Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I have been concerned about the behaviour of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · block user) for about a month now. He has been making comments that are consistently aggressive towards other editors. A sample of examples follow: [1], [2], [3] (edit summary), [4], [5], [6], [7] (edit summary), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Other users have approached me as an admin with concerns about these and other comments. One of these comments in isolation would be easily forgivable. But the attacks and negative tone seem to be incessant.

I made an attempt to raise these concerns with the user here, and my edit was simply reverted with a put-down edit summary.

The user has twice been blocked in the past six months for disruptive editing, and it is starting to reach that stage again. Normally, I would have no hesitation to block the editor for the accumulated nature of the comments he has made, but since I have been the target of some of his attacks, I feel it is best dealt with here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a few run-ins with KW over the years, and I consistently found him to be disruptive, counter-productive, and often quite rude. He always seems to be the first one to accuse others of personally attacking him (often when they're not), while simultaneously dealing out personal attacks of his own. The diffs towards the end of the list in the above post are particularly concerning. Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that "Life is confusing when you have a brain." Any of those diffs on their own are not a blockable offense, but I agree that the demonstrated long-term pattern is problematic. At the very least, I would support issuing a final warning to KW, to let him know that future incivility will result in blocks of significant and increasing duration. —SW— ^chatter 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I brought this to Good OlFactory's attention and I have previously had run-ins with Kiefer before. I explicitly told him on two occasions that he needed to stop this belligerence or else I would have an admin intervene (if someone really needs diffs, I'm sure I can find them.) He then posted more positive notes on my and his talk pages--it's impossible to say if that was genuine good faith or just hoping that I would forget about him for awhile, but he has made it a point to be needlessly provocative and it really needs to stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I've had a lot of troubles with this user over the past year or so, but recently we've been getting along (especially since we agreed to stop discussing our past). I have been a little worried about his recent behaviour - declaring only people who have tought statistics should edit an article, Telling an editor who has created around 85 chemistry articles that he "writes so little". The above disruptive editing mentioned by Good Ol'factory, which I also raised with KW, I hoped had passed. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would this be worth starting a RFC over? --Rschen7754 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a blue link. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From that RfC's summary, [...] KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). Apparently, he has not changed his ways and can still be tactless and aggressive. If there are no objections, in a couple of hours I'll impose a week-long block due to the ongoing pattern of violations of WP:CIV. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have been the previous recipient of some of KW's hostility, and although we've not had much interaction since, I do not think he has learned from the RFC despite his claims to have done so. He still treats editors he disagrees with (or, perhaps more correctly, editors who disagree with him) with contempt — perhaps to intimidate, I'm not sure. But I'm not convinced a block will do anything. It's probably time for civility parole, or failing that, bringing this to a higher court. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any point in a final warning after the RfC, earlier ANI discussions and his blocks. Maybe being blocked for a week will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't aware of his previous RfC. Looks like he has already received plenty of warning. —SW— ^chat 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I, too, have had to speak to Kiefer in the recent past about his civility issues, and he responded to me with extreme anger (though he did eventually redact what I had asked him to redact). It doesn't look to me like the RfC on him made much of an impression on him, and I think Salvio is probably right that it's time to start actually holding him responsible for his behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• KW never seems to miss an opportunity to needlessly insult or attempt to belittle someone - there is a little club of editors who conduct themselves in a similar fashion, all of whom are very unpleasant to deal with. Perhaps the most astonishing and concerning thing is that he and they genuinely believe that they are somehow superior to other editors, with little or nothing to support that view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I should note that after I called him out on casting nonsense, disruptive !votes ([13], [14]) in a CfD ([15]), KW responded by Wikilawyering over WP:POINT, claiming that I was misusing WP:DISRUPT, and also falsely accusing me of altering his comments ([16]), which (a) I did not do and (b) the striking of the bolded part of a !vote when a user has cast multiple !votes in a discussion is a standard admin task, especially when said !votes are cast disruptively and in bad faith. I agree that a block for disruptive and uncivil editing that goes contrary to the collaborative goals of the project would not be out of the question here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I also have asked User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz to tone down his comments, both during a CfD discussion (which he blew off with what appears to be his typical rhetoric), and at his talk page, only to be told to "go away" (which he later redacted). Archived here. And after User:Good Olfactory dropped further concerns on my talk page, I suggested this AN post to get more eyes on this. This would seem to be consistent behaviour. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Devil in the details

The ANI choir sings in tune, with no caveats or concerns about the "alert" by Good Olfactory, who lists the following edit summary:

• "redact personal attack with hysterical vindictive invitation to nuke my contributions. What the fuck is wrong with this page?"

Anybody who bothered to investigate the surrounding diffs knows that Elen of the Roads commented on that thread, as she commented (most actively!) on my RfC. I submit that Elen is well aware of WP policy and the black stains on my soul. Nonetheless, she did not consider that comment as block-worthy as Good Olfactory, who has with considerable restraint, he assures us, not blocked me himself.

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block, and failure to discuss any of these diffs? Why didn't anybody object to Good Olfactory's listing of this diff? Isn't that prime facie evidence of misfeasance by you all?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block... This thread has been going some 20ish hours (forever by ANI standards) and you have not been handed any civility block. How on earth is this a rush to judgement? Your regular misinterpretation of comments (either deliberatley or for some other reason - AGF says the latter) is one of the thing that most irritates and this is a prime example. Kiefer - I'm afraid I have to agree you seemed to have learnt nothing from the RFC linked above; a shame as I assumed you had. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

A "rush to judgment" is a cliche in US legal discussions, describing a failure to show due diligence in discussing a case. ANI is not a courtroom, of course, but some discussion is usually advised.

Please focus on the substance of my remarks. Where is there any discussion of any of the diffs cited? Where is there any caveat that in e.g. one diff, KW may have actually been helping protect the encyclopedia?

We all have off days. I have noted being irritated by my year's work on Peter Orno, which included my politely accepting comments about my lack of logic and misunderstanding of "author" and striving for consensus (resulting in a TLTR page), being left off the April Fools Day DYK, and so losing 10 thousand or more readers, commenting that "even Homer nods". Comparing Crisco1492 to Homer was not intended as a personal attack.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on "rush to judgement". Luckily I'm not an American so didn't parse it as a reference. Indeed I seem to recall us disagreeing in the past, partly because you couldn't quite grasp my Bitish humour? On a multi-cultural site these things are tough, and I'm a regular offender in that respect too, I suspect. No matter. I would note that opening this sub-heading with "The ANI choir sings in tune" is hardly likely to win people over however. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro!

We almost always disagree, and you usually show up criticizing me, but I still like you because you are a good person. I don't like persons behaving well because of conformity or a wish to become administrators, etc. I do appreciate you because you are sincere---"Before all Temples th' upright heart..."--- both when you are good, in which case you are very good, and even when you are bad .... ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I "usually show up criticizing" then that's likely for a reason. I don't tend to go aound criticising for the good of my health :) Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly discussed the diffs in my initial post in this thread. I referred to specific comments in the diffs and how they violate policy: "Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that 'Life is confusing when you have a brain.'" For further recent discussion and evidence of KW's typical WP:IDHT response, see Talk:Design of experiments#Competence. I'd fully support a block, but KW appears to be set in his ways such that I doubt it would change his behavior for very long. It would certainly be sad to lose a prolific contributor, but being prolific/experienced/intelligent does not afford you special treatment here. —SW— ^converse 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Scottywong (formerly Snottywong),

  You are continuing to repeat falsehoods, confusing my labeling statements as "idiotic" with my labeling editors as "idiotic". There is one editor that I frequently insult in comment summaries, but nobody has ever complained about those.... In my youth, I would have labeled such falsehoods with an f-word, but I have matured with the help of my friends....

  A reader complaining that they were confused by an infobox did not have the patience to read a few sentences of the lede of John Rainwater, which explained things. Of course, an article about a mathematical in-joke may make some readers puzzled, until they read the lede.... (Mathematical scientists spend most of your lives being puzzled and frequently cursing our stupidity, and I obviously have trouble understanding why puzzlement is regarded as a problem.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In this ANI thread, I count 11 editors who unanimously see a problem. In the Talk:Design of experiments#Competence thread, two editors are telling you that your comments are inappropriate. How many editors need to tell you the same thing before you will begin to even consider the possibility that maybe you're wrong? —SW— ^communicate 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that my opinion particularly matters, but this comment pretty much tips the balance for me. I'm with everyone above, some admin action seems to be needed here unfortunately. Kiefer apparently can't help himself, even here at ANI, so he probably needs to (metaphorically) go sit in a corner for a bit to consider his actions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which you are cryptic when you try to label me as dishonest and/or inauthentic does not change the reality that you are attempting to insult me rather than discuss the real issue. This is the status quo for KW. —SW— ^talk 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see what's wrong with this here. Using a vandal template to list someone is in poor taste, and the edit summary is an appropriate response. I don't work on the same articles that Kiefer does, I do think they could tone it down, I detect verbosity and hyperbole--but I don't see a reason to start throwing punitive terminology around. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to where I was. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  The first nemesis in my tragic attempts to bring Peter Orno to the main page... kindly forgave my first Ornoery period. I appreciate his letting my latest Milton quote pass without complaint....

  When it was applied to me, twice, the vandal template did not have Elen's helpful note that "nuke" only removes very recent contributions, not all of the contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe I should not have included that particular diff, as it seems to be a distraction for Kiefer from the main issue. Had I not included that one, there were several others I could have used in its place. The point is that there is a consistent problem with incivility and aggressiveness towards other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Update. I have just blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, I support the block. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And so do I. Even the most brilliant content creation doesn't excuse the attitude he displays. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• No. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Yes, I'll admit that KW is very confrontational at times. He's blunt, at times painfully so. I also think he is outright wrong on many occasions. If there were an ongoing dispute where he was being abusive to another editor in calling them names - then yes, I'd support a block as a preventative action. KW is (in my personal opinion) an arrogant person - and I can not stand arrogant people. I'll suffer fools gladly before I'll tolerate arrogance, but this block is just flat out wrong. "We don't like you because you don't conform to our standards" is what this block is saying - and that reeks of "punitive" which blocks are NOT supposed to be about. Sure, it would be very nice if we could all come together and build a kumbaya utopia - that would be great ... but that's not reality. KW, to be blunt - you can be a royal pain in the ass. But I'm sorry - that's simply not a blockable offense in my opinion. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. Much of what I'm seeing lately is a whole bunch of political game playing. This is a global project, so there are going to be differences of opinion. What should be happening is everyone putting their cards on the table, offering their very best views backed by facts and documentation. What is happening is people falling into cliques of "you watch my back, and I'll watch yours". People don't agree? .. Fine - talk it out. Salvio, I have a huge amount of respect for you - but I think you're wrong here in blocking KW. Bush - I think the world of the work you do .. but sorry: content creation doesn't excuse the attitude ??? Wow - you really lost me on that one. "Content creation" is what this project is supposed to be about. A person's "attitude" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Since when are we a judge and jury of a person's attitude? There is WAY too much "block him, ban her" bs going on within this project - and if it continues it will be a case of us destroying ourselves from within. This entire idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was founded upon ... well ... the idea that "anyone" can edit. You don't like what KW puts forth? .. Then prove him wrong with facts. Sorry, I just can't get behind this whole thing. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not "we don't like you and you don't conform to our standards", it's "we appreciate your contributions but you refuse to conform to our policies". WP:CIVIL is a policy, not an option - if somebody cannot contibute in a civil manner, and when they, in fact, consistently seem to go out of their way to flaunt the civility policy, then all the content in the world doesn't change the fact that they are being disruptive to the project - and stopping current/avoiding future disruption is what blocks are all about. (as for "not liking what he puts forth" - 'putting forth' two deliberatly ridiculous, bad-faith, and disruptive !votes at a CfD ([17] [18]) because it's going against his wishes - when he's already registered his opposition ([19]) - and then Wikilawyering when called on it ([20] [21])...it's clearly not what the project is about and is not what it should be forced to tolerate because "he makes good content, therefore he gets a pass".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia Content creation is not the purpose--it's collaborative (quality) content creation. If one user is so belligerent and aggressive that other users don't want to add to the encyclopedia, then that's a bad thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on this point; MickMacNee comes to mind as someone who was a content producer but was so brash he ended up getting banned by the Arbs... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?" --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ched that Kiefer is arrogant and annoying (and I also don't think he should have been blocked), but that comment was actually genuinely amusing. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, as initiator of this thread. For a user to suggest that someone can continue to act like a complete dick towards other users over and over again without repercussions "as long as he's doing good work" is an attitude that I won't get behind. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, not just a suggestion. It's not a punitive block, it looks to me like a last resort attempt to try to help the user "get the message" that his behaviour is not acceptable. He'll get another chance—a week is not forever, nor is it indefinite. Here's hoping the week off will do some good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No active dispute. I find KW a pain, but Ched is correct, this wasn't the time. Block him unrepentant over fresh name calling, I'm fine with that. Block him after the fact, it gets arbitrary, and sets up for more arbitrary blocks, especially of the politically less-well-connected on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a statute of limitations on personal attacks and incivility? Ravenswing 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. To quote arbcom, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors" (emphasis mine). T. Canens (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support How many fricking times does one have to say "cut it out" and hear promises of "ok, I'll stop" before the community patience is exhausted? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block per my comments above in the original section which appear to have been taken as being for a block. A block will not accomplish anything. It is punitive at this point. It has gotten to the point where sanctions should, imo, come from a larger cross-section of the community in the form of civility parole, or from ArbCom. Not from a small group of ANI users who would generally be opposed to Kiefer anyway. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support The punitive/preventive mark is not a bright line when it comes to civility violations. Often, a long-term pattern of disruption must be demonstrated before a civility block is warranted, and this can blur the line between punitive and preventive measures. KW has received more than a few warnings (including his very own RfC/U). There is no excuse for his behavior, and the warnings have not provoked any change in his behavior. This is the next step. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block as necessary and preventative. We have an editor who is 100% aware that his behavior is disruptive, to the point where an RfC was closed acknowledging his awareness of this, but who remains unable or unwilling to stop the disruptive behavior. Since he can't/won't stop the behavior, it falls to the community to prevent the behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per ongoing civility violations, including in this thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I have encountered KW only at CFD, where his incivility is persistent and ubiquitous; this discussion includes plenty of evidence that his incivility extends elsewhere. He has had plenty of requests to desist, and plenty of warnings, but they seem to have had little effect, even in thius ANI discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Seriously, what the hell? Is anyone else sick and tired of the syndrome that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA cease to apply to anyone who's hit a certain edit count? For behavior which would get one-month newbies indef blocked a hundred times over, people keep giving free passes to editors who are not merely serial offenders, but are not in the least ashamed to boast that they consider - at level best - Wikipedia's civility policies to be optional, and certainly not intended to apply to them. (And by the bye, while there are still apologists for KW's unconscionable behavior, have they given the slightest bit of thought to the many productive and civil editors who've washed their hands of Wikipedia because of such antics?) Ravenswing 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are we supporting and opposing? The block's been done. Next step is while he's out for a week, think of what to do with him upon his return. More editing sanctions, perhaps... Rcsprinter (converse) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly standard practice at AN/I, as it's an area which is quick to block in a shoot first, ask questions later type way. Editors go on and discuss the behaviour past the end of the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't see that a 1 week block will make any difference. It's after the fact, slightly excessive and a blunt instrument which doesn't really stop anything. (It's also a fairly ineffective block, since I don't think it's curtailled Kiefer's editing particularly, he's been very prolific on his talk page!) Having said that, I can't see any other options, since this isn't the first time KW's editing has been inappropriate. As such, I'm left sitting on the fence, and would say I am neutral with regards to the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to start thinking about restricting talk page access for the remainder of the block, if his talk page will continue to be filled up with endless rants. The block is clearly not having the intended effect. If anything, it's accelerating KW's inevitable sprint to ban-town. —SW— ^confabulate 21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the amount of polemic content and personal attacks he's thrown up on his talk today, I think it's really getting to the point where it's clear he has no intention of using his talk page to request unblock, and is instead abusing his access to it to continue the behavior that earned him the block. At this point, we have two options: one, to keep him from digging his hole any deeper we remove talk page access, or two, the block is increased to correspond to his continued personal attacks. Both of those are likely to anger him even more and refresh the attacks on other fronts, but on balance I think pulling talk page access is a better option than either leaving him with access or increasing the block. It gives him the option to regroup, calm down, and come back in a week having created no new issues for himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are not suppose to be punitive, they are supposed to be protective. What possible rationale is there for this one, other than the fact that K-Wolf didn't genuflect to the lynch mob??? Carrite (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The rationale is that the user has a consistent history of flouting WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is hoped that the block will lead to the user understanding and abiding by the policy - something that all attempts short of blocking, up to and including a RFC/U, have singularly failed to do - thereby protecting the wiki from future disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For what it's worth Jc37 (talk · contribs) has protected KW's talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"You have the right / To free speech / As long as you're not dumb enough to actually TRY it..." —Joe Strummer. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FREESPEECH - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What? The lyrics confuse me--how are they relevant? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment was attempting to claim that Wikipedia is suppressing the right to free speech through blocking - hence my reply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"IDONTLIKEIT so I'll shut off talk page access." Par for the course for the highly censored Wikipedia talk pages. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that Point 18 has some applicability, if you replace 1984 with censorship. As someone who edits Ainu and Burmese articles, both people who are subjected to particularly vicious forms of censorship, I am always astounded at how freely the word "censorship" is tossed around. It's Wikipedia's substitute for Nazis. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, we've got those too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, freedom of speech is an important right worthy of being defended in a variety of situations, including this one. ANI is nothing if not a drama-hungry mob in search of adrenaline fixes obtained by raking new victims over the coals. Shutting down the freedom of expression of the victim is part of the power trip. It's bogus and should be called out, not something to be dismissed with a smirk and a tortured reference to a non-germane ultra-lite internet meme like the so-called "Godwin's Law." Carrite (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a privately run website. Thus, there is no right to free speech here. We all edit at the whim of the WMF, and must abide by policies, including WP:CIVIL. When someone refuses to abide by policy, they get blocked. When they turn their talkpage into a further venue for incivility, they lose access to that venue. He is still free to email ArbCom to request a review of his block, or simply wait for it to expire. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bush Well, I got it--I just wanted Carrite to explain it in his own words... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Carrite What should have been done instead? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to unprotect user talk page

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has full protection, and I'm wondering why this (rather than the more usual revocation of talk page access, if required) is deemed necessary? I had intended to grace said page with a Grannious lecture benign influence, which I'm sure he would have appreciated (really, I am!) but was unable to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, KW has been temporarily blocked, not shunned to the extent that nobody is permitted to talk to him. On a more serious note than my proposed Grannical Pearls of Wisdom, though, having his talk page protected means that he can't receive any notifications in relation to any articles, categories, etc. which he's involved with. So – can someone please unprotect the page so that the normal functions of Wikipedia may continue thereon? Pesky (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

Unresolved

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [22], [23] and [24] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[25] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [26], [27], [28] and [29].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [30].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[31] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [32]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[33] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [34]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[35], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[36] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[37], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[38], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[39], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[40], and falsely attributing comments to me[41]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[42][43], after indicating something was only his opinion[44][45], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[46][47], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[48].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [49],[50]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [51] and "windbaggery" [52]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[53]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [54],[55],[56],[57]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [58]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [59] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [60][61][[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[73], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[74], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [75].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[76]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[77] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[78] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[79] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[80] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[81] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[82], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[83]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[84], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[85]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[86], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who first discussed the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam: Topic Ban

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[87] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The implication that I 'consistently back up BlackCab' is false. The suggestion that AuthorityTam does not have editors supporting him is also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I acknowledge that tehre have been problems between AT and BlackCab, but they are problems that I would expect under the circumstances. Maybe if we could get one or both to agree to some sort of voluntary ban on content addition or reversion, for at least a time, that might be enough. Under such circumstances, they could propose the edits on the relevant talk page, and ask others to make the changes requested. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims that none of his behaviour has been inappropriate, even though he employed the same inappropriate behaviour in his response at this discussion. The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, your proposal sounds like one for "discretionary sanctions" as per WP:AC/DS. I could see that as an acceptable response myself. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it would be a reasonable request to require AT to comment on content only. It does require of course that he not be baited (I am not suggesting that someone would - but the provision should take into account the possibility).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam/BlackCab: Interaction Block

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[88][89] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[90] or complaining of COI[91]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[92] and hostility[93] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[94] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[95]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally here[96] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[97] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, purely on technical grounds. Either someone is blocked from all editing, or he's able to edit everything that's not protected; you can't block someone from editing pages that have a certain topic, such as Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can, we do it all the time. It's called a WP:TOPICBAN. SÆdon^talk 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this due to a philosophical opposition to topic bans? (In which case it wouldn't be a technical issue.) Kansan (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's an admin? Who has never heard of a topic ban?! We need to remember to never give Calvinists the broom, because it's all or nothing to them ;-) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that proposal of proposed sanctions (if any) be left to admins

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI process: a final thought

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[98] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[99]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[100].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that since my proposals fail another users proposes a proposal

This is now marked "unresolved", which means it's going to come back here in no time. RfC/U seems like the next step: the question is, RfC/U on which user? Additionally, everyone seems to have their own cheering squad, which makes getting anything done look very, very difficult if not impossible ("unstoppable force, meet immovable object"). From my reading of this (granted, I've only been involved in about half a score of these processes now) it - the process - seems to have broken down (and shall continue to as long as each and every editor on such a polarized topic has, as I mentioned, their very own cheer section that will oppose/support according to that). What is the next step? Wait for this to come back to AN/I and leave "unresolved" next month? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on AuthorityTam

Based on comments above, I believe a possible option here would be to apply discretionary sanctions as per WP:AC/DS on AuthorityTam. Specifically, I would propose that any uninvolved administrator be free to impose sanctions on AuthorityTam should they see he engage in unacceptable conduct. In this particular instance, that would probably include violation of WP:TPG, specifically including making personal comments about other editors. I have asked for input from the ArbCom regarding whether it is considered acceptable to impose such restrictions here, and, if it is, I myself would Support such an option. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? John, I'm no fan of either side in this subject and would like to see all 4 spend a month on non-JW topics, but with both you and DougWeller taking the side of BlackCab and Jeffro vs AuthorityTam and WillieTell I can only only assume you must have seen something I haven't.....? What actually has he done? Frankly if any of us had been called "vile nutcase" by BlackCab here on ANI we would have gone ballistic, and yet AuthorityTam just sucked it in turned the other cheek (must be a Buddhist), and now we're sanctioning him? Someone link for me what exactly we're supposed to be sanctioning for please? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack replaced after removal

Request admin action - to block the user.

User:Malleus Fatuorum is attacking other editors again. His attack was removed as WP:NPA and he has simply replaced it - I have asked him to please self revert but, he has refused and told me to "go play elsewhere" - Youreallycan 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This won't end well. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Operation This Will Most Likely End Badly is a go! —chaos5023 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It already hasn't ended well. Shame, but the user had a post removed as a personal attack and chose to replace it and then when politely requested to self revert their replacement of the insult they refused -The behavior and style of confrontational discussion using uncivil insults is something the user is under arbitration control for and the violation of that restriction has resulted in this outcome. Youreallycan 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That you, of all people, should take someone else to task for their "style of confrontational discussion" is interesting from several points of view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about me, however I will reply, I occasionally overstep the mark but you will notice I am the first to strike and apologize when I have occasionally lost my temper. Youreallycan 18:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the understatement of the week. "Queer agenda", anyone? You still don't understand what was wrong with that. Great work Youreallycan and Courcelles; you can be proud of yourselves. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here, for interest, is the antecedent baiting which led to this. --John (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can't really see much baiting in that, given the context in which it's made. I don't think we need to rewrite the rulebook so that anyone who strongly disagrees with Malleus is automatically to be considered "baiting". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Others can re-close this if necessary, but I've been reviewing all afternoon. I wanted to believe that the comment by Anthony was innocently badly phrased, but the sequence of comments leading up to it eventually yields a clear slow escalation pattern. Malleus was also escalating some, the two of them are equally at fault in one sense, but Anthony was the one who took it up to the point it was dark grey area and almost certainly likely to draw Malleus offsides / bait him. I am left concluding he did it on purpose.

Traditionally I've advocated for and symmetrically blocked baiters. I see that there's a lot of dispute about that read of Anthony's actions here, so I am not taking any action. But I think that a closer review of the sequence by other admins would be useful.

Courcelles and John left admonishments, but seem to have concluded the intent wasn't most likely malign. I don't believe at this time that the intent was innocent. I invite more admin review/attention.

I don't believe that a finding of baiting disqualifies the block on Malleus, but it does need more review and appropriate anti-baiting pressure to at least ensure it doesn't repeat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My intent most certainly was not to provoke anything. I hope Malleus reconsiders his departure.

I admire Malleus enormously. I agree with most of his political stances here, especially his constant calling out of peurile admin actions and his defense of content contributors. He is one of the most helpful people around, and that help often goes unacknowledged. He's a particularly excellent helper of good-faith newbies. And his content work is legendary.

If the project loses him because of this it will, in my opinion, be a great loss. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The light is seriously dimming now on Wikipedia, as continued attacks against the remaining core talents succeed. Neither Anthony nor Malleus deserve this absurd intervention, just because they interacted robustly. Soon we will just have block-obsessed admins strutting the empty halls, admiring the trim on their fingernails. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There really does appear to be a concerted effort to hound all the talented content-creating editors off the project. What is so appalling is that rampant trolling, vandalism and edit-warring now goes unchecked whereas the civility police are ready to leap out from the shadows to arrest anyone who says fu.k, cu.t or just happened to use strong langauge in a discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Those of us admins who battle the trolls, vandals and edit-warriors appreciate the noticing of our work and the compliments on our efforts against it. With the sarcasm-meter now off, I will remind that WP:CIVIL is a policy, and even if we have the best content writers in the world, nobody is going to be willing to join the project if the first thing they see upon entering discussion areas is pages of strong language and swearing. It is entirely possible to have constructive, high-quality discussions without resorting to strong language; it's a shame some people don't - or won't - understand that. Malleus' contributions to the project are legendary and he deserves every ounce of credit for them, and it's a shame he feels the need to leave the project, but if he, or anyone else, is unwilling or unable to adhere to Wikipedia's policies - in fact, to one of the Five Pillars - and instead helps to create an environment that drives new editors away, then that's something that those of us who are willing and eager to work as part of a productive and civil community can't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that we dispense censure impartially. Earlier in that conversation I had said Do you think the other editors can only pull you into line if some policy says you can't be a particular kind of arse hole here? Do you think policy lists, or should list somewhere all the different kinds of arse holy things a person is not allowed to do here? Strange..." and later I explicitly likened him to a naughty brat. He followed with "I've yet to see any convincing evidence that you have a mind, or that if you do you've actually ever used it."

It was a robust discussion, and his riposte was no more aggressive than my characterisations. On reflection, I realise the tone was inappropriate for this board, but Malleus' tone was simply matching mine. Somewhere, since then, Malleus objected to the removal of only his comment while mine remained on the page. I agree with him. Certainly his should have been removed, but equally, mine did not belong here.

I see an injustice of exactly the kind that Malleus has been complaining about for years. The appropriate response from the community here would have been removal of all intemperate comments, accompanied by warnings to both of us. He's entitled to be profoundly pissed off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Blocking one side and not the other without leaving any warnings was incompetent and calculated to raise drama. ill-judged and counter-productive. It also seems punitive rather than preventative. --John (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree that block or warn, "it takes two to tango". Not sure which would have been more appropriate in this case though...equiviliancy in actions is absolutely desirable. But (not necessarily the case here, but speaking as a general question that has bugged me about the "block one, block both" standard) what if you have two editors, one of whom is squeaky-clean without so much as a warning, while the other has a pageful of warnings and a block list with multiple entries? Do both get blocked even though one has no prior history of violations? Or do both 'get off with a warning' even though judging by patterns of behavior a block would ordinarily be near-automatic for one? Again, that's not necessarily the case here and not saying one or the other should have taken place vs. what did happen, but it's something that I've wondered about more than once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that tipped this into a block for Malleus was his restoration of the redacted comment. Given that, the more I think about this, my comments were more insulting and inflammatory than his, I believe his restoration of his comment can be seen as a very reasonable insistence on parity. He was right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense Nobody Ent 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Any human endeavor involving more than two people is political. (This is neither an inherently good or bad thing, it just is.) Our highest elected body has stated relatively clearly:

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

At some point Wikipedia has to draw a line in the sand and assert the civility thing isn't just a fantasy -- if it doesn't then it becomes an alt newsgroup which was just a tiresome unpleasant experience. The not punitive policy is not a Get Out of Jail Free card ... when other dispute resolution mechanisms have been exhausted it's an appropriate deterrent for chronic incivil behavior. Nobody Ent 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was not blocked for incivility, he was blocked because he restored a comment that had no business being deleted while my insults stood on the page. Courcelles was mistaken. He thought I had not been attacking Malleus, so didn't see, at the time of the block, how unfair it was to have Malleus' comment censored but not mine. His stated reason for the block (I think) was Malleus' restoration of his comment. I doubt that he would have, or at least believe that he shouldn't have blocked Malleus for defending his edit, if he'd realised at the time that Malleus was entirely justified in that act. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The other reason behind this block is Courcelles perceived Malleus' comment as a personal attack. I didn't feel remotely attacked. All that we did wrong was use AN, a community board, to host a forthright conversation. That was impolite. We should have taken it to a user talk page if we wanted to go on in that vein. And, as I said above, the community should have erased the offending comments and told us to take it elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it too (collapsing that section of discussion), which is a decision that I regret not making now. It's tough though, jumping into the middle of an argument between two people. Tough, and often thankless (usually to the detriment of the person jumping in).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the mood on these boards is generally in favour of that now. I for one, obviously, need the guidance of my colleagues from time to time, and would have appreciated it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what Courcelles has said about the block, it appears he blocked Malleus for compounding a behavior he'd already been warned against - a personal attack - with edit warring to keep that attack visible. Let's assume for a moment that Anthonyhcole's remarks were uncivil (which appears to depend on who you ask) and that Malleus's response to having incivility used against him was not to remove the incivility, or to request that it be removed/redacted, but to hit back even harder with his own incivility, and then fight to keep that incivility visible even when someone asked him to remove it, he declined, and someone else did remove it. "Editors should not respond to [baiting, trolling, harassment, etc] in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums" says arbcom in a remedy that Malleus must have read, since he was the central party to the case. "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind," says our Civility policy, which all editors are expected to adhere to. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion[...] Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned," says our policy prohibiting edit warring.

In short, Malleus's upping of the ante was explicitly against both our policy and the relevant arbcom precedent, and it should be unsurprising that he was blocked for it when he showed no sign that he was willing to remove his comment or stop edit warring over it. That remains true whether or not Anthonyhcole should also have been spoken to, had his comments redacted, or been blocked - each editor is responsible for their own behavior in matters like this, and one person not having been given the sanction the other prefers does not allow the second person a get-out-of-jail-free card. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You miss two points. It was not a personal attack. It was a style of discourse I am perfectly comfortable with. The mistake we both made was carrying on discussion at that pitch on a community board. Malleus had my measure, he knew I was up for it, because I had already set the tone. Please recognise that this was not a personal attack. And Malleus had every right to insist his comments remain while mine remain. Please don't quote policy at me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This non-attack is being mistaken for one and punished, while frequently I see editors subtly humiliating and intimidating others, and either nobody notices or nobody cares. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that WP:TPO is applicable to this line of reasoning as well (I'm thinking specifically of "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." here). Refactoring (let alone removing!) someone else's talk page comments is Bad™. I'd think that would be worse behavior than any subjective "personal attack", regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's stupid. The people on this board these days are generally clueful enough to identify decent relevant discourse. Show yourselves the minimum of respect and insist on it here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

Update: Malleus has been unblocked by an admin who immediately requested his own desysopping for wheel-warring by doing the unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well let us hope things have not sunk so far that he is indeed desopped for displaying courage and integrity. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, they have sunk that far. Even though he was not actually wheel warring. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Steve's only pre-empted the inevitable complaint about wheel-warring by asking for his tools to be removed. But I think the unblock was unfortunate — not saying it wasn't correct, necessarily, but made in unfortunate circumstances — and I think he's done the right thing to ask for a desysop. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good action on the part of Steve, given Athony's comments above (seriously; those arguing against the person supposedly under attack need to reread that whole thread.. ;)). Recommend sanctions for those who violated WP:TPO in trying to remove the message and unnecessarily escalating the situation. Again. Civility is a double edged sword. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking up, that appears to be Ianmacm and A Quest For Knowledge (two editors I find usually clueful). I suspect a simple warning & reminder of what WP:TPO says will be sufficient. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

They did the right thing in removing the comment, but they overlooked mine. You people on this board need to start imposing decent standards of decorum, and removing intemperate, frivolous or off-topic comments is a good place to start. You need to be an example to the rest of the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, any time the community has attempted to do what you're advocating for it leads to nothing but strife and, ultimately, a bunch of what just happened here. There's no magic bullet to these sorts of problems (which, incidentally, are age old problems...), and I think that trying to prevent them from occuring does more harm than good (which is a bit counter-intuitive, I know, but that's what my experiences in life tells me).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying I sense the general mood here has changed. This instance blew up because of the intrinsic unfairness of removing only Malleus' and not my inappropriate remarks. If someone had judiciously removed my "arse hole" and "brat" comments along with Malleus' "no mind" comment, the rest of the community would have nodded sagely and Malleus and I would have had no grounds for objection, since our comments were patently inappropriate for a community forum. You have the right to enjoy civil, professional discourse here, and get on with the very important job you do in a quiet, orderly, respectful environment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If Anthonyhcole hadn't used the terms in the first place the community would have no grounds for objection. Nobody Ent 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We could, however, take this opportunity to revisit the WP:NPA policy. Just off of the top of my head, it may be worth considering editing the document so that blocks are more of an absolute last resort in dealing with "personal attacks". I think that's more where the community as a whole is at, regardless (and I'd point to Courcelles statement on Malleus' talk page in support of that stance).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of events

Have I got this correct? Two editors personally attack each other, one get blocked for 72 hrs - due to a long history of civility breach - ; the other isn't blocked - due to a short history of civilty breach. The Blocked editor retires from Wikipedia & is latter unblocked. Then the unblocking administrator requested that he no longer be an administrator & his request is approved. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrt personal attack. no. Neither party felt he was attacking the other - i.e., attempting to hurt or harm - or felt attacked by the other. It was robust discourse, but inappropriate for a professional working environment. Not PA. Most real PAs around here are much more sleazy. They involve genuine attacks on the character of others. Nobody believes I have no mind, as Malleus suggested. That was colourful language seasoning a robust exchange. I just found this piece of sleaze. That's a personal attack. Hosted on the talk page of the editor who blocked Malleus for a bit of hyperbole. Still sitting there. Unchallenged. Unredacted. Nobody blocked. Target not even notified. See the difference?

The rest is about right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is incomplete, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement. Nobody Ent 11:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your summary forgot to mention the semi-pro drama addicts bringing this here in the first place as a thinly-veiled effort to get rid of an editor who they don't like. This is an important part of the Wikipedia Lord Of The Flies dynamic, in which the least worthy triumph and the most worthy are banned or chased from the project. Carrite (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  The subject was blocked even before the report at this noticeboard, as such, the report served as a block discussion. A bit of a romantic summary. in which you support an environment where attacking/insulting each other is acceptable. - he didn't even request an unblock, he had a couple of days left of a block supported by his Arbitration history and unblocking him in such a situation just strengthens his belief that he can be rude to whoever he wants, and, he wants to be rude to whoever he wants - he has retired in a huff because he thinks he might not get away with it any longer. - This User:Nomoskedasticity who asserts he has a Doctor of Philosophy and a degree in Sociology and asserts he is a working University professor, has been demeaning and sniping at me repeatedly for over a year, in this latest attempt to demean me he asserts I must have low self esteem - actually my self esteem, which is none of his business at all, is fine - this is nothing less than bullying when it is repeated and over a lengthy period of time. Youreallycan 08:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think this discussion should be closed. Not much reason to rehash events imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-involved non-admin, I have to wonder if it's really likely to be productive to spend this amount of time and energy discussing a 72-hour block. Not even a week. Some editors might consider that a vacation. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for admins to kowtow to an editor, no matter how valuable their contributions may have been, when they start issuing ultimatums. Nobody here should be perceived as "too big to fail". I also don't see how it's not obvious that unblocking an editor is inappropriate when there hasn't even been a discussion here and the unblock will clearly be controversial. I suppose as a non-admin it's possible I'm unaware of factors that need to be considered. Given that I might one day be interested in serving as an admin (frankly I'm just not sure what I could do with admin mojo that I can't do already), an explanation might help me or other confused editors. Doniago (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing the ArbCom I linked above and further thoughts here: User:Nobody_Ent/Notes_on_civility. Nobody Ent 17:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

They both make an interesting read. Never heard of the American "colloquialism"; even though I'm American, maybe it's because it's a sports metaphor. Moving to the heart of NE's complaint, though, my speculation is that even if Wikipedians confronted civility policy (rather than the many scattered incidents), there would be no consensus as to what that policy should be, but perhaps I'm overly cynical.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you're overly cynical there, at all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct place to issue a dare?

WLU (talk · contribs · block user) has been hounding me for over a year, with various uncivil tactics such as bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and a separate AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. A concise example of his Wikihounding and tendentious editing is at sexoloxy: I commented[101], and WLU reacted, doing the opposite[102]. The EL I thought should be removed was the only one left, and one EL that I though quite useful was removed. I requested input at ELN[103]. WLU declared the request resolved twice[104][105]. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page"[106] and "a world-wide agency"[107], WLU checked the EL, and was forced to concede that my original comment was correct[108]. There are many, many more examples, but some conflicts have become so entrenched that this pattern is unclear.

More often, WLU abandons one bad position for another and continues fighting. In one conflict, WLU fought to cite 47 pages of one source[109][110], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[111][112][113][114], then he hijacked a third-opinion request[115], then zero (0) pages[116],[117][118][119], and then finally one (1) page [120] of the same source at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[121][122].

Recently, WLU has decided to be more overt in his threats and more explicit in personal attacks on my sexuality (eg [123][124][125]). This is close to the one-year anniversary of an admin's suggestion that he properly format his RFC/U[126] against me, Currently, both attack pages are just lists of times that I, for example, asked an admin for advice[127] and lots of quotes.

Anyway, to skip a lot of posturing an preparation, I'd like to issue a dare. I and those supporting me will limit ourselves only to conflicts in articles that I edited first, and that WLU chased me to, IF WLU and those supporting him will limit themselves only to conflicts in articles that he edited first, and that I chased him to. If both of us haven't edited the article, we'll use the edit dates for the talk pages. Priority on noticeboards will follow from the article that the issue escalated from.

The conflicts at articles that WLU followed me to were at Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (where the wikihounding started), Sexology, Paraphilia, List of paraphilias, Talk:Homosexuality, Paraphilic infantilism, Adult diaper, Diaper fetishism, and Infantilism. The articles WLU edited before I did include Talk:Andrea James, but since he was only active there in February and I responded to an invitation in late March, that arguably wasn't a conflict. Outside of these and the various noticeboards, I don't recall any conflict between us.

Does this sound fair?

My hope, of course, is that he'll leave me, and the many articles he only came to to hound me, alone. Being hounded by a full-time editor has made this past year on Wikipedia like pulling teeth (worse, actually). It has ensured that I'm hesitant to consider touching other articles. I've little doubt that seeing vested editors like WLU act this way, especially at the articles where he's been successful at singling me out, has discouraged new editors from investing in Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(WLU's comments de-interlaced to restore my comment. BitterGrey (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the ELN, this is pretty much my last substantive comment on that page. Despite the link Bittergrey wanted included being in the {{DMOZ}}, in order to end yet another pointless discussion, I replaced the link he advocated for. My initial review of sexual-medicine.org was too cursory, after further research I ended up agreeing with Bittergrey that it was not appropriate and replaced it with a more genuinely international one here. So the above discussion seems to indicate that I do make mistakes, but I admit to them and correct them. I even apologize when warranted.

Regarding my alleged "two lists", my last substantive edit to the User talk:WLU/RFC subpage was December 10th [128] before blanking it [129]. My first edit to User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page subpage was on December 15th [130]. I haven't been maintaining two pages, I reworked the contents of one page in order to start another. I've never made any personal attacks against Bittergrey's sexuality; Bittergrey believes two sources conflate paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia (they don't) and therefore that I think all paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. My opinion is irrelevant, but I have not only explicitly stated I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles, I've stated I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile [131], and I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to make it explicit that it's not [132], [133].

I didn't follow Bittergrey to WP:MEDCOI, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) invited me to review it, see here. After interacting with Bittergrey at WT:MEDCOI, I clicked on paraphilic infantilism since on his user page he self-identifies as a webmaster of a page on paraphilic infantilism and on this page he discusses being a paraphilic infantilist [134]. Seeing the obvious problems on the page, I started editing - changes I largely consider uncontroversial. Consider this version versus this version. The former was immediately before my first edit, the latter the stable version I consider adequate.

Regarding wikistalking, from paraphilic infantilism, it's obvious to jump the links to the list of paraphilias, adult diaper, infantilism and diaper fetishism. However, there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts.

A more accurate summary of the "47 pages of sources" would be I came to the page with three different citations to the DSM ([135], [136], [137]) which I collapsed into a single citation using {{sfn}} [138]. Then I acquired a hard copy of the DSM and read the pages cited, and it turns out none of the information the DSM was used to verify was actually dealt with in the DSM itself, a conclusion supported by not one, but two noticeboard discussions (RSN and ANI). Despite this obvious, unanimous consensus in August, 2011, Bittergrey continues to claim that the DSM is relevant on the paraphilic infantilism and related pages (see here for a list of diffs).

I believe Bittergrey is a belligerent editor who is close to a single-purpose account focusing on his personal fetish of paraphilic infantilism. He misrepresents other editors positions, misrepresents sources and clear community consensus, accuses many editors who disagree with him of bad faith and turns nearly every discussion he is a disputant in into a lengthy, pointless battle. I'm generally the other disputant, but given so many of his claims are either misleading or outright lies (for instance, the claim that two sources say pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are the same thing, and the claim that the DSM discusses infantilism). Bittergrey is uncivil, assumes bad faith, inappropriately comments on contributors rather than contributions, treats wikipedia like a battleground, misrepresents, ignores and fights consensus, misrepresents sources, misrepresents the positions of other editors, accuses others of having a conflict of interest without acknowledging his own (and misrepresenting James Cantor (talk · contribs)'s current behaviour see here) and refuses to acknowledge any input that he doesn't agree with and will keep asking the question despite a clear answer. I believe at minimum a topic ban on paraphilic infantilism and related pages is warranted, but a full site ban would be appropriate. I plan on continuing to expand the subpage currently aggregating problematic edits; note that it contains very few diffs from after March 10th, 2012. The issues are the same however. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you wouldn't want me altering the context of your multiple attack pages. Please don't alter the context of my comments here. BitterGrey (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, would you care to substantiate your accusation of wikistalking: "However, there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts."[139] Given that I had edited all of the articles we've had a conflict at before you did, where exactly are you claiming that I stalked you to?

(ec)Also, your accusation that I "keep asking the question despite a clear answer" is comical, given you recently asked the same questions nine times[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148] in the same discussion. Regarding misrepresentation, I wrote "47 pages of one source", not "47 pages of sources", so WP:Kettle. BitterGrey (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than trying to parcel out the articles between them, perhaps the best solution is for both parties to refrain from editing all of the articles referred to here, and avoid following each other to any new ones. As for User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page, unless this will be used to start an rfc in he next week or two, it should be voluntarily deleted. WLU can keep a private copy to refer to later. (I've had some prior interaction, not always pleasant, with both editors). DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This would be unfair, first because WLU only came to these subjects to harass me, and second because using meatpuppets to get around bans wouldn't be new to WLU[149]. BitterGrey (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pulling a thread from 5 years ago to insinuate a current behavioral problem is pretty bad form and a weak argument. I'm sure WLU is aware today that doing something like that would be problematic and I seriously doubt he would. Unless you have a more recent example it's just conjectural. SÆdon^talk 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:DGG, Just to reiterate: You are still "too-involved"[150], and I again request that you support or retract specific past statements.

Re:Saedon, I have no doubt that WLU wouldn't do it on-wiki these days. There is a lot of conjecture and poor form here, I'll agree. For example, when WLU accuses "so many of [BitterGrey's] claims are either misleading or outright lies (for instance, the claim that two sources say pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are the same thing...)", he only provides diffs of me quoting one source[151][152]. He neglects that he edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia"[153][154][155][156][157][158] in the article (quote is form the last altered section). This, combined with his personal attacks[159][160][161] amounts to an accusation of criminal activity (that is, being a pedophile). BitterGrey (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response to me is a bit of a red herring. You insinuated that WLU would do something based upon something he did 5 years ago, I called you out on it and you replied by pointing to other issues. My only point was that if you're going to make assertions about other editors then you should use something more recent - this is true without regard to any other issues. If you have no doubt that he wouldn't do that on wiki these days, why did you bring it up? SÆdon^talk 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, The point was that I had a diff that supported my claim, even though it wasn't the most recent. On the contrary, WLU does not have diffs to support his claims. Please note that I didn't say that I had not doubt that WLU wouldn't do it - just that he wouldn't do it on-wiki where it would be easily documented. BitterGrey (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I was planning on bringing the list directly to AN once I had worked through the most recent batch of edits. This posting pre-empted that plan. It's linked heavily in my reply, but I can paste it here directly. The issues are essentially identical but the diffs illustrate it's still an ongoing problem.

Saedon, you may be interested in this COIN posting where Bittergrey similarly raises conduct issues from 2008 and 2010 despite James Cantor being obviously aware of his responsibilities regarding conflict of interest (see here). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly it's all a bit much. A couple months ago I started going through all the diffs and quickly got overwhelmed with how much background there is so I'm probably going to keep a distance here, but I wanted to call that particular accusation out because it was so stale. It's going to take a lot of patience from an admin to deal with this issue, but it clearly needs to be dealt with. I will echo DCG's call for you to start an RFC, as this might be the most efficient way to muddle through the mess. @DCG I don't expect that this will be dealt with simply by both parties refraining from the aforementioned subjects; this issue goes far deeper than it appears at first glance and I'm truthfully astonished that it took this long to make it to ANI. It appears that this has been brewing for a long time. SÆdon^talk 00:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I'd prefer to get this resolved here, among admins. Too often I've seen friends of WLU come out of the woodwork, claiming to be uninvolved, drowning out any neutral participants. For example, at that 2600-word COIN discussion there was only one comment by an involved editor. At least among the admins, there is some potential for accountability. That, and if the powers-that-be don't care anymore, maybe I shouldn't either.

As for refraining, if WLU agreed to stay away from articles and talk pages involved in the conflict that I edited first, and I stay away from all articles or talk pages that he edited first, that would eliminate most of the conflict. There would still be a risk of ongoing hounding, but I'm not sure how to avoid that without another[162] interaction ban on WLU. BitterGrey (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would rather have a solution that would eliminate all the conflict and perhaps an interaction ban would be an efficacious solution. WLU do you have thoughts on that matter? Also, BG, regarding what you said above about DCG's solution being unfair to you; honestly that's not much of a concern, we have to do what's best for the encyclopedia as a whole, and while we should strive to be fair, it will generally be a secondary consideration SÆdon^talk 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban and a topic ban, for both of us, on paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias would resolve the conflict as far as I am concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have been following these issues and have stayed out of it because of the hostility, provocative demands, distortions by cherry picking diffs, and the fear of being a target (Not by WLU). But I agree, this is a bit much, it would be a mistake to keep WLU from the infantilism essay. He has done much to fix the essay that was mostly single sourced by a controlling editor. The essay would fall back into disarray and cited with original research once again.Gogreenlight (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, you mean DGG's? I believe priority must be considered, otherwise the Wikihounding is being rewarded. By the way, do we all agree that WLU was Wikihounding me? Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.

• List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
• Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21)
• Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
• Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
• Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
• Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
• Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
• Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
• Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
• Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)

WLU wrote "...there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts." We can take this as a concession that he engaged in Wikistalking. As is clear from the easily checkable dates, I had been involved with all of the articles (except for Talk:Andrea James) before the conflict between WLU and myself started. I've asked WLU to list any articles he claims that I stalked him to. BitterGrey (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Saedon/Noformation, during a discussion at WP:NPOV, you asked for WLU's side of the story on his talk page[163] and banning came up, but you never asked for my side of the story. Do you understand how that can seem non-neutral? BitterGrey (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly see how you could construe that as not neutral and I would not purport to be neutral (as most people really aren't, but our articles should be). I know WLU's name from around the way and I have a lot of respect for him as an editor after having read numerous discussions where he accurately represented WP policy, as well as rational argumentation, and a lot of productive article editing as well. So yes, I would generally take an accusation against him with a grain of salt and would intuitively support him unless I had reason otherwise. I acknowledge that I'm far less familiar with your editing than I am his, and I have witnessed you being (IMHO) unreasonably confrontational. That said, I certainly don't know the entire situation and will not place blame on one side or the other. I don't think it really matters who is at fault, it just matters that we fix it and move on. WLU appears to agree to a mutual topic and interaction ban on the basis that it would solve these issues and I agree that it would. Do you disagree? I realize that you may not think this is fair, but the question before us is: will it fix the problem? SÆdon^talk 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An interaction and topic ban for both of us would resolve this completely. There is fault on both sides and we could move on without this thread becoming pointlessly long like so many others. It would resolve Bittergrey's apparent issue of wikihounding, it would resolve my issue of the continuous edit warring agains the misrepresentation of sources, save everyone here time and aggravation and I will tag my User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page for speedy deletion immediately. If I am the problem, Bittergrey will never run into a dispute with another editor again and we can both focus on generating content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If WLU would voluntarily leave me and the articles he wikihounded me to alone, that might end his hounding of me. Outside of the articles (and the related talk pages and noticeboards) that he followed me to, there is no conflict. If WLU won't do so voluntarily, a topic ban (on him) might need to be discussed. Discussing any form of ban on me would merely reward WLU's wikihounding. Above, WLU wrote "...there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts." Given the number of conflicts he initiated (including one with a bot, thinking it was me) this is a concession that he is Wikihounding me. His statement also accuses me of stalking him. As usual for WLU, this accusation is without any support or details.

I'm not sure what WLU meant by "the continuous edit warring agains[t] the misrepresentation of sources." Perhaps he gives as little thought to his own comments as he does about mine[164][165][166]. I'm also not sure what he hopes to achieve with the theatrical redlink: Both his four-month old ANI preparations and his one-year-old RFCU preparations are still here. This sort of flim-flam is one reason why conversations with WLU are needlessly long. The other reason is that WLU has a tendency to spew long lists of accusations without supporting any of them. This tactic was expressed in a line that used to be in the lead of attack page #2: "lie enough and it becomes the truth".

Of course, WLU can't complain about discussion length. I offered a simple challenge that would have keep this discussion short. WLU has implicitly rejected it. Please note that again, all of the conflicts that WLU and his supported have referred to relate to articles that I edited first.

My proposal is this: I will voluntarily not edit Andrea James IF WLU will voluntarily not edit Sexology, Paraphilia, List of paraphilias, Homosexuality, Paraphilic infantilism, Adult diaper, Diaper fetishism, Infantilism, and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). If he wishes, we can omit the articles that we were invited to (Andrea James and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)). This won't leave WLU's interests unrepresented: A brand new IP editor has already shown up out of the blue at Paraphilic infantilism and done nothing but agree with WLU. (WLU was at 3RR in 13 hours[167][168][169] and his version wasn't up, which made the new arrival really convenient.) BitterGrey (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before I plan to never edit Andrea James again (irrespective the outcome of this discussion).

I don't believe Bittergrey should be permitted to edit paraphilic infantilism and the list of paraphilias page, where most of the disputes have occurred, and but I do believe a mutual topic ban would help both pages. The paraphilic infantilism page is responsible for nearly all the disputes that occur between us, occupying the entire archives of talk:paraphilic infantilism/Archive 3, 4, 5 and 6, the current talk page and several lengthy sections of various noticeboards (FTN 1, FTN 2, FTN 3, RSN 1, RSN 2, the ELN, currently at the 3RRN). In fact, I will happily never edit any of those pages again so long as the topic ban is mutual. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that an IP who believes that "everything WLU has said is absolutely right and that everything Bitter[G]rey has said is absolutely wrong"[170] has suddenly emerged at paraphilic infantilism, there is no doubt why WLU is so eager to accept a mutual ban from that page. Unlike WLU[171], I don't have a history of working through puppets to dodge bans.

WLU also hopes to distract from the scope of his hounding. He's followed me to and fought me at a number of locations, not just one or two: At sexology I posted a comment[172], only to have him do the opposite[173] and try to close my request for input from ELN twice[174][175]. WLU hadn't edited there before.

Before this, I posted a comment at homosexuality[176], and WLU reacted by stating that he would do the opposite:"I'll read and integrate it". Just as was the case with the ELs at sexology, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. It was about harassing me. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out. Instead, WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to the paper's author at paraphilia[177] and cite the paper in multiple locations[178][179] in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the paper[180] and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. He was again wrong. WLU hadn't been involved at either homosexuality or paraphilia before.

I and two other editors got involved to stop WLU. KimvdLinde considered the source primary[181] but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Wikipedia. The third was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article[182] and adding negative material to her BLP[183]. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.

Those wondering what paraphilic infantilism would be like without me should look at diaper fetishism. WLU has had free reign to improve that article - but has not. It should also be noted WLU has had edit wars at paraphilic infantilism without me. The most comical was with a bot that he must have thought was me[184]. BitterGrey (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That accusation of meatpuppetry was from 2007, do you have anything more recent?

What was the result of the discussion at the ELN? My summary of it is here, pointing out your issues were essentially resolved as you suggested. I still think including a link that is part of a {{DMOZ}} is unnecessary, but it stopped the discussion from becoming even longer.

KimvdLinde didn't "stop" me at homosexuality, as I said two times, I read the article and thought it was relevant on paraphilia but not homosexuality and did not add it to the latter page. Like most of your summaries, it is extremely selective, leaving out that my initial addition of that paper to paraphilia was shortened and retained by KimvdLinde [185], who supported including the article on talk:paraphilia [186]. Also note why I attributed the paper rather than simply leaving it as an uncontroversial statement - which I consider unnecessary since Cantor's statement is uncontroversial, but I did so anyway to accommodate your objection that I was "promoting" it. Attribution weakens a statement from "X is Y" to say instead "Z thinks X is Y".

Regarding the "edit war with a bot", which you've said several times 1, 2, 3, a more accurate summary would be that as part of a series of edits I moved a template [187], then after Yobot reordered, I moved it back, once. As User:WhatamIdoing once said, [188] I don't think that failing to memorize WP:LAYOUT is a sign of a poor editor, and I think your disparagement of me on this wholly unrelated point is completely inappropriate. If this is about me wikistalking you, why bring up "edit warring with a bot", a completely unrelated topic that serves no purpose than to insult my competence? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, the tendentious editing at ELN is clear in that you marked the discussion closed twice[189][190] before even carefully considering your position - and realizing you were wrong. The edit war with a bot is another example: It shows that you don't assume good faith. With your wikihounding, you've engaged in similar tendentious editing in a number of articles. At paraphilic infantilism, you badgered me for F&B's definition of the term "masochistic gynephiles"(eg, same Q;[191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199]) hoping for support of your WP:OR that it was infantilism. You've been arguing for this OR since August, 2011, and have been edit-warring to keep it in the article. Now at RSN, you admit "Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time". Had you not been ignoring my points[200], you would know that my position[201] has not changed: F&B doesn't use 'infantilism' or any established synonym, so we can't use it without OR or SYNTH. I was right and you were wrong, again. Now, is a ban going to be needed to make you let me edit, to stop you from edit-warring for your own personal version? BitterGrey (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm supposed to assume good faith with a bot?

You didn't realize F&B wasn't defining the term either, but you're still ignoring the substance of my point - the source discusses masochistic gynaephiles who are infantilists, a point that Paul B agrees with. Rather than letting that independent evaluation close the discussion, you've ignored it completely and started a new section in hopes of getting a reply you wanted (here). Nothing in the paraphilic infantilism page needs to change because the sources are still appropriately summarized; F&B and CB&B both state that paraphilic infantilists wish to role-play children, while pedophiles wish to rape children. This is the same assessment given by Ludwigs2 at the FTN in December, "BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU forgets that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Had he accepted Yobot's edit per AGF, that would have been OK. Had he explored and discussed it in good faith, that would have been OK. No, he assumed any version other than his own to be wrong, and edit warred disruptively, violating AGF. WLU can't rightly blame this on me, although he still tried: He wrote another editor ..."he [BitterGrey] lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them. You may want to take his advice with a grain of salt."[202] At that moment, WLU and I were between skirmishes, so the only active conflict he had was with Yobot.

Yesterday, WLU conceded that he has "been reading the article wrong for a very long time." Of course, he still asserts that his version is right. Additionally, he claims that everyone he claims claimed he was right before now still claims he was right, even though they haven't updated their position since WLU changed his. They either agreed with him before the change or after the change, not both.

Of course, he still claims that I'm wrong. WLU started ignoring my input in February 2011[203][204][205]. Had he AGF'd and been open to input from Yobot and myself, much fighting could have been avoided. BitterGrey (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering I hadn't even noticed Yobot's edit, and only reverted once, calling this an "edit war with a bot" seems inaccurate, and not really worth discussing. I'm still waiting on a reason to ignore the the opinion and reasoning of two independent editors, Paul B and Ludwigs2. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some general observations on the power dynamic at play

I’ve been asked by Bittergrey to comment here, but rather than take sides on the mutually problematic conduct issues, I’d like to make a case against sanctions (voluntary or not) for either editor. Both have made many good contributions across multiple articles. I feel they each check each others’ excesses in shaping content. Articles are generally stronger when more than one POV can reach consensus. I don’t believe I have ever edited the key article in question, but I’d like to make a couple of general observations about personal attacks on editors via altering article content.

On controversial topics about misunderstood minorities (in this case, the ageplay community), Wikipedia has significant systemic bias that reflects the same problems these people face outside of Wikipedia. Articles about roleplaying communities and sex and gender minorities are heavily slanted toward medicalized worldviews sitewide. This kind of scientism is widely discussed in the field of philosophy of science (see Foucault’s concept of the medical gaze). Many “uninvolved” editors who involve themselves in articles about sex and gender minorities see the world through a medical lens because of personal experience or professional training. They wish to impose that view via these articles, often by suppressing the views of the affected minority.

There is a tendency among editors with a medicalized worldview to dismiss or seek to suppress the POV of those whose lived experiences and direct involvement give them insight and expertise into their own communities. There are books covering ageplay, adult babies, etc., and there have been a number of notable mainstream media outlets which have produced pieces on the subject. I seem to recall Phil Donahue saying that his groundbreaking episode on adult babies was one of the most polarizing moments in his career. Yet none of that is covered in the article. It is currently sourced with “experts” who see this community as a manifestation of a disease of some sort, the same sorts of “experts” who used to say the same sorts of things about gay and lesbian people. Even the current title is problematic, as it frames this as an exclusively sexual matter. A more neutral title would probably be Infantilism (ageplay) or something that acknowledges there are non-medical and non-sexual aspects of the population.

This kind of bias allows Wikipedia to be misused for personal attacks against minorities. These direct attacks appear to be indirect, because they are carried out by altering articles where the content directly affects the minority person. This creates a lopsided power dynamic where the affected editor is often accused of advocacy and the “uninvolved” editor is often defended as “objective.” It’s clear this is personal for both editors at this point, and that’s when this kind of editing gives a disproportional edge to the editor not personally affected by the article’s content. In a case like this, a topic ban is an unqualified victory for the ”uninvolved” editor, and a complete loss for the minority affected by the content.

I’d like to see both editors find a productive way to interact and improve articles. It’s possible. Jokestress (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently, WLU has the time and connections that permit him to dominate part-time editors like myself. With his admitted[206] wikihounding of me, he has shown a willingness to abuse that position extensively. He has also shown a sense of ownership[207][208][209], reverting the contributions of myself and multiple other authors. He has been preparing for (or bluffing at) disciplinary action against me for over a year[210][211], and he has stated the conclusion that I should be driven from Wikipedia [212][213]. While WLU does some good, we need to take steps to keep him from driving away good editors like myself. Disciplinary action seems necessary. BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress, do you think Bittergrey's use of the DSM as a source here was appropriate, particularly given clear consensus in two places (RSN and ANI) that it doesn't define infantilism? I have no problem with the paraphilic infantilism page being edited, I do have a problem with sources being misrepresented (such as claiming Freund & Blanchard or Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree define parpahilic infantilists as pedophiles) or using spurious grounds to exclude sources (such as claiming the sources are not independent, despite being published in a peer reviewed journal and by Oxford University Press respectively). If there are more scholarly sources on paraphilic infantilism that can be used to verify further text, such as the points you make above, I have no issue (I've seen no such sources but they may exist). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, the DSM has defined infantilism as a type of sexual masochism (302.83): "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism.')" I haven't looked at all editions, but that certainly seems appropriate. As far as assertions of type, Stekel said pedophilia is "a common form of infantilism" (in the Freudian sense) and people associated with CAMH have thrown around the term "autopedophilia" to describe infantilists and interpreted infantilism "as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." My concern is that all of these sources treat this as a disease instead of a phenomenon. This dispute has become very personal between you two, similar to your editing my Wikipedia biography in response to a content dispute. That is a serious conduct issue in my opinion, and it's related to your conduct here. I completely understand why Bittergrey is concerned about sources that assert infantilism is a form of pedophilia, just as gay men have concerns about the many sources that assert a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. These kinds of theoretic or taxonomic assertions are extraordinary claims. Our article should balance these in proportion to sources which state other points of view, including first-hand reports, autobiographies, and self-published materials from the affected population. WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS should both be represented here, as both are equally valid on an article about the topic. People with a medicalized worldview will certainly beg to differ, as they used to with gays who worked hard to get out from under the medicalized mindset that defined them for a century. It's OK that you see the world through a medical lens, but that's not the only POV that should be represented in the article. Your arguments about sources above seem spurious and tendentious, and I recommend that if you can't find a way to work with Bittergrey productively, you should consider editing in other areas of interest. Jokestress (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jokestress, but would like to clarify that Stekel wrote about psychosexual infantilism (which included everything but heterosexuality as signs of a lack of Psychosexual_development), not paraphilic infantilism specifically. WLU's claims are based on political correctness, not the sources: One (F&B) reports 6 diaper related cases; 4 pedophiles and 2 masochists. It does not use the term infantilism or any established synonym. The other (CB&B) claims "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an autoerotic target location error for persons whose erotic target location error is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (p531). These sources are misrepresented in the article. No non-CAMH medRS confounds paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress, the conclusion of two noticeboard discussions were that the DSM states that that may be one behaviour undertaken by masochists, not a general definition of infantilism. In addition, according to several sources not all infantilism is masochistic, making it partial at best. The term autopedophilia is used as part of Blanchard's theory of erotic target location errors, in which erotic target location is a basic dimension of sexual preference, and is used to make a distinction between pedophiles and infantilists. Can you point to a section of paraphilic infantilism where it says "infantilists are pedophiles"?

As I explained on the NPOVN, my recall of our very few interactions were that they were minimal, civil, and not a dispute as I understand the word to mean.

If information is missing from the page, then reliable sources are needed. The page currently contains descriptive sections and does not seem to medicalize the condition unduly, in fact noting that the condition is generally not a medical one because it does not cause distress. Bittergrey's claim that CAMH sources should be dismissed (for a claim they don't even make) is nothing but spurious, and ignores the fact that there are simply very few sources to draw upon regarding PI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU is partially correct regarding his version of the article: It now says nearly to opposite of the CAMH sources with regards to pedophilia, but still cites them. Prior to his December waffling, he had edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[214][215][216][217][218][219]. WLU is also correct in that Jokestress' has been consistently and remarkably civil, given that WLU had reacted to her valid comments at paraphilia by deleting her from one article[220] and adding negative material to her BLP[221]. These edits were at best questionable, and possibly malicious. I hope that WLU does not continue to wikihound her.BitterGrey (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Hey there BitterGrey, WLU, and Jokestress. Have any of you noticed that the administrators here at the Administrator's Noticeboard have stopped commenting on this discussion? Are you really here to get administrator guidance to help resolve your dispute or are you just looking for another venue to argue over content of these articles? If you want administrator help, then maybe you shouldn't have completely ignored the admins that tried to comment on this way back at the beginning of the discussion. I don't mean to be rude, but if you all just shut up then maybe an admin will look through the history of the articles in question and help you come to some sort of agreement. I don't really care, and really I just come to WP:ANI to read through things and sometimes get a good laugh, but this conversation is really just so unreal that I figured I would say something.

BitterGrey, I don't mean to pick on you, but I find it interesting that you complain about WLU rounding up his followers to support him, and yet you solicit Jokestress to come here and back you in the middle of this ridiculous argument.

I would also like to point out the irony here - that the subject of the articles in question is adults acting like children. Ok, that's my two cents. Please continue MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG wrote last year that "I am no longer acting as an intermediate of neutral party ... Recent events have made me too involved..." No other admins have commented. As for the "solicitation", that was just the required note since I had mentioned Jokestress at AN/I[222].

I would welcome suggestions on how to get input from neutral admins. BitterGrey (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Are User:Karogaanatu, User:IronBeefCurtain, and User:Pppowercurve the same user? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is thataway... :)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Pppowercurve just edited my page, since apparently Wikipedia lets people do that.IronBeefCurtain (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• A look at the contribs (identical in places), when they signed up, etc. does look pretty odd, not sure if that could justify a CU, but it is still odd. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed them edit-warring on the same article, and posting in the same places, so it looked pretty suspicious. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Just a newbie/three newbies spreading some WikiLove for teh lulz, perhaps?
    
  • Yes, Pppowercurve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the accounts
    • IronBeefCurtain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
    • Karogaanatu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • But I'm not seeing anything malign here. Yet. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I got kittens. Why would I not respond with more kittens? These are very different accounts. Also, how could Pppowercurve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created them when it's younger than IronBeefCurtain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Karogaanatu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? IronBeefCurtain (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe you finally got the Delorean up to 88mph? But seriously, no one is accusing anything, it is just that when we see something "unusual", we look carefully to make sure it isn't someone up to no good. If you aren't doing anything bad, you have nothing to worry about, we just always explore "coincidences", and this appears to be one, just a coincidence. I notice you are already pretty handy with wikicode (which is a good thing). Have you edited her much before? Dennis Brown (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The silliness isn't harmful, but I did initially notice them edit-warring over the image on Elf (Dungeons & Dragons), which is disruptive. Rather than continue to edit war, I came here to see if anything unusual was going on. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:IronBeefCurtain is now User:PlutoniumCurtain, so we can put the Profanisaurus back in the bookshelf.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Very bizarre... so, the account's name was changed, but then someone continued to post using the old name? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The account's name was changed, and then someone (likely the same person, I'd think) recreated another account with the old name. I'm starting to think that the whole point to all of this is disruption.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If an account called IronBeefCurtain still exists, it should be blocked as a username violation (I said I would comment here, but I changed my mind). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon my ignorance, but how does IronBeefCurtain violate WP:USERNAME? Dennis Brown (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

[223]. Open to interpretation. Doc talk 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Beef Curttains is slang for labia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Slang terms for parts of the female genitalia aren't appropriate as usernames. The account clearly needs a block. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he already changed the username, but I blocked IBC, just to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• You crazy kids and your newfangled slang words. That was a new one for this old dog. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Long term disruptive edits, vandalism, sockpuppertry II

Same individual as before, refer to previous report User:TwiceBlessedPape, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TwiceBlessedPape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Refer to previous ANI: Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism

I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: [224] and here: [225], has been reported here:[226], comments to article here: [227]. Coronerreport (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites. 147.203.126.215's edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that 147.203.126.215 is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific. EyeSerene talk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear this user: [228], appears "suddenly," here: [229], with same article edits as this user: [230], who is this user: [231], and this user: [232], all with comments to article here: [233], and same article and subject-related topic mentioned here: [234], as well as this user: [235], who makes User:Griot/User:SCFilm29-identical and -related edits here: [236], along with same IP range: [237], with identical User:SCFilm29 edits, as here: "23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" and stance, as here: [238], who was blocked for evasions, here: [239] like this: [240] and with the same IP range, and the same position on Julie Dash as this user: [241] and who was also blocked, here: is pretty much the same person, who is engaging in sockpuppetry, vandalism and disruptive editing. Clearly the same person, who uses Wikipedia to harass. Coronerreport (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talk • contribs)

• Note I have bracketed your comments because, wow, there wasn't any way to make sense of them. Use a single bracket on each end of a full url please, we don't need to see the address for every single link you provide. Two brackets for wikilinks. NOW I can look at the merits, as it wasn't readable before. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply Ok, finally I can easily see you have copied and pasted an entire previous conversation, which is unneeded and obviously unhelpful. The user you are linking, User:TwiceBlessedPape, made a total of two edits a couple weeks ago, which do not look like vandalism. If you think he is a sockpuppet, take it to WP:SPI, not here, but I don't see it having a snowball's chance with two simple edits (one edit really, then a minor correction). Or simply revert it and explain why on the talk page. IPs made the other edits, this is a registered user. Even if it IS the same person, he can simply say "yeah, I finally registered an account", which is fine. There isn't anything that can be done at ANI. I also suggest reading up a bit on linking and presenting cases here, because honestly, this was dreadful to pour through and make sense of before I cleaned it all up. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, if you can file an ANI, certainly you can format it properly. And finally, you should be more careful about what you call vandalism [242], as reverting and declaring an edit vandalism when it is not (even if that user was mistaken in their edit) can boomerang on you and get you blocked. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So many odious edits. Such a long history. I for one do not wish to keep cleaning up after this disturbed troll. Recommend a semi-protect on the article. Coronerreport (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• The place for that would be WP:Request for page protection, although I don't think you have a case. We can't block someone based on your "gut feeling". You are jumping the gun here. Watch the user, and if patterns of abuse show up, then start an ANI. Jumping the gun and accusing a new editor of being all these terrible things is disruptive when you can't provide clear evidence, and you haven't. Remember, if you are wrong (and you just might be...), then you have welcomed a new editor by dragging them to ANI for a "trial" because they made ONE edit, two weeks ago. Pushing this further looks WP:BITEy, and can lead to a boomerang sanction via WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate your opinions, which, respectfully, are incorrect. The evidence is quite clear. IP/s and sockpuppets have added odious and/or unsourced content, have vandalized this article and others, and/or have used articles on Wikipedia as a tool for harassment, for years. Furthermore, there is no question that this user name is intended to mock and harassment RW individuals, as per my sockpuppet report. I'm tired of cleaning up after it, and tired of witnessing it. It's time to put an end to it. Coronerreport (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see you have opened an SPI case [243], although no action has yet to be taken there. I have no idea, as ANI isn't the place to determine socks anyway. Even in the above discussion you improperly quoted, they didn't think you presented enough evidence nor want to take action, and no one else is jumping into this discussion. Being "right" isn't enough if you can't demonstrate and articulate what the "offense" is. This users sole contribution was:

• Mistaking Vanity for Art (2003)<ref><u>Women Filmmakers: Refocusing</u> by Jacqueline Levitin; Routledge: (2003)</ref> ~~~~

• You claim that this is the same person as some 147.203.126.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the editor is doing the same "disruption". You went out of your way to warn 209.216.198.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for them adding "Tupelo 77 (2012)" to that article, yet I see that same data (different year 2013 now) at Julie's IMDB page [244] so I'm confused as to how this could be vandalism or disruptive. 209.216.198.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the same edit [245] and you warned them [246] but again, this info is at IMDB, but you warned them as vandals instead. None of the IPs in question here have ever been blocked for anything and have made very few edits, so not sure how this is long term disruption. There has been only 50 edits in two full years, hardly a large amount of edits, and 18 of those are your edits. The editor you are complaining about made a different edit on the same page. At this stage, you are making connections that may or may not exist but you haven't supported your case with diffs that clearly show any vandalism or disruption. I'm guessing you are wanting this new user blocked, on the basis of essentially ONE edit that happened to be to the same article you spend a great deal of time protecting? I would love to hear an admin viewpoint on this. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by Anon Ip, suspected to be banned editor User:ColourWolf

Information on this vandal can be found here [[247]]

M.O. - Fond of vandalizing Singapore TV drama articles by introducing fake synopsis/content, after being banned and going through a list of successive socks, now tends to IP hop, currently around the 202.156.10.** range. occasionally acts self righteous and claims the reverting editor is the vandal.

Within the last few days made the following edits:

With 202.156.10.10 - [[248]], [[249]], [[250]], [[251]], [[252]]. Note last edit includes information about someone who probably does not wish their contact to be publicised online.

With 202.156.10.240 - [[253]]

With 202.156.10.13 - [[254]]

If one looks at the edit histories of just the 1st 3 pages alone: The Unbeatables III, The Hotel and Honour and Passion (the vandalism is more widespread, these 3 are just the more recent ones), its fairly obvious the problem has persisted literally for years; specifically, since the Colourwolf account got banned. Previously he IP hopped on the 218.186.**.** range [[255]][[256]] [[257]][[258]]. Even though the IP ranges are different, the same type of fake content is being introduced. Probably switched service provider.

Considering the vandal is repeatedly introducing the same type of content (he's not terribly original), will Cluebot be able to help out here? On top of any other manual measure we can take? Zhanzhao (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Try here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but it seems unsuitable as the vandalism introduced is unique to each article. Just this morning, the vandal went on another "spree" under 202.156.10.245 and 202.156.10.10 which resulted in the 2 IPs being banned. This cycle has been repeating itself and unless we can find a long term solution, the guy will just keep IP hopping. Simply banning the IP does not work. If we can monitor instead the individual articles for specific texts, and auto-roll back or even prevent the edits from being made, that would be the best. I am trying to submit a request via cluebot, but is there any other automated means? Short of semi-protecting all affected pages? Zhanzhao (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FYK, it's blocking, not banning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, yeah the 2 Ips are just tempoarily blocked, which means it goes back into the pools og Ips the hopper can use once the block expires..... Zhanzhao (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New Vandalism activities by Colourwolf

Guys on another spree again. This time back to the 218.186.156.** IPs. See [[259]], [[260]], [[261]],[[262]]. Now even adding dubious stuff on the talk pages. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Situation getting out of control, now he's apparently "outing" someone and leaving the victim's contact details on the edits.[[263]] Zhanzhao (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Improper move by admin

The move of Nico Hülkenberg → Nico Hulkenberg was discussed at Talk:Nico Hülkenberg#Requested move and was correctly closed. This close followed a discussion of 3 administrators who all agreed that the arguments supported the move and that the discussion is not a vote so despite there being a larger number of editors opposing the move, the better arguments were sufficient to do the move. Note that this section of the talk page expanded significantly after the move. However after the move, UtherSRG moved it back here with no additional discussion. This was done making no effort to contact the administrator who did the move or the other two administrators who agreed that the page should be moved. So the effect at this point is that a single administrator has been allowed to override the opinion of 3 administrators. This seems very wrong. WP:WHEEL appears to prevent those involved with doing anything to correct this, so it needs to be here for resolution.

Since the move a follow on discussion was started raising the issue of how do we really handle contested closings. This discussion also questions why the unilateral reversion of the opinions of 3 administrators by one administrator has been allowed to remain in place.

After the move, a point was raised that Hulkenberg may in fact not be a correct spelling, but that does not need to be resolved here, and can be addressed by the normal WP:RM process.

I'll note that since this mess erupted, there has been a significant drop in closing of WP:RM discussions. I can't say that this was the cause for all of these discussions remaining open. But it has kept some administrators away at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see there was also an effort to resolve this on his talk page, with no success. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• UtherSRG's reversion was in line with policy, especially WP:BLP (accuracy over commonness; erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later), but also WP:UE (local spellings for non-anglicized names) and WP:NOT#NEWS (the news style is not welcome here). Vegaswikian's closure ignored our policies, the established practice on the issue and the lack of consensus to move in the discussion. Furthermore, this user has move warred on behalf of the topic-banned sockpuppeteer Dolovis (talk · contribs), used his admin tools in a very questionable way and participated in identical RMs. He really should not be doing controversial closures, or pose as an uninvolved and concerned admin at WT:RM. It is worth noting that, after all the drama, neither Vegaswikian nor his two supporters have defended their policy interpretations in any way. There is an ongoing RFC that might interest some; the propagation of known spelling errors on BLPs has found very few supporters. Prolog (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Prolog you have mentioned a source above "accuracy over commonness" Yet the source you have linked to is a Guardian article from 6 November 2010, yet here is a more recent one from the same newspaper dated 16 December 2011. You make an assertion about "accuracy over commonness" yet your argument is not based on policy. The policy is to use reliable English language sources to ascertain what is the spelling used in reliable English language sources. This is in line and compatible with how we decide what is legitimate content for BLP articles. But instead of using such sources you are insisting on "accuracy" without explaining what metric you are using for accuracy. You write "erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later" yet in doing so you ignore the content of reliable English language sources and simply state what you think is "erroneous content". Part of WP:BLP states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" that is precisely what WP:COMMONNAME dictates, yet you are ignoring that in favour of "I don't like it". Now it may be that the WP:RM was erroneous, but the close was correct given the information provided during the WP:RM, and you comments here tend to show that you have little understanding of how that process works. At its best it is based on all parties bringing evidence to the table to show how best their preferred article title meets the Article titles policy and interpretive guidelines.

Your second point is an ad hominem against Vegaswikian, is in no way relevant to the point raised by Vegaswikian that several administrators disagree with UtherSRG action and have requested that it is reverted. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NOT call for us to maintain encyclopedic standards (examples here) and "get the article right", not to play Google News popularity contests. To justify my high standards, I'll give you a look at authoritative sources:

• AMA Manual of Style: "Accent marks should always be retained in the following instances: Proper names..."
• APA style: "Special characters are accented letters and other diacriticals, Greek letters, math signs, and symbols. Type all special characters that you can, using the special character functions of your word-processing program."
• The Chicago Manual of Style: "Foreign words, phrases, or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that appear in the original language. [...] Although umlauted vowels are occasionally represented by omitting the accent and adding an e (ae, Oe, etc.), the availability of umlauted characters in text-editing software makes such a practice unnecessary."

Some sources are even more explicit:

• Journal of Paleontology: "Pay strict attention to diacritical marks in names and words [...] Titles in languages using the Roman alphabet are not translated [...] Common errors of grammar are: [...] not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names."
• The Elements of Typographic Style: "....there are large-circulation newspapers in North America still unwilling to spell correctly even the names of major cities, composers and statesmen, or the annual list of winners of the Nobel Prize, for fear of letters like ñ and é..."
• Watching My Language (William Safire): "Most American newspapers and magazines, even The New York Times, follow the disgraceful and slovenly practice of omitting diacritics in foreign names."

Prolog (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just saying earlier today that this war was continuing apace, and you folks have so graciously obliged with an example! Thank you!

If I can be a partisan for a minute though, I can understand the opinions of yourself and William Safire, but still say that you're both wrong (along with the slew of what are obviously intended to be appeals to authority in the list of style guides that you've provided; which, I'd like to point out, have their own reasons for the practices that they follow). When kindergarden clas:ses (or, for you European folks, nursery schools I suppose) and English textbooks (including ESL books) start teaching the meanings and proper uses for all of those wacky squiggly lines and other nonsense, then we'll talk. It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! (and, incidentally, Safire was a self-aggrandizing, egotistical buffoon, and the above quote is a prefect example of the reasons why I have that opinion of him. I wish that he hadn't died, but still...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

... but still say that you're both wrong. So one group provides authoritative, reliable sources (or, as you rename them, "appeals to authority") like The Chicago Manual of Style and APA Manual for the -- common-sense, really -- practice of using people's actual names, whilst your opposition rests on that more authoritative source, The International Journal of Because I Said So? Well, you've got me convinced. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! That's strange: I checked the article and it appears to be all written in English, so that's a rather odd protest. Perhaps there was some previous version you saw done up in Serbo-Croatian? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinions can vary of course, but I'll take the authority of an English text book (Just pick one) over some style guide. Just because he crafted a list doesn't mean that there's absolute support for his position.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's provided in a reliable source, we should always use somebody's own name in the way that they use it - not making up a name format to use on Wikipedia just because Wikipedia says so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Add to that the fact that we should use English sources, and prefer them over non-English sources where available (if for no other reason than Verifiability), and the obvious conclusion follows...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

On the English version of his own website, he uses an umlaut when writing his name (in lower case). [264] Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you're saying that a self-published source disagrees with other published sources, and your point is... what? (Besides, i'd think that it's more likely than not that the main audience is non-English speaking, or English as as second language, anyway). I'm open minded though, so here: can someone tell me what, exactly, "ü" means?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read what The Bushranger wrote and gave a reply. Presumably most peaople knows how to spell their own name and how they prefer to see it written in English, so the caveats on "self-published sources" are not really applicable here. Another example of a living person with umlauts is Lars Hörmander. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a little disingenuous to describe the initial move as "unanimous" in a discussion of 3 admins [265] but the revert as "unilateral." It is true that at the time of the move, about 24 hours after the discussion opened, there were 3 admins who agreed with the move, and none opposed. But less than 24 hours later, at the time of the revert, there were 3 admins who disagreed with move, and no more admin supporters (and more non-admin opposers than supporters). Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

68.197.163.149 creating huge amounts of inappropriate pages

• 68.197.163.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at this IP's contribs, he's making tons of random talk pages for latin characters, which are either test edits and/or simply vandalism. Requesting a nuke of the pages and a block for like 1 week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, asked to discuss before adding any new pages. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now this IP is abusing the user talk page. Time to revoke access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this person is continuing to the same thing as 69.122.139.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the nuking. I really hope a mass-salting does not have to be done too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer's article redirections

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

---

This section has been retitled from "TenPoundHammer switches from deletion to blanking" for neutrality. --Tristessa (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has been at WP:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer for a while, although with RFC/U's usual lack of resolution. A new technique of his appears to be mass blanking and redirection of articles (undiscussed, naturally), rather than trying to have them deleted outright. As noted at the RFC, this has included 50+ Viz (comic) character articles in under half an hour (for an editor who's repeatedly dismissive of WP:BEFORE). Today I noticed similar behaviour across music articles - in particular at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from Ashes we have a band AfD where TPH has already blanked a number of their related album articles, pre-judging the AfD outcome and also skewing the visible prominence of the article topic and coverage, whilst the AfD is still under discussion. We have specific policy against doing this with the subject article itself, I don't see the band/album distance as being that much further.

This behaviour (see RFC/U) could be considered as an excessive readiness to delete, contra WP:PRESERVE. It's certainly a dismissal of other editors and any attempt at WP:CONSENSUS, preferring instead to see just TPH's opinion as the only arbiter of article worth, to the exclusion of others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Show me how the Scatman John songs are notable. WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS clearly say that album articles consisting of little more than a tracklisting can be redirected without having to bug anyone else for consensus. And we have a long precedent of redirecting non-notable song stubs without need for redirection. I see nothing wrong with my actions, and I find it outright absurd that you think it a "readiness to delete". Redirection does not equal deletion, nor is it blanking. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

More than one article a minute is simply too fast to give any sort of proper consideration to articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a valid criticism - he may have spent some prior time considering them all, and only then redirected them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF only stretches so far - and this is an editor known to be poor at searching for sources, with a scathing disregard for BEFORE. They either spent under a minute considering each of a large number number of non-trivial articles (these articles are longer and more complex than most other comic character articles) or else they decided that Viz characters en masse were simply non-notable and could never be notable, then deleted them as a group. I don't know which is worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• One of the issues that's relevant here is how we view redirection. There are some users who will argue that redirection is a form of keeping an article and is unrelated to deletion, while others feel that redirection and deletion are in many cases similar or complementary outcomes. Unfortunately the same argument often occurs over merges. But until there is more of a consensus on this front, this type of thing seems to fall into some weird sort of grey area.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't decided myself which of these views is right but if it's compared to deletion then it would be like PROD. If nobody objects it gets deleted, if somebody objects they can remove the PROD tag or request undeletion at WP:REFUND. In any case, it's covered under WP:BRD, if you object, move them backundo the redirect. It only becomes a problem if TPH moves them again or pulls a Dolovis and edits the redirects so the moves can't be undone without admin interventionwhat was I smoking or refuses to stop if reasonably asked to do so by multiple editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TPH's behaviour here has been to go after articles around an article already at AfD. He's blanked those articles and converted them to redirects, he has also edited other articles to remove the links going to the now-blanked articles. That's a pretty persistent effort to remove indication that there's even an article remaining in the history. When, by contrast, we use PROD, we do it by tagging onto an article, not removing or hiding its content.

It's only possible to "easily undo a redirect" if you're aware there's a hidden article to do it to. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

1. click the 'redirected from' bluelink. 2. click 'history'. 3. click 'undo'. Et viola. While some of TPH's AfDs have been trout-worthy, there's no need for any seafood here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How does an editor find the 'redirected from' bluelink? If the article is gone, and also the links to it have been removed too, then there's no realistic chance that readers or editors will notice it's there to restore.

We're supposed to work by openness and consensus. TPH's actions seem increasingly calculated to make an end-run around this. I don't care about these album deletions, it's the attack on the community process that I'm by far the most concerned about. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How does an editor find the 'redirected from' bluelink? Like so: "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from F/A-18)". The find it at the very top of the page, right below the big page title text. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, how does an editor find the bluelink? If they type in the article title, they get there - but who's going to know to do that? They can't navigate from the band article to the album article, because TPH has removed those links. They can't see categorization (by genre or artist) because TPH has removed the cats from the blanked album article too. These are actions (maybe correct, maybe not), to hide the previous existence of this article. Does an article still even exist if it's held in the MediaWiki database, but has been orphaned and is no longer part of the web of links? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have attached a photograph to illustrate how one finds the bluelink, which is pretty easy to find... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not in finding the link on the redir target page, but on finding the page from which a reader will then be redirected. "FA/18" is short and obvious. "Take Your Time (Scatman John song)", especially with a disambiguator, is not, unless the reader was following a link (now removed) from the band's page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Er....you find the link, you click on the link, you're on the page redirected from. It's hardly rocket science. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain of a molehill. Any editor can figure out how to undo a redirect and restore links to articles. And you honestly seem to be wikistalking me just to pull out all my redirects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Any editor perhaps. But it's a disservice to our readers (who may or may not be as fluent in editing Wikipedia), who we are all here to service. That said, TPH isn't the only one doing this, so it may be unfair to single them out in this. - jc37 05:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If pointing out these blatant violations of policy (example: saying "I found no sources" without bothering to check Google) is wikistalking, put me on the wikistalker list, because I share the same concerns. As for the "other policy violators exist" argument, only TPH has done these sort of things to articles on my watchlist (mostly engineering articles). If I see someone else doing it, I will object to that behavior as well. High-volume editors like TPH should be held to a higher standard of behavior, not given a free pass. If someone with ten edits total does something that is against policy, it is easy to undo the change and to review all his other edits and correct as needed. If someone with 50,000 edits does the same thing, it isn't feasible to find out if he did it elsewhere, and it is more likely that the action will be repeated hundreds of times if we let it slide. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with an editor boldly redirecting an article they think doesn't meet the notability requirements. That's much better, in my view, than PRODding it, since with a redirect the history is not destroyed and any editor can undo the redirect later and expand the article. Unlike any form of deleting, redirecting is incredibly easy to undo. (Just click "undo"!) 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• You didn't provide diffs, so I'm confused as to the exact actions you find objectionable. As for creating redirects, this should be a non-issue as they are non-destructive, can easily be reverted or discussed on a case by case basis on the article talk page, they preserve attribution, can be restored if a topic becomes notable, and remove nothing, only point to a more comprehensive article related to the subject name. You are rehashing much of what was already covered in the failed RfC here, without providing diffs for your actual complaints. Exactly what has he done that is 'over the line' (with diffs, please) and what remedy are you asking for? Dennis Brown (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• So am I correct in understanding that multiple comic book characters were redirected, rather than merged? Redirection is a perfectly good process that doesn't need any additional bureaucracy surrounding it, but the speed, breadth, and other issues as related above sound concerning to me. I'd like to hear TPH's response to the assertions about the comic characters. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• This smacks of some sort of turf war, by my reading. The main thing that I wanted to comment on was the semi-automated editing though. Automated editing can be (very) disruptive, but simply accusing someone of disruption based on their edit rate does not make a case. Tools such as AWB allow users to make lists of pages and then fly through them making a series of changes, but focusing on the final batch run ignores the often hours worth of labor involved in creating the article list in the first place, let alone the testing to ensure that the changes made aren't going to screw something up. It's blatantly obvious when people don't properly prepare their runs this way, generally speaking.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Dingley indeed seems to be digging up a turf war, and trying to start shit with me just because he disagrees with my actions. As is clear above, redirects are not a harmful thing because — if one is deemed wrong — YOU CAN FREAKING UNDO IT. Every time I have tried to invoke WP:BRD, I can never get anywhere on the "D". Either I get no response anywhere from anyone, or the discussion merely goes in circles, with everyone saying a different thing and/or presenting tautological arguments ("Keep because it should be kept"). I may do a lot of similar edits in rapid succession (e.g. the Viz ones), but I did read each article individually and did (an admittedly quick) source search. What I saw was a wall of fancruft with no out of universe notability or sources, and not a single word worth salvaging. My options there are "redirect" or "improve". That I chose the former over the latter is in no way detrimental, since as I said, REDIRECTS CAN BE UNDONE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Don't overstate your case here, man. It'll be OK (most likely). Don't stress! :)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • "Discuss"? When your typical reaction is like this ? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That was a misread on my part. I thought that I was on one of the AFDs you started on one of the Scatman John albums, and the "keep" !vote seemed like a total non sequitur to me — add that to that editor's "but Back from Ashes was nominated for a grammy! Whatever music festival IS notable!" crusade and I honestly thought he was spreading his crusade to totally unrelated AFDs to make a point. Furthermore, that I still believe the Back from Ashes guy is just acting in good faith and trying his damnedest to defend an article on something he likes (a totally natural reaction). Notice how quickly I reverted myself on that edit? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Every time I have tried to invoke WP:BRD, I can never get anywhere on the "D". Either I get no response anywhere from anyone, or the discussion merely goes in circles, with everyone saying a different thing and/or presenting tautological arguments ("Keep because it should be kept")." - In my experience, this assertion is just simply not true. And from what I've seen, the typical response is not to try to discuss, it's to immediately nominate to XfD. (See this for just one example.) I honestly don't have much of an opinion on the rest of the above (the redirect vs deletion nonsense has been going on for sometime, and by more than just TPH), but when I saw this assertion, I thought I should comment. - jc37 05:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is sending to XFD not a form of discussion? It sure is to me. Had I sent the Mama's Family characters to the talk page, I know DAMN well that I wouldn't have heard a peep from anyone for months. No one looks at talk pages unless they're high traffic articles. Sending those to AFD looks like a rational move to me, since indeed most of them turned out to be non-notable and were deleted via consensus — i.e., people discussed the articles, and their notability or lack thereof. I sure don't see anything wrong there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  I can be described as a "rabid inclusionist" myself, at least to a certain extent, and I think that XFD is a form of discussion. I don't think that it's a particularly good form of discussion, but as you've pointed out here most article talk pages are ignored by people. If anyone reading this can come up with a useful idea other than XFD, that I know of many, many people who are interested in hearing it (myself included).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporary editing restriction?

Well, I've looked at the current state of the RFC/U, the articles in question, and TPH's recent contribs. From what I can see, TPH is genuinely attempting to do good faith work, even if deletion policies are being interpreted and applied in extremely odd unproductive ways and consensus is not being adequately listened to. That said, I must also point out that the behaviour of the opponents in this matter is similarly combative — and whilst I fully accept there is obviously a serious issue as to how TPH is using redirects and applying CSD, the issue isn't really being resolved by the current situation, especially where TPH is continuing to perform the conduct being discussed. So, I've decided to take a leaf out of WP:BRD. What I think the best thing would be is for TPH to refrain from redirecting or nominating any AFDs, CSDs or PRODs until the RFC has finished by means of a community editing restriction. When the RFC/U has finished, the ban expires unless the community has affirmed it in a discussion (either here or at the RFC/U). The !vote is below. --Tristessa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Slight clarification. --Tristessa (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy withdrawn

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is temporarily prohibited from redirecting or blanking any articles with significant content or nominating any articles for deletion through any deletion process, criteria or method. This restriction will expire once Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer has concluded unless community discussion(s) have indicated consensus for the ban to continue (both as determined by the Wikipedia administrator closing the RfC). The provisions of this community editing restriction are to be broadly construed. I'm withdrawing this proposal, as the purpose and intent of it appears to have been totally misunderstood. I'd like to make it crystal clear that have no personal connection with TPH or emnity towards him, and I don't feel I need to be presenting any evidence against him; I'm just an uninvolved admin who came across the AN/I thread. The reason why I proposed this was so that discussion could take place about his editing without him performing the actions that people had problems with. No, I wasn't trying to set a precedent saying people should be automatically banned from questioned conduct via RfC. It's unimportant, though; it seems to have been misinterpreted as punitive. --Tristessa (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Support as proposer. --Tristessa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose First of all, this has nothing to do with deletion. Redirects, as I said above, are not harmful. I haven't edit warred over them, so I don't see what's wrong with my redirect process. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I agree with you that it isn't about the deletions themselves — it seems as though the gist of the complaint is overlooking WP:BEFORE. Nor is it probably about the redirects themselves, in that they may not be intrinsically harmful; but it's their use in the wider disputed editing behaviours which is a problem. I think it'd be best if you weren't doing what people don't like until the RfC has finished, whatever the course of it and no matter how irrational the negative reaction may be in your eyes, hence the proposed restriction. --Tristessa (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Which I find ironic, since one of the things WP:BEFORE says is "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HELL I'M DOING. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The trouble lies in the "If the topic is important enough..." part. It appears that you're redirecting a relatively large number of articles that people feel are important enough to merit separate ones, and there is a perception (I'm not making a judgement either way) by other editors that you're ignoring objections on this call and/or not engaging in consensus-building. Can you see how this is happening? --Tristessa (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC) As I said though, every time I try to build a consensus on a talk page or noticeboard, everyone else mysteriously clams up. Or if they don't, literally everyone says something else and we go absolutely nowhere (witness the FIVE YEAR slog of failing to build consensus on Halifax, Nova Scotia). I think you can understand my frustration over consensus building. If I'm told by someone else, "hey you shouldn't have redirected this", have you noticed that I never editwar over the redirection anymore? I send it to AFD for consensus. Which seems totally logical to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT. I'm not trying to be flip here, but we are discussing regular edits which anyone is capable of doing or undoing. Heck, you don't even have to be registered! If you're right that "redirecting a relatively large number of articles that people feel are important enough to merit separate ones", then undoing some of the edited converting pages into redirects will stick. A word of warning here though: chasing after TPH and undoing all of his edits is not likely to go unnoticed or be well accepted. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Exactly. As I said above, I know better than to edit war when someone undoes my redirect. I honestly feel that Dingley is the one who's in the wrong here, since he seems to be watching my every move, lurking in the shadows to undo my every redirect just because HE disagrees with me. If he thinks the articles have merit, maybe he should be the one fixing them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The actions are indeed reversible, but users chasing each other around and disagreeing with each other by reversal than via discussion is not the way things should be happening. Bold, Revert, Discuss needs all three of its parts, and the Discuss bit has to happen after the Revert. Nor, indeed, does it work when the Revert and Discuss stages happen in parallel (as in this case) or when the only thing that happens is Revert (the approach Ohm describes). It's clear there is a dispute involving a wider set of people than just Dingley: the dispute needs to be solved rather than being treated as though it doesn't exist, even if one considers its arguments meritless. --Tristessa (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I still see nothing that I'm doing wrong. If someone reverts a redirect I've made, I'll either leave it be, send it to AFD for discusison, or !vote if someone else AFD's it. Dingley does have the right idea in undoing the redirect and sending it to AFD to gather consensus, but the fact that he's doing it so often — with seemingly every redirect I make — concerns me. He honestly seems to be wikistalking me, regardless of his motive. And if I seem to be making lots of redirects, well, that's because I make a lot of edits, period. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I agree with TPH here. There's no BRD cycle occuring here because the "R" for "revert" is apparently being short circuited by what looks like wikistalkerish like behavior and personalizing issues through the use of processes like this. The least that Dingley, yourself, and others could do is start a discussion on his talk page or participate in relevant AFD discussions, which I don't really see occurring here. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose, since there's absolutely no need for this. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Comment I agree, that pages associated with Back from Ashes should not be blanked until the AfD is complete.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose for two reasons: first, I believe we should let Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer play out and not have parallel sanction proposals here in the meantime. Secondly, as has been discussed in the above section, redirecting is a much different animal than deletion and is very easy to undo if anyone disagrees with the redirection. 28bytes (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose: There are procedures to follow in order to impose edit restrictions on editors. Even if I agreed that TPH's actions merited one - which I don't - let's see if I have this straight: the mere filing of a RfC against an editor should result in an immediate injunction against the alleged behavior the filers oppose, because those filers are now acting up? That's a nasty precedent. How about we get that consensus at RfC first? Ravenswing 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose If an editor's behaviour is enough to have them show up at RFC/U, then it ought to obvious that their behaviour is being questioned and that they perhaps ought to reconsider it of their own volition. Not that this has happened in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose This seems like a second bite of the same apple in ways. I might not agree with every decision that Hammer makes, but I think he has stayed within the guidelines and policies. As a friend, I would recommend that he slow down a bit, something that I'm finally learning to do. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is ridiculous. I can't believe I wasted my time reading this. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose - proposer failed to present any evidence Bulwersator (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see anyone else other than Dingley opposing me at this point. Can we close this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Earlier you claimed that "every time I try to build a consensus on a talk page or noticeboard, everyone else mysteriously clams up". Really? I tried to engage you in a discussion and to seek some sort of consensus about this issue here, here, here, here, here, and here. No response. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Gizgalasi COI

I brought User:Gizgalasi to this board before in January (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Conflict of interest---block requested, and there wasn't much interest, with only a few comments either way. After that discussion, the editor decreased xyr frequency of editing, but has since resumed xyr unbalanced COI editing. This revolves around a cluster of articles on Ali & Nino: A Love Story and its author, Kurban Said. The name "Said" is a psuedonym, and the author's real identity is not known for certain. Gizgalasi is associated with Azerbaijani International, a cultural/literary magazine, which published a very extensive analysis of the question, and arrived at a specific answer. That's fine and good, but Gizgalasi has repeatedly attempted to highlight AI's analysis to the exclusion of all others.

The best recent examples can be found in this series of edits, which culminated in Gizgalasi removing the NPOV and COI tags in the this edit. The article is not even close to neutral; for example, see my edit, which attempts to just start fixing an extremely obvious POV point (the article was asserting that one theory was wrong in Wikipedia's voice).

Another example is this series of edits to Lev Nussimbaum which attribute to another author (the one whose theories AI reject) an opinion he never held.

Gizgalasi is a perfect example of the reason why we have the COI policy. Gizgalasi is too closely connected to AI, and is unable to see that xyr edits are not, in fact neutral. I don't know what else to do other than to block this editor until such time as they agree to stop editing the articles directly. They could either use "edit request" templates on the talk page or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help‎. Outside of WP, Gizgalasi's commitment to a specific academic position is a good thing; here, it prevents xyr from editing per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apropos of nothing really, but what the heck does "xyr" stand for? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Just one of the many knots that people who don't like singular they tie themselves into about gender-neutral third person pronouns.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see! I've seen "xr" before, but I just couldn't parse this "xyr" thing... that's actual nonsense, for crying out loud! I had a suspicion that it had something to do with the "xr" silliness, but I couldn't quite be certain. I really hope that this fad dies out soon. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I actually enjoy conversations about gender and language (and even grant creeedance to Ohms laws' concerns), and I know that bringing an issue to ANI means one opens up one's own behavior to scrutiny, is there any chance that anyone is interested in actually looking at the articles/editor in question? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who are able to contribute to Wikipedia successfully while writing about subjects they are personally close to, but G. is clearly not one of them. He obvious subscribes to an "us vs. them" attitude, where "us" is Azerbaijan International and other Azerbaijan-related topics, and "them" is anyone who disputes his take on things. I do not believe he is able to edit with a neutral point of view and is the poster child for the precautions prescribed in the WP:COI policy. I would suggest that an admin review the situation, and put G. on notice that he must follow the guidelines prescribed in the COI policy, which are not to edit those articles directly, but to make editing suggestion on the articles' talk pages to be put into effect by other, neutral editors. (And one of the problems here is that G. thinks that anyone who disputes his edits is not neutral, and editing per policy, but is instead "against" the magazine, or Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis in general.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For an example of G.'s sensibility, see this comment on his talk page, where he implies that Q. and I are the same person because we agree with each other, a totally ludicrous conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisdomtenacityfocus accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying

Since a while user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) (signing as WTF) has been constantly accusing me of vandalism.

Background

WTF would like to organise the template Template#Frank Zappa and the article Frank Zappa discography in a different way than it was up to when he started working on it. As this reorganisation is problematic in some ways, the edits were discussed on Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template by WTF, myself and a number of other users: Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk · contribs), Mystery Roach (talk · contribs), Friginator (talk · contribs), Aerosmith366 (talk · contribs), FunkMonk (talk · contribs) and some IP's 68.0.118.130 (talk · contribs), 113.117.201.52 (talk · contribs).

The content was ultimately restored to its original format. After some edit-warring (in which I took care not to take place) and a 5th revert, I reported WTF at edit the warring notice board wp:ANEW — see the entire case here.

Immediately thereafter WTF stopped edit-warring and opened a case at wp:DRN (see opening statement).

The DRN was closed against WTF's viewpoint (see closing note and entire case here).

Without being closed or commented upon, the ANEW case was archived without result, presumably rightfully so, as WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the DRN closure.

Meanwhile WTF started editing again and has made two RFC's about the matter ([266]), [267]).

Accusations

Against the above background, user WTF has been accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying:

• After several accusations at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template I put a final warning on his talk page (text and diffs: [268])

• [269]: "...this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article'""
• [270]: "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• [271]: "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

This warning was seen and removed

• A new request to stop: [272] about [273] "Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did."

This warning was seen and removed

• On my talk page I explicitly listed (User talk:DVdm#Content dispute) all my contributions to the article and template and asked WTF to explain how these edits could be vandalism or to retract the accusations.

No reply on that.

• Another request to stop: [274] and [275] (text and diffs: [276])

This warning was seen and removed with edit summary "DVdm lies again".

• Finally, on my talk page: "I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done"

Comments

Could someone please look into this and perhaps explain in clear terms to WTF that his allegations and accusations are unfounded, and somehow intervene to make this stop? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User notified: [277] - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about you stop vandalizing, trying to own articles, edit warring, lying and making the list and template I brought up issues with unreadable? This is not a "incident" if everything I've said is true. Please own up to what you've done and stop bothering people with something YOU started purely to spite me? --WTF (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I could put your buddy on here for telling me to "shut [my] hole" and falsely stating that I'm "on the noticeboard for edit warring", when, in reality, he was reported by me for edit warring. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do. My actions are should be rewarded, not disparaged. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been proven to you numerous times that DVdm never reverted your edits on the pages in question and wasn't involved in the change of the template and discography page. You have continuously ignored this fact and accused him of things he already showed he didn't do. You indeed were on the noticeboard for edit warring, just like Friginator claimed. DVdm even linked to it here. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Having been over this before, I'd just like to say that I would gladly testify under oath in a court of law that to my knowledge, DVdm has not recently vandalized an article or template (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), assumed ownership over one (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), engaged in an edit war (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), or lied to anyone about anything that I know of. However, Wisdomtenacityfocus had, in fact, prior to this thread accused the other user of vandalism, claiming ownership and lying on such occasions as, but not necessarily limited to, here, here and here. Also, he pretty much made all four accusations three paragraphs above this one anyway. Friginator (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WTF's above remark ("Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do."): I pointed to many guidelines and policies about consensus on the thread Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template. According to the closing note WTF's DRN case, it was "apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting...".

Regarding WTF's edit summary of the removal of the ANI notification at his talk page, and regarding the above comment with yet again the same false accusations: dear administrator(s), could someone, independently of what I think for WTF is a content dispute of great importance, please make this user somehow stop doing this? I most certainly did not start something here to "spite" this user. Rather I started something to somehow stop these blatantly false accusations. A little warning on WTF's talk page might help. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Outside Observation This seem to be already covered in a number of places, linked above. That said, WTF seems to suffer from both civility and hearing problems, per his edits summaries and comments after being informed that he improperly made changes to a template [278], per User:TransporterMan's closing note:" It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan...14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)". Claiming other people's actions are vandalism [279] plus [280] and taking a generally combative tone [281] [282] [283] and too many others to list. He also has problems understanding policy [284] regarding 3RR, when it applies to others. While disagreements can be a little heated at times (by all parties), and a degree of terse comments can be overlooked, Wisdomtenacityfocus (aka:WTF) seems to be going out of his way to go against clearly established consensus in his edits and claim other's contributions are vandalism, to the point of being quite disruptive. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with Kwamikagami

Kwamikagami is an admin who has an interest in linguistics. However he seems to abuse his admin privileges by making unilateral decisions and changes to articles without establishing consensus. A case in point is the article on Pre-occlusion which he has moved and re-moved despite the objection of two editors, myself being one of them; the other is Angr. We have both asked for the article to be moved back to Pre-occlusion but he has refused to do this, and now because I'm not an admin I can't move it back over redirects. I think Kwami is abusing his privileges, and is being a bully. -- Evertype·✆ 09:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype's argument is that we need to use his preferred term, used in his sub-sub-discipline, rather than the nearly universal term, because anything else is "prejudicial". He seems to forget that this is an encyclopedia, and that nothing is preventing him from using the term he likes where sources warrant it. The first move was done without any objection, and in fact in response to an objection on the talk page to the title at the time, when I merged the content forks and needed to choose either the name of one of the existing articles or a third or compromise name. The second, after Evertype objected to a term he had never heard of, was to the WP:COMMONNAME, which had been used in one of the two content forks to begin with, following Ladefoged and Maddieson, The Sounds of the World's Languages, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, and just about everyone else, judging not just by the immediate sources I have, but by an overwhelming preference demonstrated by GBooks.

Evertype can make up whatever story he likes, but if Angr or another admin wants to move the article to one of the other names, I won't object. — kwami (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the initial move and no reason for Everytype to be "disgusted" by it. It's just another "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD. A minor quibble though, since kwami did propose it here he could have given a little more time for other editors to chime in. However, since a bot edit to the redirect Pre-occlusion makes the "R" in BRD impossible for for Everytype, kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion. Also I strongly object to the charge of "abuse of admin privileges". The article wasn't move protected so any autoconfirmed editor could have moved it. Kwami simply made a BOLD edit that he reasonably believed to be non-controversial. It had nothing to do with him being an admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with everything except the "kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion" part, which would just be process wonkery for it's own sake at this point, I think. I sympathize with Evertype's position (having been in it a number of times), but... things will be how they should be, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Making a unilateral move without enough time for discussion isn't that serious. Nor is declining Angr's suggestion to move the article title "back to Pre-occlusion to allow a discussion to take place" (after all Kwami perhaps shares User:Ohms law's perception of such a move as "process wonkery").

Where Kwami's behavior breaks into inappropriate is when he undid Evertype's restoration of the article's title to "Pre-occlusion." The edit summary says[285] that the move is to an interim WP:COMMONNAME while they discuss which term is best, which makes it seem as though Kwami has made a compromise move, but Evertype's issue was that the title was not "Pre-occlusion" so changing it to something else is basically the same as a full revert.

If Kwami's thinking really was that his move was a good interim solution, then he simply made a mistake of theory of mind. It's important to be mindful of others' perspectives when making move decisions like this, but we should understand that the difficulties of communicating over text makes mistakes more likely.

I suppose it's fine if we want to discuss the issue of Kwami's theory of mind abilities and how to go forward if we accept that he's not very good at guessing people's perspectives. But, like User:Ron Ritzman, I think it's unfair to accuse Kwami of misusing administrator privileges when the actions in question don't seem to have used administrator tools. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hazara people

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

---

I am asking for at least a semi-protect for this article. It's being changed by User:Gharjistan who is adding unencyclopedic and poorly sourced material in it, partially using racist terminology ("a Mongoloid people"; that is not even fully true as one can see in the pictures in the article). He is also totally exaggerating with the numbers and the percentage of the Hazara people in Afghanistan. --Lysozym (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no attempts to really discuss these issues with the user on their talkpage, and in fact, you have failed to notify them of this complaint filing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the place to request page protection is WP:Requests for page protection, not here. After you first take Bwilkins advice and approach them about it on their talk page, of course. They've been here for only two weeks, there are probably lots of things they haven't learned yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP address failing to abide by 1RR on Troubles-related pages

65.184.192.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP has twice breached the IRR imposed on Troubles-related pages at the Troubles (1, 2) and on Jimmy Brown (Irish republican) (1, 2, 3). This is despite ample warnings here and here. It may now be time for administrative intervention. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked him 72hrs for a slow edit war on History of London, for which he has been warned before. If someone wants to pursue AE sanctions as well, we have a venue for that. This seems to be a static IP, or at least one that rotates only slowly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Attack website being spammed on wikipedia

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

---

Hi,

There's an attack website called causepimps.ca whose subpages are being spammed onto wikipedia. See:

• [286]
• [287]
• [288]
• [289]
• [290]
• [291]
• [292]
• [293]

Can something be done to block the pages from being added and the accounts involved?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.126 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• And the editor adding the spam is calling other's reversions "vandalism", so good faith is out the window. Website obviously fails WP:RS, adding to the blacklist would be the best solution. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this can be added to the blacklist. My connection is dog slow right now but I will get it added in a few minutes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You can request the website be added to the blacklist here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. You can ask for spammers to be blocked here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Since one of the IPs hasn't edited since April 6 and only added the link once back in March 31(and there's now the new IP involved) it's IMO unlikely that one will be blocked even though all the edits from that IP appear to be in bad faith. BTW, from the diffs shown, no accounts were involved, only anonymous users/IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have already requested the site be added to the blocklist. Do continue to revert, and report repeat offenders at AIV. Please note that IP accounts are also accounts, albeit anonymous, and can be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IPs are not generally referred to as accounts in wikipedia parlance (or for that matter, mostly anywhere on the internet that allows you to register for an account and also contribute without signing up for an account) as there are a number of key distinctions. This doesn't include whether they can be blocked although one distinction is because there's no guarantee they belong to any particular individual for long (whereas we forbid sharing of accounts so it's not an issue for them) so it's rare they will be blocked if there has been no problematic activity from that account for a while (and the amount of problematic activity was in the grand scheme of things fairly low). An account with the editing history of 68.197.106.65 has a fair chance of being blocked indefinitely. To put it a different way, there's a reason we have things like Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree with the logic of "the editor adding the spam is calling other's reversions "vandalism", so good faith is out the window" by D Brown above. If the user believed these additions were proper in the first place, then of course the user would also interpret their removal as vandalsim. The user has now been warned, so if this persists after the warning, then there is a better argument for a block. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then you would be mistaken. If you add a link, then I delete it, is that vandalism? Of course not, and the act of calling it vandalism is assuming bad faith of other edtiors, and will get you blocked if done a few times. That is exactly what is happening here. WP:BRD clearly says this isn't vandalism, and for the ip to do so was improper and violated WP:AGF. Likely, it was a form of bullying to continue their spam assault uninterrupted. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the IP themselves violated 'assume good faith' of the reverting editor, very much so. I thought you were talking about our assumption of good faith of the IP. Two different things. Lets say the link was legit and the IP adds the link as a good faith addition. Then three days later the link is removed. The IP reverting the removal of that link (restoring that link) and labeling the edit as vandalism is consistent with the IP's belief that the link should belong there in the first place. Of course, the IP himself is not assuming good faith of others with that action of labeling the edit as vandalism. See the difference? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to sum it up. I now understand what you were saying and I do not disagree at all with your take on the case at hand. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re to NE, after multiple ec's: Who are you addressing your "introduction to the internet" lecture to? My only interest was ensuring the editors who came here concerned about this were not confused into thinking that only registered accounts were blockable. You seem to have decided I don't understand the Internet or Wikipedia. I fail to see the benefit in either you nitpicking my verbiage, or your extended lecture. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont want to answer for someone else so just speaking for myself. I often state the obvious just for clarification purposes. I don't intend it to be a comment on another editors level of expertise, nor do I take it as such when others do the same thing. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not have taken it as directed to me had it not been 'entirely about my (somewhat poor, I admit) phrasing along with a commentary on who is likely and not likely to be blocked, and the threading made it a reply to my post. I find it bizarre that NE felt it necessary to inform an experienced admin who was likely to be blocked. As you say, however, perhaps he did not think it through, and it was not meant to be as insulting as it reads. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Block, revert, deny. These edits were clearly intended as spam, no reason to discuss further really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've added the site to the spam blacklist. Also, WP:BRD refers to "bold-revert-discuss". I think you were looking for WP:RBI ("revert-block-ignore"). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Or just plain old WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Major Problem with AAlertBot; Needs Shutdown

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

---

In two seperate article alert pages, AAlertBot has posted about numerous radio station articles, along with other non-radio articles, being up for RFD (Redirects for Discussion). Though, at present, there isn't any discussion on WP:RFD that matches the articles and pages up for discussion. I believe there might be a problem with the bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a BIG problem. This is thousands of articles on hundreds of article alert pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Appears it was due to an accidental transclusion, mentioned here. I don't think there's any need for a block on the bot as it's manually run, the owner seems to be aware and is fixing it. the wub "?!" 21:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MuZomikx

WP:DENY people, this type of thing happens a lot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New user User:MuZomikx has directed user and talk pages to User:MuZemike and is using "MuZemike" as a sig. I really don't know if it's a genuine MuZemike alternate account, and MuZemike doesn't seem to be around on his usual account right now to ask. I'm pretty tired and just odd to bed now and can't really concentrate, so could someone who's more alert please have a look and see what they think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC) This edit to User:Allie420 doesn't look MuZemike's doing, so to be safe I've blocked User:MuZomikx for 3 hours - hopefully someone will be able to take a more wide awake look at it than me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Not this again. This happened yesterday at an RfA. Someone is trying to make MuZemike look like he's sockpuppeting. This user is impersonating his signature and also create a lot of user pages with the "blocked as a sockpuppet of MuZemike" box. Block indefinetely now and initiate a sockpuppet investigation.—cyberpower Happy EasterOnline 20:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think it is a vandal account. I can't see MuZemike going in and deleted wholesale sections of admin pages under a brand new name and claiming they were "all blocked". (I guess you could check the block log...) [294] As well as forging his own name at an RfA [295] to support a candidate. Prime candidate for blocking. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Looks like a rather obvious impersonation to me (the blanking of AIV for example), so I've increased the block to indefinite and deleted the user's userpage. If it does turn out to me MuZemike (highly unlikely) he can request it be unblocked or unblock it himself. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Similar situation yesterday, which MuZemike took care of himself. Safe to block first, ask later here, I think. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) I requested speedy deletionn of User:Allie420. MuZomikx just created it out of whole cloth. Also, not quite sure why Boing! left in MuZomikx's edit to a SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Because, as he said, Boing! is very tired and not capable of clear thought right now. Thanks folks, and goodnight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jikaku

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

---

I am writing to report that a former employee of the Union Institute and University, who originally created the article of the same name, has reverted content that I had contributed and that had been there for about a year. The new content is biased. I originally added the content because your editors flagged the article as an advertisement. I am now locked out, but I made the reverts in repsonse to the Union's former webmaster reverting mine. You now have biased information representing the Union's PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the easiest way to determine what Wikipedia considers bias is to stick with what the sources say, and go no further. Your edits... to the article were unsourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And I see you have not notified Jikaku about this thread, I have done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both User:Jikaku and User:Nero Radi have plenty of reverts, 3 each two days ago and one each today The overall language of Nero Radi's changes isn't neutral and is without citation, I can see why they reverted Nero's addtions, I would have reverted them, too. Even if they were true, Wikipedia's goals are not to seek The Truth®, is it to document facts that are substantiated by reliable sources. If you continue to edit war and add them back without sources that pass WP:RS, it will result in your own boomerang block. I noticed the article is now semi-protected [296], which should calm things down for a while. Nothing else can be done here. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added this article to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it when the protection expires; I have expertise in U.S. higher education and lot of experience editing U.S. college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Taiwan

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

---

• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Less than 3 weeks ago, a long, wrenching RfC/RM regarding the articles/titles "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" was finally closed and the interpreted consensus enacted by an admin trio. Today, this Requested Move, which would basically rehash the whole issue, was filed on the talkpage.

Obviously consensus can always change, but as that policy section also says, "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again". Consensus is particularly unlikely to change as drastically as this in such a short time.

I therefore ask if the request in question could be speedy-closed on purely procedural grounds, to avoid further conflict/tension/strife/etc. of the sort that occurred during the prior discussion, of course without any prejudice to permitting reopening said topic of discussion after a more reasonable length of time has elapsed. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The requested move is on the selecting the primary topic between different Taiwan subjects, thus I think the discussion on how to choose the common name for a subject does not apply. It is like someone agreed Orange is the official color name but moved the color's page to Orange, instead of Orange (colour), disregarding what people say about the fruit.--Skyfiler (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Skyfiler, we need to go catch an extra-huge trout and repeatedly slap it around your ears. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Closed. (Though does anyone know why the trout is messing with the formatting? : ) - jc37 06:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, just tlx it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

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

82.18.191.248

82.18.191.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing, mainly in relation to religious and ethnic categories but also general constant addition of unsourced material. They have been blocked twice as their current IP, but also once as 82.18.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and four times as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are also extremely uncommunicative, you won't find a single post to a talk page or user talk page across any of the three IPs.

Problems since their last block include claiming Lucy Lawless is of Irish descent here when there's nothing in the article about it, violating WP:BLPCAT on Lauren Laverne here, violating WP:BLPCAT on Richard Ramirez here by claiming he's a former Catholic when the only mention of Catholic in the article is saying his mother was Catholic. Basically the same problems they've been blocked for time after time after time.

Constant policy violations despite multiple blocks and refusal to communicate, must be time for a longer block I think? Three months as 82.16.122.103 didn't deter them much, so something longer than that looks like being needed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A multi-year history of pushing an ethnically motivated POV -- even if the POV-pushing has been largely in the form of seemingly very minor edits, does warrant more effective preventive action than has been applied on this case. This IP user has been on my watchlist, but I was unaware of the history on other IPs. The short duration of most of the past blocks presumably was due to the fact that this is an anonymous IP, not all of the edits are disruptive (e.g., this recent edit was constructive) and the user's history on multiple IPs hasn't been available to the administrators who were making block decisions. Now that the ONIH has "connected the dots", I would support a 3-month block on the current IP, but I don't think it's a good idea to block the anonymous IP any longer than that. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Jason James Scott

Fellow Wikipedians, I am proposing a siteban on editor Jason James Scott (talk · contribs). Ever since his indefinite block, he has to date created 131 sockpuppets in a period of three years. In 2010, he created a huge sockfarm. While what all seemed to rather peaceful, he has returned to create more socks, as per his WP:SPI case page, more recently in April 2012, where it is suspected and confirmed by checkuser that he returned to create more socks with the purpose of evading his block. It is disappointing to note that a serial sockpuppeter such as him was not enacted to a community ban in 2010, hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Bearing the comments BMusician said to me when I commented on Mr. Curious Man's sock, Blinkybill, I have not fed the troll here. -- Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Looking back at the investigations archive, we have had problems with this user since 2009, it does appear that this user in question will continue to vandalize and will not let up. The MO appears to be creating fake article for his/her or others personal amusement. I support a Ban on the English Wikipedia, as this user has not shown any signs of stopping, and will continue to be a APT. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, due to the nominator of this ban. Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, obviously. Calabe1992 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

20-Mule-Team Support: One hundred and thirty-one sockpuppets??? Hell, after looking things over, I'd support sending a team of bruisers wielding frozen trouts to administer seafood justice. This is someone in need of serious help from professionals. Ravenswing 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility issues in Talk:Colchis

I ask for an inquiry in what is going on this talkpage.

In this one message, GeorgianJorjadze called me "a truly ridiculous and poor Russian", a "poor guy", "just some Ivan from Russia", and "not worth it". Furthermore, he used language like "Just because some Russian is saying", "tons of these kind of guys", "this kind of pathetic people", and so on. Virtually every sentence of that message was intended to offend.

I asked the editor to revert the message, and apologize, and was in response advised to stop editing in expressions like "Don't even try to revert", "This is not your Russia [Russian Wikipedia, I believe - F.S.] where everyone can write whatever they wish for", and "whatever you guys in Russia think", and finally was threatened to be "banned for good".

I do not ask the user to be blocked. I do not feel offended by this type of hate speech.

However, other editors might be sensitive to insults of this kind. The user had been sanctioned several times since last December, so I thought this type of behavior was rather typical. I therefore ask to pay attention to this case and decide if any measures should be taken. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze's comments cause me a fairly high level of concern and I for one am tempted to block, but I'll leave the decision on whether to block or just give a stern warning to another administrator. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth noting that GeorgianJorjadze also has a habit of "blanking" comments and warnings from his talk page, without even acknowledging them. I am aware that a user has the right to blank their own talk page, but when a user is blanking things immediately after they've been posted without acknowledging in the form of a replied comment, then it is a cause for concern. Only a few moments ago, the user removed this ANI invite that FeelSunny (talk · contribs) posted a few moments ago. Wesley☀Mouse 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season

The past few months on the 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season page, Arsenal's premier league fixtures have been placed on the page. This is a copyright violation which was best summed up in this description by User:Spiritofsussex and the page was semi-protected for it.

Recently, user Ricky Sen has been doing the same thing over and over again and he has been told several times in the descriptions that he cannot do that and he has also been warned twice on his talk page by me but he still continues with no acknowledgement of either. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon this ignorant yankee, but I'm seeing him provide facts with citations, not prose. For the sake of people like me, can you provide some info or a link to the guideline this violates? I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just confused and could use some education on how this violates copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  The Premier League fixtures are copyrighted. Including them here, with citations or otherwise, is a copyright violation if we don't have prior permission to reproduce. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I apologize for taking this away from the topic at hand but I have to ask: The list of who a team played is copyrighted? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• That was my point. I don't see how this can be copyrighted according to US Copyright law (which is the controlling law for Wikipedia), as it is just facts. That is why I asked for further explanation, beyond what the edit summaries are saying. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) How can it be a copyright violation? National newspapers (both British and International) publish league fixtures and league results, as do media broadcasts. If it is a supposedly copyright violation, then wouldn't the global media also be in breach of the same law? Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, is it a copyvio? Your communications with Ricky Sen strongly assert that it definitely is. But you don't cite a policy, or a guideline, or a discussion, that clarifies that this is the case. We have one, right? Maybe. Searching for clarity isn't easy:

• I see you and Spiritofsussex discuss the possibility that this is a copyvio at Talk:2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season#Premier League fixtures. In that discussion (in which only the two of you take part) neither of you seems very sure, saying "it would seem that the fixtures are copyrighted" and "it's a copyright issue then maybe the fixtures should be removed." So "it would seem" that "maybe" these are copyvios?
• You'd think Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would have discussed this to death. But all I find is this rather unsatisfying discussion. So it's okay after all?
• Or has WP:FOOTY a guideline about this (just writing down the outcome of previous discussions helps us avoid having to revisit the same issue over and over). I cant' find one. I can find this discussion. So they're definitely forbidden?

Don't get me wrong - I don't know if these are copyvios either. Are we really saying that even naming the very next fixture ("Newcastle are playing Leeds away next Wednesday") is a copyvio? If not, how much is too much? To my mind Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and WP:FOOTY needs to sit down and at least write up a clear guideline, which you can in future direct people like Ricky Sen to. I'm rather unhappy at the prospect of blocking someone on the basis of a rather poorly documented miasma of guesswork - at least let's have a well documented miasma. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this article from BBC News is any help. But is does explain that the fixtures are protected by copyright, and that media and betting stores pay a licence fee to a company called "Football Dataco". The article goes on to state that anyone wishing to publish the needs to pay Football Dataco a fee in order to be given permission. Although there is legal proceeding on-going in the British courts to have this overturned. Wesley☀Mouse 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)