuppets as he wants. And when it was shown that he violated what few sanctions they did leave intact, they simple ignored the complaint until it was archived. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to my comment below, I do think that indefinitely full-protecting this page is a misjudgement. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it." No, you don't, and no you can't. You don't WP:OWN the FA pages and using your tools in a dispute you are involved in is a clear abuse of admin tools. ArbCom have just desysopped someone for less. There are processes to deal with disruption and that isn't it. You should have come here first. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And you also need to stop spraying the word "apologist" around as well. WP:NPA applies to the FA director as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am on the record as supporting Br'er Rabbit's return to the community, and I recused in the most recent committee proceedings which concerned him. Therefore, I do not say lightly that Raul is probably able to exclude editors from that specific page, that in this case he was justified in excluding Br'er, and that Br'er urgently needs to avoid this type of behaviour. Trolling such as that is completely at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. I must confess I am surprised: Br'er usually knows better than many that we are here to build an encyclopedia. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Disregarding the appropriateness of Raul's actions, comments like this one from Br'er Rabbit seem quite out of line to me. Don't make snarky remarks about other editors, especially not if you're accused of hounding them. It might give those accusations credibility. --Conti|✉ 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• As a regular contributor to WP:TFA/R, I am outraged that the page has been fully blocked (or whatever the term is), and believe that Raul, whom I usually respect, is far overstepping his powers. Br'er Rabbit has often been a useful contributor to that page, and the big deal that Raul has made about him is far too POINTy for my liking. I request, at the very least, that TFA/R be open for editing again. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Temp page protection upon removal of disruption of process pages is arguably legit (per uninvolved) but I don't think there can be a page ban, unless it's endorsed by the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• this is an abuse of both admin powers and the authoritah of the post of Featured Article Director. pablo 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• History or not, admins should not be using their tools in disputes, and not one single page on this entire project is under the unilateral control of a single editor. This is flagrant abuse of both the admin bit and the general sentiment behind OWN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Raul has obviously been involved with regards to Jack/Alarbus/Br'er since the RFC last winter. This is a transparent abuse of tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a joke, right? That RFC was started in an attempt to find areas of improvement. Jack, Wehwalt, Dianna, et al hijacked it to try to replace me. The community sentiment was 90% in favor of keeping me. Since teh RFC didn't go his way, Jack decided it didn't matter and he would simply ignore the result, which is why he's now trying to do the scheduling himself and encouraging others to do likewise. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The long-term history is irrelevant anyway. You two edit-warred at that page and then you locked it in your version and removed his comments. A clearer example of using admin tools when involved I don't think I've ever seen. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's false. Show me where I ever said that I wanted Raul out of office. What I said is that the Featured Article Director should do more than he does. Which at present seems to be picking the daily article and engaging in heated discussions, see here. I was expressed no preference as to whether that was Raul or someone else, so long as more was done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • His long term misbehavior is certainly relevant to this discussion. And as has been previously stated, the rules and established precedents allow certain people to have wider discretion on certain pages, ala the arbcom clerks. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Please feel free to indicate exactly where it is stated that you are allowed to circumvent protection policy on certain pages, otherwise undo your protection and then the community can discuss your original point instead of your actions. AFAIK the only situations where a single editor can impose page bans are your example and also on pages where general sanctions are active. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
          • The FA process has always operated with a great deal of directorial discretion. If you need this written down at the top of the FA administrative pages, I will be happy to oblige you. Raul654 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'd suggest you'd need a community policy discussion to alter WP:INVOLVED first. No-one is saying that the FA director isn't influential at those pages, but that does not extend to IAR'ing policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
              • As has already been pointed out like 15 times on this thread, the involved policy explicitly excludes administrative involvement. 'Involved' does not apply when someone sets out to troll the administrator. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
                • I count at least eight admins here disagreeing with your interpretation of that policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Balls. You feel that you are being trolled so you make up your own rules? pablo 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Raul § 23:19: Be that as it may, you're still involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of "featured articles", Raul654 is correct about the discretion he has. Jack's known for his provocations, despite being given a clean start on condition that he behave in future. As for Mark, well he's about as trustworthy as they come and has demonstrated good judgement for an extended period. If he's suggesting a community ban my response is that we should consider it seriously. --TS 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust, Tony, I'm honored. But I don't think we should ban Raul. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's nice that you are so eager to bask in Tony's compliment, the "Mark" he was referring to was me. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

_{I wondered what I did to impress him so much... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)}

Okay, a whole bunch of editors with a sysop bit have commented on the inappropriateness of the protection, but I'm still seeing "View Source" instead of of "edit this page." Nobody Ent 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And a whole bunch of others (including an arbitrator who previously supported Jack) have said it's OK. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a clear majority (including AGK) saying that your protection was a misjudgement. Please undo it so we can have a discussion on the main issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Raul, I'm hoping you will undo this yourself, but the consensus here is clear, and if you don't lift the protection, I will. You're letting him make you disrupt your own process. Resolute 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• "This page isn't a community hang-out. It exists to serve a specific purpose -- to help me coordinate the featured article requests If it's going to be a forum for trolling, then it's no longer serving its purpose" what a joke. And what exactly is this alleged trolling? Hot Stop 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't know much about the background of this dispute, I am seriously flabbergasted to see Raul saying that since he runs FA, he can do what he wants in violation of admin policy. No, you can't - you're an admin and an editor, and you have to abide by the same standards we hold other admins and editors to, even in your fiefdom. If the way the role of FA director has historically been treated has had something to do with why you now think you're not bound by our policies, then maybe it was a good idea for people to try to run an RfC on the topic of that position. I daresay if you stick to your guns here, insisting that you aren't bound by policy like the rest of us, another will be forthcoming rather quickly. Raul, please, take a deep breath and reconsider what you're trying to do here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Black Kite and Flutternutter here. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Do whatever you want -- I think I'm going on wikibreak. Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I have collaborated with Br'er Rabbit on numerous areas, but I have not been involved in any arguments about the FA process. What is clear to me though is that bad blood has existed between Raul and Br'er/Jack for many years. I am also concerned that I've seen editors whom I respect greatly being put under stress by having very short notification of an article that they took to FA appearing on the main page. The process needs to be helped along and it is quite wrong for Raul to cause problems and then strike out at those who want to see those problems alleviated. This is what is actually being complained about:
  • "This article has been scheduled to appear on 21 August, four days before its 150th anniversary. Was this a random article selection? Hawkeye7, who nominated the other 25 August article, has said he is happy for it to wait" - Tommy20000 TFA/R
  • "I moved it to the right day. The staff can fix the bottom links once they figure this out. This section should be removed, soon." - Br'er Rabbit TFA/R

Br'er fixed a mistake (Tommy's article clearly scheduled for the wrong day) and even pointed out that the bottom links need to amended. In any other featured process, he'd have been thanked for helping out. Somebody needs to figure out why that doesn't happen in the TFA process and then fix it. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although Jack/Br'er/(insert name here) can be abrasive at times, he generally has the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Right now I think that protecting TFAR is an overreaction that is doing more harm than good. Unprotecting it so we can discuss this somewhat rationally is a good start, methinks. There may be need for an interaction ban, but Raul should know better than to react like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moot now, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I hate to wade into this because I always get hammered and don't like being hammered but just have to say that the constant drip drip drip seems to be affecting content editors and the FAC process. If Raul's gone (maybe the desired outcome), SandyGeorgia's gone (maybe the desired outcome), others such as Dabomb and Ucucha, and many more, apparently no longer editing, at some point the question is whether the loss of either key content contributors or those facilitating the FAC process is important to the project. Does a line need to be drawn, or is it okay that we're losing contributors? I dunno, but I do on the one hand see editors such as Casliber pushing content building with the Core Contest, while at the same time see that we're losing editors who write content. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that Raul does have the authority to protect the page as FAC director; this was done earlier this year at WT:FAC. Now, in this particular scenario, this probably was not the best idea, as it locked everyone else out of the page. --Rschen7754 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• If the page exists for the sole purpose of planning FAs, and Raul is the FA director, and a user is making disruptive edits to that page, I don't see a problem with him taking action to prevent that user from disrupting the page. I don't think he's trying to make a grab at power over any user on any page; I see him trying to stop disruption on one page he uses for a specific role he has on Wikipedia. Kcowolf (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Based on the agreement I see above, I ask you all to consider this proposal:

Raul654 (talk · contribs) and Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), or whatever username he holds at the time, are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other, or commenting in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia.

I think that this should cut down on drama. Feel free to rewrite this as you see fit. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Impractical unless Jack is also topic banned from FA processes that Raul directs. Is that an intended aspect of your proposal? Resolute 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to strike me that we may need to make better provision for when Raul has a conflict of interest in the FA processes. The delegates are good people, but they're his delegates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with this apparent rash of disrespect for the FA process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not disrespect, but it shouldn't be an autocracy. It should be based on community consensus, so an arbitrary banning of an editor violates that need for a consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. If an editor screws around with an FA, then he's exercising autocracy and violating community consensus. Or is that not what you meant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)s It amounts to the same thing, as long as Raul is the FAD. And thus is just a restriction on Br'er Rabbit alone, seeing as Raul's exalted position seems to allow him to make it up as he goes along. pablo 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict X100) My first draft included a sentence that said something to the effect of, "due to Raul654's long standing position as the Featured Article Director, this restriction applies to Wikipedia:Today's featured article and all of its subpages." I thought that it was redundant so I removed it. In addition, a delegate can handle a request if Br'er significantly comments on it. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Resolute's observation adequately points out how disingenuous this proposal is given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See my comment directly above. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was disingenuous myself as this was a pretty standard proposal for two squabbling editors. It is an unintended consequence that Guerillero may have overlooked due to a failure to consider Raul's position. But even without a formal interaction/topic ban, I hope Jack will realize that his... zealous... actions are causing disruption and voluntarily back off from edits at TFAR other than commenting on nominations for the time being. Resolute 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Or not, heh. Resolute 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that given the amount of bad blood that's clearly (oh, so very clearly) gone between Raul and Jack, some sort of interaction ban is necessary. However, as Resolute points out, Raul's position makes that very difficult to enact. I would hesitate to say that he can't help at FA because Raul works there - this is not a divorce, and we don't "give custody of the children" to one editor and not the other. If Jack wants to participate constructively in FA, he should be allowed to. Same for Raul. Obviously Raul can't be handling Jack's requests, and vice versa - so what can we do here? Bar them from interacting even in FA space, and say that someone else needs to handle FA-space in regards to Jack's requests/submissions/edits? I understand that Raul is basically king there, but even kings must have advisors, regents, and crown princes who can step in if something needs seeing to and the king isn't available. Surely there's someone else who can speak to Jack in the context of FAs? If there's not, and Raul is unable to treat Jack neutrally, then we have a larger problem here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - how about adding User:Mark Arsten as a "facilitator", not a "delegate" but more independent, as Mark is always around and really reliable and wouldn't abuse tools, so he could prevent the situations where 59 minutes notice for main page appearances could be prevented—since the delegates and Raul654 aren't around that much. Then all this friction could be prevented. Just a suggestion, as I don't know the right procedures. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and could also deal with the situations at TFA, FAC, and FAR where Raul has a conflict of interest. For example, Raul's article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima recently passed through FAR and lost its star. Deciding the director's article was no longer worthy of the star must have been uncomfortable for the delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, guys. The position isn't something that particularly interests me, but I'm willing to help if the community sees a need/people think it's a good role for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Interaction ban is unnecessary and almost unworkable. Why not all admins from this point on consider this a Delicate Situation and consider a (1) Low Threshold for Blocking for gratuitous Snarky Comments or Disruptive Conduct, and (2) Low Threshold for notifying the Arb Committee for Use of Tools while involved? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, evenhanded. On the one side "give us a call" and on the other "block for snarky comments".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much from anyone, not just B'rer. The situation has inflamed tempers. Sarcasm isn't helpful either. The above discussion has pretty clearly delineated appropriate admin conduct from this point onwards so obviously any repeat will head our way. Yes, the FAR on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima might have been uncomfortalbe but due process was followed, so I am not sure what your point is in raising it. I am ok with Mark Arsten facilitating.....or really any admin can keep an eye on proceedings really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to have someone designated for the situations I mention. I think the point is clear: the delegates derive their office from Raul and so it would be helpful to have someone for those cases, especially in close cases, which Iwo Jima was not of course. As for the sarcasm, I do see your point, but I also read your comments about Jack in the arbcom leaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning what? He's aware of my concerns (which presumably you are referring to) - I am trying to work with the positives of what he has to offer (which is alot), before this gets out of hand and everyone calms down. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently. --TS 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So would any manner of weaponry. However, neither would be appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need a facilitator right now, as Raul has announced a wikibreak and his sole delegate has not edited since the 27th of July. Mark Arsten is an admin, he's level headed, he's familiar with FA. This is a good idea, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean for TFA? As far as I am aware, the other FA processes seem to be running... --Rschen7754 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; the different sectors have different delegates; promotions, reviews, featured list candidates, etc. For quite some time now, the only task Raul has done personally is select the daily featured article. -- Dianna (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured lists are not part of the realm. They are proudly democratic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We have articles selected for a week in advance, and we also have some emergency standbys, so this sin't an earthshatteringly urgent situation, but I'd be happy with Mark too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"proudly democratic" - Wehwalt, that is not helpful here. Can we try and bring everyone together without extraneous stuff? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's no secret that I support making the FA processes democratic. That's what I said in January and I've seen nothing to change my mind. But I agree, let's push on.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Say, something like this. That Mark is the FA facilitator, empowered to act in the event of a COI or in the inaction of the director/responsible delegates (i.e. the late notifications). That we'll let pass what happened earlier and hope that everyone will keep the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Creating an FA facilitator to act in cases of "COI" (defined how, exactly?) seems like a significant change to the FA process. This probably isn't the right venue to propose substantive changes to the FA process, especially as it was just recently affirmed in a large RfC earlier this year. I don't see others raising COI as a concern here, and in the case you mentioned it seems that Raul's article was de-featured - which rather suggests that COI isn't a barrier to objective assessment. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this is not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I'm not sure we can do much more here, and I guess we will see what happens next.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Raul needed to do was the standard procedure whenever there's a hint of involvement—ask another admin to review and act if necessary, in their opinion. This system is looking very fragile if it blows up because of one difficult editor. Everyone get a grip and move it back into good working order. And could I add that this shows up the weakness of policy in the area of alternate accounts; I had a push to tighten it a few years ago, and ironically it was admins who resisted. Talk about making a rod for our backs. Tony (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on who will prep the TFAs if Raul doesn't return in time and his delegates are not active? If no, I'll help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticise arbitrary Power™ and get teh stomp? That would be convenient... for Raul. The issue here isn't my comments, it's the underlying issue of old-guard cabalism. And his being retired in place. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see complaints about Power and that FA should Not be an autocracy. Sorry, but no. The only relevant question to this noticeboard is whether Br'er and Raul are capable of interacting; they obviously are not. We have discussed this subject for quite long enough. Please ban them from interacting with one another, then close this thread. AGK [•] 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've heard my comments on interaction bans before. They're a no-contact slow-dance. They actually tie users together. Mostly they're about avoiding addressing the underlying issues. They're a failure of dispute resolution. My criticisms are spot-on. The Emperor has No Clothes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban would be a de facto ban on one party from the TFA process, and so I oppose. (And AGK presents a false dichotomy - though Wikipedia is not a democracy, it also isn't supposed to be an autocracy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• We really need WP:AUTOCRACY. I think its jest when we call Jimbo the ultimate overlord, but if autocracy is allowed here then... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's what WP:VESTED is (supposed to be) for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is a long history of antagonism towards Raul654 from a small group—that is to be expected as FA generally involves skilled editors, many of whom are high achievers in real life and who may not be able to get along with other opinionated people. Br'er Rabbit is expert at using casual chat to needle opponents, and when editing as Alarbus was part of a small group pushing wildly against consensus at WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. Wikipedia is not an exercise in fairness or free speech, so the issue is quite simple, and boils down to this: Does it help if Br'er Rabbit continues to poke Raul654? Since Br'er Rabbit's criticisms consist of slogans with no content (see this discussion and the RfC), the answer to that is no, and there is no need for Br'er to interact with Raul, so support interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about Encyclopedia that implies a front page or featured articles. It's supposed to a reference work. It's not like I go to look up caterpillar and say, oh, it's not a featured article, I'll go read star instead. To the extent Wikipedia works on a sort of follow your own muse principle, if editors want to challenge and encourage themselves to push the writing above average, that's a good thing. Alternatively if folks want to standardize the separator between Mexican and American, that's fine. The fineness stops when such activities become disruptive to the project as a whole. Given that there are two high churn threads going on related to FA -- the Rabbit/Raul and Andy Mabbett on top of the page, where behavior that would be fine elsewhere on Wikipedia is a big deal because it involves FAs, we ought to take a step back and assert the the needs and norms of the project as whole are what's important, and no subgroup, however passionate or filled with high Wiki-cred editors, gets to have their own set of rules.

Since Raul appears to be unwilling play nice with the Rabbit, I endorse the concept above the Raul recuse himself from interactions with BR and Mark Arsten (or someone else) sort out any TFA concerns raised by BR. Nobody Ent 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Minty10200 continued reverting of Dual Survival article

User:Minty10200 keeps reverting the Dual Survival page to unsourced or information from non reliable sources about Dave Canterbury being fired [34] [35] [36] [37][38][39][40]. These edits involve deletion of fully sourced material. Attempts have been made to engage with Minty10200 in talk and on their personal talk page but user does not appear to understand Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy and instead makes personal attacks, claims I am censoring the "truth" as an argument. I made attempts to locate reliable sources for the information user insisted on and added these to the page but no reliable source could be located that Canterbury was fired, only that he was no longer with the show. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit behavior continues [41] edits involve deletion of three sources and replaced with unsourced information. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes based on WP:BLP and WP:OR, and added a BLP warning on the users talk page. Nothing else to do yet, unless edit warring continues. Could possibly block for WP:3RR as well, but lets wait and see how the user reacts to this warning first. Blocking should be last resort. Try discussing on the talk page as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried discussing on the talk page and added what I could find that could be sourced to address their concerns but user seems more concerned that the "truth" is being censored then properly sourcing their information. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23 edit warring on multiple articles, strange edit summaries, removing WP:RS citations/POV pushing

71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

User:71.178.108.23, who was recently the subject of an ANI dealt with by User:EdJohnston here [42] after a report by User:Kansas Bear, has been active on numerous pages, edit warring, removing WP:RS citations and using unsourced non-neutral language. They have very recently been warned by User:Bbb23 here [43] and myself here [44], yet have continued to edit war removing WP:RS citations and continual POV pushing. Here are some examples of the type of editing and edit summaries involved- here [45], here [46], here [47] and here [48]. Could we get some admin attention on to this? Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just some brief comments. I posted a final warning on the IP's Talk page, removed here, based on all the problems caused by the IP. It looks like the IP not only removed the warning but has continued their misconduct. However, I have not analyzed the IP's edits subsequent to the warning and don't have time to do so now (I have to eat dinner or I'll be shot). If another admin wishes to look at the events and block the IP, fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of filing a sock case against this IP. Notice WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit. The IP's main interest is to ensure that certain articles about WW2 Croatian Ustashe figures are sufficiently negative. What is most noticeable is the abuse which he directs against editors who disagree with him. In my opinion a one-month block might be considered. Velebit was also noted for abusing other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh it's Velebit alright. I've been keeping track of his cross-wiki edits here. Osiris (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like here are, in joint action, three "experts" of Ustashe history. A common Wikipedia technique of character assassination is in progress: sock puppet, edit warring (!!), unsourced (!!) non-neutral language (!!) etc etc. Non-neutral language is to call war criminals politicians and intellectuals!! EdJohnston is always on guard when someone tries to "smear" image of his beloved Ustashe. The most hilarious attack posted on my user talk page is a claim, The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content . For this user, the long time dead war criminal Andrija Arukovic is a living person!!
• All above attacks on me are just an excellent confirmation of the prof. Harnad statement about Wikipedia. Professor John Harnad, a world-renown Canadian mathematician, (who was blocked by Wikipedia) summarized his negative view about Wikipedia this way:

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner “elite” arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted “rulebook” and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a “Tyranny of the Ignorant”.

--71.178.108.23 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've delievered that rant several times before (ahem), on this wiki, and on the strategy wiki. Give it a rest. Osiris (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD

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

---

The heading says it all. After escalating trolling and personal attacks on MarnetteD's talk page, the IP user has escalated to a legal threat Time to bit this IP goodbye with prejudice. --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And now, the same IP has left a threat on my talk page as well. I haven't even had time to warn him/her yet! --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I undid an edit they had made as the earlier USER had made a reasonable edit., changing one word that made more sense. As soon as I had done that, I was called an "IP Hopping Troll" and something about socks was posted to me. A Troll is a vulgar insult and one that I don't see why I have to accept without complaint. Your comments above are highly inflammatory and unnecessary. If the insults to me are not reversed or removed, I see no reason why I should not take legal action to remove this defammation. If you see that as a threat, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I edited:

(cur | prev) 06:43, 15 August 2012‎ 64.175.39.242 (talk)‎ . . (91,320 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Undid revision 507479719 by MarnetteD (talk) Reviewing the edit, their is nothing disruptive i can see. It is a language improvement. It appears MarnetteD is simply looking to escalate problems.) (undo)

I had seen that MarnetteD and another USER under an IP address were arguing. I looked at the edit and it seemed perfectly reasonable, so I undid it with the above comment. Since then MarnetteD has continually abused me by calling me a 'troll' and accused me of using 'socks' which I don't even understand. Now the same user is saying that the problem is my attitude and insults to other editors. The above edit is the only one I made. This is intolerable. 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

USER Drmargil has now joined in the name calling and abuse. Who is policing these editors and allowing them to abuse in this way? 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To anyone who takes a look at this you will need to take a look at the edit history of this page [49] A series of IPs 216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs), 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs), 85.237.212.195 (talk · contribs) and 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) - none of whom have an extensive edit history - has been using edits - some innocuous others not so much - to leave edit summaries attacking other editors, especially Redrose64. While most of the IPs are from California at least one has been from England so I fear this is a sock/meat puppet situation. They most likely tie back to the blocked user TVArchivistUK (talk · contribs) who engaged in much socking and personal attacks before being blocked last May. The language used currently is much the same as the blocked editor indulged in. Redrose64 has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with this but I feel that the attacks should stop and either the various IPs should be given some time off or any pages that they edit to continue their attacks should be semiprotected. It is late here so I will probably not be able to respond for several hours. My apologies to anyone who needs my input until then MarnetteD | Talk 07:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's a little more to it than that, 64.175.38.242. Since July 12, you've also edited as IP User:216.31.246.114 here, here , User:85.237.212.218 here and here; and User:64.175.39.242 here and here in the first of a string of disruptive edits, always informing editors they cannot make edits not approved by User:Redrose64 (who appears to be an uninvolved party (see this edit). You seem to feel one editor owns the page, and that it's your role to defend that ownership to the point of making legal threats to both MarnetteD and me, while being unresponsive to warnings on your talk page. This is block worthy behavior that will not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you. I have taken steps to resolve this now. Any editor that does not use an ID is assumed to be the same. I know nothing about technology, so I don't know where your evidence is coming from. But I hope the steps I have taken will be sufficient. To personally insult someone as a 'troll' is defammation. What will you be calling people next on this site? Witches? Crones? Worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While there are several IP edits to check to get the whole picture of what is going on the most important one regarding 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) is this [50] where, with only their third edit, they mention Redrose64 by name. Hardly the edit of someone "brand new" to Wikipedia to to editing the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases article. It reads like a "quack" to me MarnetteD | Talk 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats aside, two IP's who have never edited before, on in Alameda and one in Emeryville (about 10 miles apart) suddenly making the same edits defending the "owner" of a page, both in the manner of a banned editor leaves us in the land of "pull the other one; it has bells on it." --Drmargi (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although accusations of sockpuppetry without filing a formal WP:SPI report are sometimes slightly uncivil, and the word WP:TROLL can also be on the uncivil side, defamation only exists if it directed against a recognizable individual, which does not exist here. Indeed, calling someone an internet troll would never qualify for that. Regardless, the policy on No Legal Threats is clear: you must be indefinitely blocked while the "threat" (as useless as it is in this case) exists. dangerouspanda 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Self-promotion only account

Khursheed Khan Facebook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made two edits so far, both removing existing content to insert self-promotion. Both were quickly deleted (though no warnings given till later, by me), but perhaps this account could be blocked now as he is clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, without waiting for three more lots of silly vandalism for him to be warned about? PamD 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be charitable and suggest he could be doing these edits in good faith, and just doesn't understand what Wikipedia's for. I've put a welcome template on his talk page that should get the message through. If he still disrupts pages, put a higher level warning template on and wait for a reply. If he still does it, and doesn't reply to his talk page, then blocking might be acceptable at that point. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, perhaps I was being a bit light on the WP:AGF - but removing good content to insert "come to my facebook page" stretches it! I usually add a welcoming template, but lack of AGF led me not to in this case. Will watch. PamD 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. If you've ever spent time at WP:NPP or WP:AFC you'll know what odd things turn up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Assume ignorance of the rules :-) dangerouspanda 09:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• But, there's a lot more going on here: a search in User space finds:

• Khursheed Khan Pictures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khursheedkhanactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khursheed Khan Interview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:Khursheed Khan Interview/sandbox
• Khursheed Khan Actor Picture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Khursheedkhan2012/sandbox

Ignorance and misunderstanding of what the encyclopedia is about. PamD 09:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And he's been around at least 10 days - see User:Khursheedkhanactor. PamD 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. Oh my word. However, since most of those accounts aren't blocked, I can't honestly accuse him of outright sockpuppetry - perhaps he's lost his password. Still, competence is required - pick whichever the latest account is, tell him to use that one, and that one alone. I recommend using words of one syllable (although, in fairness, I suspect English is not his native language). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have left a message on each of his talk pages except User talk:Khursheed Khan Pictures, where I see that username was blocked on 11 August as an unacceptable username - presumably on the assumption it was a film company! Have also, in passing, removed purely self-promotional content from the probably un-related User:Khursheed Khan of Dandoqa Swabi, whose only edit was to create a WP:FAKEARTICLE userpage about himself and his family. Interesting morning. PamD 10:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process by Lionelt and Belchfire

I apologize for not having all my ducks and diffs lined up, but this report is a product of frustration, not planning. As you may be aware, Lionelt admitted openly that he plans to pester me with reports until I get blocked repeatedly and give up.[51]

I don't have a full list, but along with his buddies from WikiProject Conservatism (Belchfire, ViriiK and Collect), he's lodged false reports against me for 3RR, SPI, ANI and more. You can see Belchfire's most recent attempt above this. Lionelt has gotten me blocked once, but only by miscounting reverts.

I'd like you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&pe=1&#User:Still-24-45-42-125_reported_by_User:Belchfire_.28Result:_.29 and tell me this isn't the most obviously false report you've ever seen.

I'm asking for administrators to intercede, not on the bogus 3RR, but on their admitted vendetta against me. In specific, I suggest an interaction ban, but I'm open to whatever will actually keep them from harassing me in the future. I am absolutely sick of this. Their actions -- quite intentionally -- have made it difficult for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pile-on
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry to say this, but you've brought it on yourself. You've received a ton of advice and you've neither listened to or followed any of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, I am fully responsible for their behavior. I also make the sun rise in the morning, but when it rains, that's also me. Let's always blame the victim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) You should read WP:NOTTHEM. You may need it soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) And I, in turn, suggest WP:MYOB. I'm hatting you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The linked comment from Lionelt is basically just an exposition of WP:ROPE. It's not very nice when editors are that candid, sometimes, but nor is there anything actually wrong with it. The only way to get out of this particular trap is to behave yourself. Trust me when I say that if an editor repeatedly leaves bogus warnings on someone's talk, or cries wolf at ANI, then it is the antagonist who usually finds himself subject to scrutiny. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be, except that he and his friends have actively followed up on this with false reports. I trust you when you say it ought to boomerang, but it hasn't. It's impossible to actually contribute to an article like Paul Ryan while dealing with multiple false reports on a given day. The last time I wasn't able to respond (because I was sleeping), I got blocked despite a provably false claim. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battlefield. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're taken to 3RR by this group of editors again for a claim which is provably false (i.e. as bad as the one linked above), let me know. (incidentally, ANI's conflict detector has been on crack the last couple of days. attempt #5 here.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think you're going to lose an editor at this rate, because I'm not willing to put up with this BS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I personally believe you're clearly edit-warring, as per the definition, here's my idea: there's millions of articles. Go edit ones that will cause you less grief for awhile, and take the hotbed ones right off your watchlist. WP:BATTLE can go both ways. dangerouspanda 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for move protection at "Men's rights", and other action

An RFC concerning the article Men's rights was closed by admin KillerChihuahua at 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC), with this edit. There are reasons to be concerned about that closure, and about its possible consequences.

Background

The RFC had run since 10 July, when it was initiated by newly registered user JasonMacker within the first four edits he ever made under that username (see record of his contributions, and note the three relevant edits, which together add 15KB of well-formatted text to the talkpage: [52], [53], [54]). A bot duly posted the RFC notification at WP:RFC, with this text from JasonMacker's post:

"Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and If feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as WP:SYNTH issues."

There is no suggestion of any move of the article in that notification. But at the RFC itself (on the talkpage), the text continues like this:

"I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, because the current scope of the article is only dealing with the men's rights movement. ..."

And a great deal more follows that.

Back to the present

KillerChihuahua was called on at her talkpage to close the RFC (by Slp1. See this edit at Talk:Men's rights; and see this edit at KillerChihuahua's own talkpage (22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)), to which KillerChihuahua replied (01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)):

"Sure, I can do it; it may take a bit for me to read through it; I wasn't even aware there was an Rfc there. :-/ So I'm not up to date on it."

19 minutes after making that post (saying she had been unaware of the RFC, and would need time), KillerChihuahua wrapped up the RFC, whose text runs to more than 5,000 words. (That edit again: [55], timestamped 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC).)

That is, on the face of it, 19 minutes to assess a complex and often rambling RFC proposal and discussion. But there is more. For most of that RFC discussion there had been only oblique mention of an RM in November 2011 (duly processed according to WP:RM protocols), which is now archived. The proposed new title was the same as in this RFC, except without capitals: "Men's rights movement". That RM was closed in this edit and the preceding one, without moving:

"The result of the move request was: not moved. The article has changed significantly since the majority of the comments were posted. The majority of the current article is not about the men's rights movement per se. A new move request may be proposed, although a separate article on the movement itself (separate from the rights) would probably be a less contentious undertaking. Aervanath (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

KillerChihuahua commented at that RFC, but without voting. She was therefore aware of that earlier RM, and of the closing admin's finding that "a new move request may be proposed"; but this recent RFC was not part of the standard procedures laid out at WP:RM, and was never advertised to the community, in any proper forum that people have on their watchlist, as involving a move. A serious failure to inform the community.

Now, perhaps we must suppose that KillerChihuahua found time in the critical 19 minutes to read the present RFC (5000+ words), check key links in the RFC, review the only genuine RM for the article (8000+ words; making a total, with the present RFC, of roughly 27 A4 pages, single-spaced), check the state of the article itself, formulate a response, type in that response, check it, and close off the RFC.

Important to note also: at 06:30, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC) KillerChihuahua began this article probation page for the article; and article probation remains active.

Despite that article probation, I do not at this stage document anything about the style of KillerChihuahua's recent posts on the article's talkpage, preferring that the more substantive facts be addressed as a priority. I claim that the closure of the RFC was hasty and improper, and that the only legitimate way to determine a move for this article is given unequivocally at the relevant policy page, WP:TITLE:

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.

It is beyond doubt that Men's rights, under long probation after a properly conducted but failed RM, is "potentially controversial". It is equally beyond doubt that the initiator of that probation knows full well how controversial it would be. Yet admin KillerChihuahua appears to have ignored a clear ruling in policy, and to have acted precipitately. I raised a complaint about this at the article's talkpage (see Talk:Men's rights#Improper closure of discussion regarding a move of this article), because I am particularly interested in RMs and also in Wikipedia's treatment of gender issues. I had participated in the properly conducted RM of November 2011, and wondered if there might be another one some time. I check the WP:RM lists daily; but no RM was notified. Almost certainly, other interested editors also missed the opportunity to have their say. It is therefore not surprising that a different and smaller cohort of editors, for the most part, took part in this RFC; nor is it surprising that the tendency of opinion was different this time, given that only "locals" knew what was proposed in this RFC.

What happened next?

Kevin Gorman has written (see the section I started, liked just above):

The minor procedural points [sic] that have been brought up are easily covered by WP:NOTBURO. If you disagree, please take this to ANI within the next 24 hours or I will begin to implement the close.

Hence this post, which I make reluctantly. KillerChihuahua does not agree to reverse her extremely poor administrative decision in favour of an unadvertised attempt to move a highly controversial page; so I feel I have little choice.

Proposed remedies

• An immediate move protection of the page, while the matter is discussed here.
• A retraction of the admin action that closed the RFC with a decision that the page be moved.
• Continued move protection of the page, until either a new RM discussion is conducted or the matter is referred to some other appropriate forum for determination.
• An affirmation that clearly stated policy provisions at WP:TITLE are to be respected, in the processing of move requests.
• Consideration of further actions under the terms of the page's article probation (for which I reserve the option of presenting evidence from the article's talkpage).

[Diffs of notifications to be posted here shortly.]

Thank you!
☺
Noetica^Tea? 11:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)