Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Persistent edit stalking

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

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

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

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

and most recently, today: [20]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convenience break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested close

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

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wagner for example

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

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

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

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

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

Gerda's part:

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

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

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

Ownership issues at Template:Attached KML

For reasons discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal, {{Infobox Australian road}} now uses KML data, with related KML files stored as subpages of the template. Infobox Australian road is managed by WikiProject Australian Roads, while editors at Template talk:Attached KML are trying to force a move of KML data at Infobox Australian road to subpages of Attached KML. This seems to be a clear case of editors at one template asserting ownership of all KML files, which is highly inappropriate, as is any attempt to assert ownership. Attached KML certainly has the right to use KML data but, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia, it doesn't own it, as much as it would apparently like to. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think calling this an "incident" is overstating the issue. The locus of the dispute is that up to now, all KML data has been stored in subpages of {{Attached KML}}. The Australian road editors want to include the KML links in the Australian road infobox, which is a reasonable thing to do, albeit one that I (and other editors) disagree with. What the disagreement is over is that KML data is being copied to subpages of the infobox, which several editors have agreed is a bad thing because it causes data duplication and results in data being stored in several different locations. Ultimately the whole thing will become moot when Wikidata advances to the point that this data can be moved over there. I may be wrong, and I am involved so that may be clouding my judgment, but at this point I would say this is still just a content dispute and no admin intervention is required—discussion is going on, people are making points, and certainly people's dander may be up a bit, but there's nothing close to the metaphorical Wikipedia fistfights that usually get dragged to ANI going on here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with the required notifications which you didn't, and thank you for explaining what admin action you are requesting which you also didn't. This is borderline forum shopping. --Rschen7754 10:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of one template asserting ownership over content used by another template. WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted. I haven't specifically addressed any editor, just a group, so it's not really necessary to notify particular editors and since this is the only place I've sought intervention, it's not forum shopping. Please also remember, although this directly involves {{Infobox Australian road}} there was an active move to not address the issue at that template by Scott5114 who, coincidentally, is also the creator of {{Attached KML}}. At best it's disingenuous to accuse me of forum shopping. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I was attempting to forum shop or slip something by you; that was not my intention at all. I was simply trying to keep there from being two discussions on the same thing occurring at the same time, and I figured that it would be better to have the discussion continue at the Attached KML talk page because that page is watched by more editors (many of which had already commented there). We could have just as well moved the discussion to WT:HWY or somewhere else, but I figured it would be simplest to just continue debate at the template talk page. I wish you hadn't opened this ANI thread, because now we have a third page where discussion on this topic is going on, and it's slowly morphing into a meatball:ForestFire.

I don't really think there are OWN issues here; you may see it that way, but I assure you that we are simply proposing what we feel is the best technical solution to the problem. It's unfortunate that you disagree with us, but disagreement is something that happens regularly on Wikipedia, and we have to rise to meet the challenge of working through it and finding a solution to that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you posted this message at Template talk:Infobox Australian road I responed with "Since we're discussing this infobox, I don't see why we should discuss at that template".[42] To date you have made no attempt to address that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not just discussing the infobox anymore, but rather the larger question of "how shall KML data on the English Wikipedia be administered"? That question should be answered with the involvement of all of the people who have a stake in KML data. For better or for worse, the only page that all of those people watch is Template talk:Attached KML. (Many of them are not involved in the road projects per se, but have a programming or general geography interest.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The move proposal has nothing to do with how KML data on the English Wikipedia is administered. It's aimed purely at Attached KML taking control of KML data used by another template. If you want to discuss the administration of KML data, open an RfC and then decide what to do with Infobox Australian road's KML data based on the outcome of the RfC. How KML data should be managed in the long term has already been determined - the plan is to move it to Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with AussieLegend, KML data is not owned by Attached KML or the people who watch its page, if another wikipedia group wish to use KML for their own purposes. There is nothing stopping them. The long term goal is the same anyway (migrate to wikidata). Im sure we can even discuss ways of keeping the two sets with exactly the same content (which shouldnt be a massive task given the low number of KML files) -- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see ownership issues here. Notices of discussions were made at WikiProject Highways [43], WikiProject Australian Roads [44], and Infobox Australian road [45], with discussion occurring at Template talk:Attached KML. The discussion brought to attention here regards moving KML file subpages from one template to the other. This would not prevent anyone using the KML files in any way, and would only require a line or two of infobox template code to be changed. The KML files should really be in the File namespace, rather than template subpages, but that is not currently possible. - Evad37 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Posting some notices doesn't negate WP:OWN. The discussion is about removing content from Infobox Australian road, so the discussion should have continued at that template's talk page. It shouldn't have been moved to another template where the editor would receive a more sympathetic ear. The people at Attached KML have a vested interest in maintaining control of KML data and the instigator was that template's creator. Even the appearance of ownership is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this is all a storm in a teacup. The WP:OWN issue is the "formal proposal" at Template talk:Attached KML. The entire discussion went from 0 to 100mph within less than a single day (since notices were posted), and noone can restrict access to wikipedia files to any other groups on wikipedia without some reasoning that consists of more than not wanting to have two copies (as there is no centralised source yet). Perhaps if instead of trying to push through the issue to a conclusion so quickly, all parties could discuss it a little further, and hopefully a bit more calmly, perhaps a compromise can be found?

I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :).... (and as I stated back there I dont even care so much how this pans out as long as the functionality works) -- Nbound (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal that has a wide margin of support. That's called consensus. Furthermore, there is no WP:OWN issue here; WP:OWN would be restricting the use of KML to the {{Attached KML}} template. I suggest that this thread be closed. Sometimes, neither side is going to budge, and straw polls have to be used to reflect where the consensus is, and we have to go with that. That's how Wikipedia works. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of binding consensus that takes place on wikipedia generally requires a bit more time to allow editors to commment. Move proposals take 7 days, RfCs take 30, (and both generally follow long discussions on the matter anyway) the more informal consensus building ways don't have to follow those guidelines, but the time so far is far too short. American editors involved may not realise it's actually a long weekend here and many editors will likely be taking a short vacation/holiday. Straw polling two sides that "wont budge" goes against the very ethos of "consensus building". Are you saying that either side is so stubborn that they are unwilling to compromise or be swayed? As Ive stated, I dont care how this turns out as long as it works, but Im still worried about how this is essentially being steamrolled through so quickly in the name of a supposed consensus. AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion. I hope that you and others would be willing to do the same. Leaving things as they are for a few more days isnt going to hurt anything or break the encyclopedia. :) -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the most recent vote seems to have highlighted a need for categorisation in their opinion also. -- Nbound (talk)

"AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion." Can you please point to this? I sure haven't seen it. Sometimes, when building consensus, there is going to be a minority of people who disagree. On a large site like the English Wikipedia, we can't cater to everyone, especially when the options are so binary (we can enable Pending Changes or we can disable it. There's no middle ground... for example). I'm very concerned at the stalling tactics that are being used here - I think AussieLegend is hoping that people will forget about this and that he will be allowed to continue doing whatever he wants, ignoring what the actual consensus is. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, my post stated "I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :)", and his immediate reply was "That would seem reasonable.". -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For all we know AussieLegend might be quite happy to keep the files at Attached KML if there is some decent form of categorisation (instead of 4000 files all together, IIRC - there are already some suggestions of how by Floydian and WOSlinker)... There simply hasnt been enough discussion at this stage to start taking strawpolls in the name of consensus. -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is just a proposal. It has no effect until it is closed. That could be a week from now. That could be two weeks from now. And votes can always be changed. In fact, it's generally premature to close a proposal while discussion is going on (which it clearly is). Thus, I see no reason why starting a proposal was inappropriate. --Rschen7754 02:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is automatically assuming the outcome of discussions, there are likely compromise options which havent even had time to air yet, yet its already been claimed by yourself that the opinions are binary (removal vs. keeping) and there is no middleground, which appears to be untrue amongst both supporters and those currently opposed to the removal of the fork (some kind of categorisation at least for AU KML files?). The proposal is premature, delaying it by a couple of days isnt going to hurt or break anything. -- Nbound (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the KML files can be in one place or they can be in many places, so in that regard, yes, it is binary. And I am still awaiting an answer to my question of how administrative assistance is needed here. I'm obviously recused from this thread, but if I wasn't, I would be closing this thread to that effect. --Rschen7754 02:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is binary in that regard, but the discussion has bought up the possibility of more nuanced options than that. There are shades of grey/gray. Lets see if any of these alternative options bear fruit? :) -- Nbound (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So (obviously pending AussieLegend's agreement) can we agree to close this thread? --Rschen7754 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The ownership issue DOES exist, despite the claims of Attached KML supporters. They are asserting control of all KML data on Wikipedia by insisting that other templates comply with Attached KML's method of storing data, i.e. storing ALL KML data on Wikipedia as 4,300+ subpages of Attached KML even though the other templates do not use Attached KML. That's the very essence of WP:OWN. Attached KML is saying "You can use our KML files, but you can't have your own set because they're ours" and quite simply, Attached KML doesn't have that right. Despite Rschen7754's assertion I have siad what intervention I'm requesting: "WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted." Administrators can close the proposed move as violation of WP:OWN and direct that discussion should take on the talk page of the relevant template (i.e. {{Infobox Australian road}}). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just going to stop responding, as I am not going to respond to such a statement that is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. --Rschen7754 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, because it really only helps demonstrate my concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Please note that inappropriate canvassing has taken place: [46][47][48][49][50][51] --Rschen7754 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being quite ridiculous. The move proposal instigated by {{Attached KML}} editors directly affects {{Infobox Australian road}}, which is managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads. I've merely notified the members of WikiProject Australian Roads listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads#Participants. That's more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That notice was barely neutral, and a more proper audience would have been notifying all the people who have posted a KML and have shown a definite interest in the integrity of the KML system. --Rschen7754 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The notice identified exactly what was happening in as neutral a manner as possible, and directed editors to all three related discussions. It was entirely appropriate. Attached KML doesn't have a thing to do with Infobox Australian road yet a discussion was opened at Template talk:Attached KML for the the express purpose of asserting control over data used by Infobox Australian road. By discussing the matter there you've stacked the votes in your favour. To accuse me of vote-stacking, given the ownership issues and that vote-stacking is reprehensible. I'll add that I believe you're only calling it canvassing because involvement of WP:AURD members at a template they'd normally have nothing to do with would bring some balance to a discussion that currently favours the opinions of the group of Attached KML editors who would normally have nothing to do with Infobox Australian road. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

All 0 of them. --Rschen7754 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, what if they agree with the proposal? If I remember correctly, Nbound (talk · contribs) did a similar "canvass/notification" (though they didn't realise the conflict between editors of the two projects) on user talk pages ([52], [53], [54], [55] [just to name/link a few) for a RfC about a proposal about the Infobox Australian road be merged/replaced with Infobox roads. I think we should deal with the "votes" as they come and hope someone not involved closes the discussion when they feel that the support is there and the concerns are addressed. I don't totally agree with AussieLegend's wording but it seems to be neutral enough.

The way it's going, this will end up being a sorry mess at ArbCom if the hostility continues. Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not they agree with the proposal. It is still canvassing. To be completely honest, the lack of comments on this thread by uninvolved users is very surprising seeing as this is clearly a violation. TCN7JM 01:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing at all. Many AU editors are involved in multiple tasks and are too busy to watch every page. Notifying them individually of related discussions is a necessary courtesy but I do agree with you regarding the lack of uninvolved editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Break

WP:AURD has dropped KML from its roads template, I would suggest we close this discussion -- Nbound (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 03:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that we've dropped KML there's still the WP:OWN issue, which is a big part of why we dropped it. It's simply not worth keeping the KML functionality when you're being bullied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When everyone "bullies" you by telling you that they don't agree with you, it's called WP:CONSENSUS. --Rschen7754 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN prevents a valid consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If only one user thinks WP:OWN is actually being violated, then it is valid consensus that it is not being violated. TCN7JM 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors at one template can't form a valid consensus to take control of files used by an unrelated template. There is no general consensus or policy that permits that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, if you still feel wronged, you should file an RFC. The total lack of any outside response at ANI should tell you how the community feels about this matter, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't need an RfC to get a policy enforced and I'm sure that, no matter how neutral the might be, members of the roads project would make some complaint. It's not me that has been wronged, it's Wikipedia, by the Attached KML editors exceeding their authority. I note that while I have explained why this is a case of WP:OWN, those on the side of Attached KML have not explained why it isn't. All we've seen is "no it's not". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dodging a topic ban?

Recently user Jax 0677 received a topic ban regarding templates. Off course, he was not happy with that but now I have the nasty feeling that he is dodging the topic ban with the help of an assistant/meatpuppet, in this case User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Evidence (more or less a random choice):

• Involved template: Template:October Tide
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 9/6/2013 03:19
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 13:53

• Involved template: Template:Bill Medley
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: two remarks, last at 8/6/2013 22:06
• Addition to template by Frietjes: two edits, last at 9/6/2013 13:50

• Involved template: Template:D Mob
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 8/6/2013 19:11
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 15:22

I did not check every item but due to me nominating the templates, they are on my watchlist. And suddenly I see a lot of Frietjes-edits on templates that I have recently nominated, show up. Too many to be a coincidence. Request for help from Jax to Frietjes: here, here, here, here, here and here. These request started as soon as the day after the topic ban was issued. And as far as my superficial check went, Frietjes responded in most cases.

It is possible that I am overly itchy to Jax after all the trouble in the past, so I would like to hear other opinions. The Banner talk 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

seems like this was constructive comment, which is in contradiction to starting an ANI thread. The fact that you see a lot of my edits could have something to do with the comments that I am making on the respective TfDs. Yes, I do read the notes posted on my talk page, and sometimes I add links to templates and articles in response to those comments. I also express an independent opinion at TfD, and more often than not, concur with the deletion of the associated templates. of course, that hasn't stopped you from attacking me there as well. also interesting that I was only recently informed of the topic ban, and the editors invited to comment on it did not include me. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have both the nomination pages and the individual templates on my watchlist. And even after a clear warning you continued. The Banner talk 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry, but how is saying "this starts to look at dodging a topic ban..." issuing me a "clear warning"? I am guessing English is not your native language, and I was never informed that I or anyone else was topic banned, nor was I provided a link to any topic ban. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a good old classic to attack the messenger when you have no arguments against the message. The Banner talk 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can both of you please just drop it? This is not helping. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Circumventing the ban wouldn't surprise me in the least. IDHT is a common issue with that editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree that Jax is circumventing the topic ban by notifying another editor (a regular participant in TfDs) of articles that exist or that he has created on topics for which a template just happens to be nominated for deletion. I have no issue with Frietjes on this matter. Frietjes can do his her own due diligence on templates at TfD without Jax's sketchy attempts to manipulate their outcomes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• IMHO Jax is circumventing the topic ban by his communications to Frietjes....William 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Open and shut case. Jax is editing by proxy - Frietjes is the proxy. Jax needs blocking, Frietjes needs a strong final warning about editing on the behalf of blocked or topic-banned users. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Reply - I made no "Request for help", I have violated no terms of my topic ban, and have worked very hard to obey the ban (which places no restrictions on editing any articles). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• You made a comment to another editor who then went on to add it to a template. Your topic ban was broadly construed. This is basically an attempt to side step that ban no matter how innocent you try to make it out to be. Blackmane (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Technically, you didn't make a request for help. Instead, you dumped a load of things on Frietjes' talk page for them to put in for you. You're circumventing the topic ban, and you know damn well what you're doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply - Frietjes and I are not collaborating. Sincere apologies if that is how my communication came across. Now that multiple editors have the same issue, I will do my best to stop leaving this type of message from here on out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's allowable, but I'm in favor of a one-week block and another six months added to the topic ban. I'd like to see Jax learn some things on his own because it always takes more than multiple editors having an issue before he gets it (and, apparently, even a topic ban isn't enough). Many of us have asked Jax to take a step a back, maybe a forced break will do him good. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Star. The topic ban is broadly construed. Anything that can justifiably seen as infringing on the topic ban requires a block, and a resetting of the ban, clear and simple. I still don't buy for a second that Jax didn't know what they were doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am "topic-banned from editing or creating" (as well as discussing) and that's all. The accusers have the burden of proof regarding "for them to put in for you", not I. I cannot control what others add to Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with what others have done, it's what you have done. Frietjes could have completely ignored your messages, but your repeated notifications to him her (and only him her) of other existing articles and articles you created which are directly related to topics that have navboxes at TfD proves your motives were to do nothing other than to sway the outcome of deletion discussions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pssst, Frietjes is not a him but a her The Banner talk 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It isn't easy to tell unless an editor has a name that obviously one gender or the other.----->...William 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just a case of doing your homework... The Banner talk 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I hope everyone remembers that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". From my contact with both editors, I believe they both got the message that this sort of behavior is not allowed under the topic ban. If that wasn't clear before, I would say that it is clear now. I move that we drop it and move on. I'm off to work on closing a tiny fraction of the massive number of Jax-related nominations at TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be harsh, but I don't think you are an uninvolved admin... The Banner talk 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And neither are you? I am simply expressing an opinion like the rest of the editors in this thread, most of whom are more involved than I am. Don't worry, this is the last comment you will see from me in this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Frietjes will have gotten the message. Jax will pretend that they have, and revert back to their old ways within a week or two. That's what I've seen them do every time they've been informed about incorrect edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• We should keep the focus on Jax's continued disruptive behavior that needs to be deterred so he is encouraged to become a more productive and congenial editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I strongly agree with Plastikspork, that this should result in a written warning, not a ban extension (one additional month at a maximum, and definitely not a block). --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• How on earth does this work, since you're talking about yourself? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry, Jax, no more leniency from my side. You made a deal with Plastikspork to save your failing templates by moving them into your own userspace. Your dumped links on Frietjes talkpage with the unwritten request (but everybody can see that) to fix templates that are subject to a deletion discussion. No, Jax. The Banner talk 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have not asked Plastikspork to move anything to my userspace since the ban was enacted. Can you prove that I made an unwritten request? So far I have seen accusations with no proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Preventative block is required This is a gigantic load of pigshit, if you ask me. As I am the one who formally enacted the topic ban, I have been monitoring Jax's talkpage (as well as Banner's, BTW). I have found the utter level of obfuscation by Jax, combined with massive wikilawyering to be frustrating to say the least. For example, when asked a simple question about a template that Banner was searching for, Jax claimed that he would not respond without a formal representative of the WMF permitting it. However, on the other hand, we have Jax breaking the spirit of the topic ban with these interactions with Frietjes. Apparently it's fine to put roadblocks up when someone is cleaning up your crap, but on the other hand encourage someone else to try and save your crap? Violations of the spirit of the topic ban are just as serious as outright violations. Jax - your templates ARE THE PROBLEM. Do not under any circumstances attempt to "save" them, and ensure that you help people try and clean up your mess. I'm wholly in favour of a preventative block for a minimum of a month so that Banner and others can complete the process of cleaning up the shit without continued interference from Jax. This month should allow at least 75% of the problematic templates from being nominated, discussed, and likely deleted. For the very clear violation of the topic ban, I recommend a 6 month extension of the ban. As for Frietjes - I'll give the benefit of the doubt that she was unaware that her actions-by-proxy were inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• While strongly protesting the idea that Frietjes has anything to apologise for (meatpuppetry? Really?), it's pretty obvious just from Jax's replies here that circumvention was the goal, and the less said about the train wreck that was the ban-enaction thread the better. On the other hand, I don't see what a block accomplishes here. Call this a final warning to go and do something productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also AGF that Frietjes was not aware of Jax's topic ban, being a bare 2 lines in a morass of TfD noms. Otherwise I'm on the fence about a block at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It sounds a bit naive to see loads of templates being nominated and see loads of links dumped on your talkpage and then not ask the question: "Why don't you do that yourself?" The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• How many chances does someone get to change bad and disruptive behavior? From an increasing amount of his template creations being nominated a full year ago, to editors showing growing concern and offering some friendly advice on his talk page, to an RfC/U in March and a topic ban less than two months after the RfC/U opened, to multiple efforts to dodge such a ban that brings us to this AN/I, Jax has been unable or completely refuses to comprehend how he is disrupting the Wikipedia community while he continues to defend his actions as an innocent misunderstanding. I doubt at this point that a block will deter Jax's behavior as I believe he will continue to test the limits of his topic ban even after such a block is lifted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Lukeno94, I am allowed one vote like everyone else. As far as I know, the part of the topic ban about leaving messages on other people's pages was made up after the fact. This is exactly why I asked for the rules of the ban to be laid out explicitly. The Banner has referred to me as a lazy cow, and others have used profanity on my talk page. I have not interfered with anything, and IMO the evidence is circumstantial. Many of the XfD's are from my work way back in 2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, pure bullshit. You were not allowed to edit or discuss templates "broadly construed" which you kindly defined yourself quite properly, EXCEPT you were permitted to edit them in your personal userspace, AND request copies of deleted templates using WP:REFUND. You were further forced to actually RESPOND to someone who was cleaning up your mess because you wikilawyered-up. Just like we EXPECT assistance from people blocked for massive copyright violations, we EXPECT your help in cleaning up the massive swath of crappy templates that you were told time mand time again to either stop making or FIX the few useful ones (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If I am not allowed to discuss something, then I am not permitted to tell people where they are until I am given permission to do so. I was simply doing my best to obey the ban in its entirety, for which I was scolded. Once I was given that permission from you, I complied with the request immediately, as I did with the second question about the same. How are you authorized to use profanity on my talk page in a non-encyclopedic manner (which IMO is not appropriate conduct for any Wikipedian, much less a WP administrator)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, you notified Frietjes about articles only because you thought she'd be interested in reading them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Yup --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember the discussion that I started on 4 April 2013? That was a request to improve some old templates. (You can find that discussion here). To my opinion, that discussion showed a plain unwillingness to maintain templates that you have created. So even when I politely asked you to improve older templates you either refused or did it quite unwillingly. The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Their is indeed no formal obligation to maintain the items one has created, but most editors at least feel the moral obligation to do so. I don't think I am a rare exception.

Reply - I updated Cavalera Conspiracy, and put Merge Tags on Steve "Boomstick" Wilson and A Rhyme & Reason expediently. Other than that, I am not required to keep things updated for an indefinite period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - can we get some action on this, please? Given Jax's last comment to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (damn, your name is too long), it's clearly evident that Jax knew exactly what they were doing, and clearly doesn't give a shit about abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines and/or his topic ban. They're beginning to look more and more WP:NOTHERE every time they post. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Which reply? Here Jax says he will abide by the restriction. On the other hand "The Banner" seems the one incapable of walking away from the WP:DEADHORSE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply - Agreed 86.121.18.17. I am trying to contribute constructively, as I have done to Pop Evil's very first articles about songs, and 5FDP's and Rob Zombie's latest singles. I keep getting hammered whenever I make an honest mistake. Lukeno94's last statement about me knowing what I am doing and WP:NOTHERE is inconclusive and unfounded, and you can not have it both ways (banning me from talking about something and obligating me to disclose article locations). Reading articles has NOTHING at all to do with my topic ban. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of wrapping up this tedious thing, do you understand this?

• If it involves creating, discussing, or editing a template, you have to stay away. If you think there is a grey area, there isn't, and stay away.
• If you are asked to assist in cleaning up your mess, by someone cleaning up after you, you are expected to respond.

Is that clear? — The Potato Hose 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply -

1. I will avoid navboxes to the extent reasonable. As I understand, I am permitted to write articles about songs, albums, musicians and musical ensembles, and I am permitted to insert infoboxes at the top of articles (containing information including but not limited to the genre, track length, recording studio, etc.), and I am permitted to mark such articles as stubs to the extent that it does not violate my topic ban. If this is not correct, please let me know.
2. I will respond to any reasonable request to assist in improving navigation boxes that I have created.

Thank you for your attention. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. Do you understand that you are not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates? Do you understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea? (Can you also please learn how to indent properly, and not preface everything with 'reply'? We know you're replying.) — The Potato Hose 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I understand that I am not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates. I understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea. I will do my best to indent properly, and I will take under consideration not prefacing everything with 'reply'. However, I think that it helps separate my posts better. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For some idea of the seriousness of the issue, see this AN/I thread, Request from uninvolved admin, from January this year. I might add that none of the other editors in that discussion have been involved in any disruptive mass editing since then, but Laurel Lodged still continues as before. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Scolaire 1. the quoted ANI case has nothing to do with the current case. The two are unrelated. This is about Counties of Ireland whereas the cited case concerned the Gaelic Athletic Association and their peculiar use of GAA county. 2. That case did not result in any censure for me or the other cited user - Brocach. So my account is still in good standing despite your attempt to impugn my reputation with the slur. 3. I have abided by the ruling in that case, even though I argued against at the time. 4. I defy you to find any edit of mine since that date that is in defiance of the decisions arrived at in that case. 5. No evidence of any misuse of wiki guidelines has been produced in support of the current case as presented (as opposed to the different case cited). 5.On any reading of our interactions over the years, which have usually been on opposite sides, it will become obvious to an uninvolved reader what may have been the true motivation for Scolaire's support in this case. There was a passing bandwagon and Scolaire gleefully jumped aboard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Both cases involve you trying to substitute all county names with the administrative county name. How many times have you been involved in discussions that point out to you that the traditional name is the most commonly used name, and the one that currently enjoys consensus? The point *you* should have taken from previous discussions and ANI wasn't that you "weren't censured", but that the reasons you provided for switching to using the administrative county names haven't been accepted by the community, and although the previous ANI was focused on the context of GAA county names, it did not give you license to switch to a different usage context and carry on as before. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to HK In the cited ANI case, it was not about my inserting county names. It was about my inserting the letters GAA into (shock/horror) GAA articles. So the two are not comparable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The strength of the previous case noted, plus the current case - added to the incredibly vindictive and attacking post above - all add together to say "topic ban as a minimum". Past behaviour always comes into play - especially if that behaviour has not demonstrably improved. To actually say what Laural said above in full view of administrators and the community really shows that they're not here to play nicely with others. As such, a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I thought a Topic Ban has received support previously, and I support the current request for one. This editor is simply not learning that these edits have really no support or consensus. Given that these exact types of edits from this editor have been discussed on several occasions before (especially the whole "traditional" county vs "administrative" county) and didn't find support, the onus was on the editor to ensure that future edits were in line with existing norms. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support County names should be used sensible. Sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option, sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option. But the endless edit wars and disputes are tiresome and damaging to the encyclopaedia. So I support a) a six month topic ban for Laurel Lodged, b) a 2 month topic ban for everyone who starts edit warring about county names, and c) an investigation into ways of avoiding these conflict (i.e. rules when to use the name of an administrative county and when to use the name of the "classic" county) The Banner talk 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Banner I agree that edit warring is tiresome and damaging. I fail to see how topic banning me while leaving the other warring parties untouched is either just or sensible or in the best interests of Wiki. There are always at least two parties to a war. Why would you assume that my arguments are less worthy than the arguments of the other parties? Let them present their arguments and then come to judgement. Those arguments will probably revolve around WP:Common. My arguments revolve around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. As HighKing commented in the WikiProjectIreland page, "There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary.". That's very true - there is a difference of opinion and there is conflicting Wiki policy guidelines. In my opinion, I am perfectly entitled to rely on the "Use modern names" guideline. There is nothing, nothing to say that it is in any way inferior to "Common". To say otherwise is just a matter of opinion. In short, who's to say that the edit warring is not caused by those editors who obstinately stick to the "Common" policy while refusing to acknowledge the presence, let along validity of "Use modern names". Let he who is without sin in this edit war cast the first stone. Secondly, I also agree with Banner when he says "sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option.". That is to say, context is all important. To give an example, there are times when it is best to speak of Byzantium, other times when it's best to speak of Constantinople and still others when it's best to speak of Istanbul. To stick rigidly to Istanbul when speaking of Constantine the Great would be wrong, even though the 3 sites occupied the same ground at various times. Conversely, to say that the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge is located in Constantinople is also wrong. Yet this is precisely what many of the supporters here would have us do - to ascribe historical, defunct administrative names to current realities. Context is important; when dealing with modern realities, use modern names. This position in neither capricious, OR, disruptive or unsupported by wiki guidelines. I have every reason to believe that the opposite is true. That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Laurel Lodged - there's the flaw right there. You're pushing "I've got a policy on my side" while ignoring the general consensus and other policies. Also, name-calling won't get you very far no matter how frustrated you feel. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - North and South Tipp have been around a very long time and have never really caught on as a method of location. They are just local government areas. It's the same in the UK. There are plenty of boroughs and districts which are never used in addresses and, effectively, these instances are also addresses in the sense that their usage is intended to convey to the reader where a place is. Tipp on its own locates a place perfectly adequately. Thats the sensible option. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Atlas I'm afraid there are a number of holes in your argument. Firstly, this is not about post codes or addressing issues, it's about counties. As proof of this, see Dublin 4 which is a perfectly legitimate postal district but is not a county (though the denizens of that district might like it to be. But that's another story). You say that "They are just local government areas". This is incorrect - they are counties per the Local Government Act 2001. County Tipperary, by contrast is not listed in that Act as a county. While we may speculate about that omission (was it an accident of legal draftsmanship? Was it deliberate? Was it a sop to nostalgia?), such musings cannot find their way into Wiki. It is what it is. The use of the word "just" is also inappropriate as it implies that NT and ST somehow occupy a space and status that is less than County Tipperary(CT). It is as if CT fulfills some function other than demarcating areas of local government. It does not. If you know of some higher order functions that CT fulfills but which NT / ST do not fulfill, please let us know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was about post codes. On the contrary I made clear it is about location. The reason we write that Dublin is in Ireland, or Clonmel is in Tipp, or Atlanta is in Georgia, is to assists users in 'locating' those places in their own minds as they read. Funnily enough, what most people use (and I guess there is a possibility that you don't do this, but most people do) is the various parts of an address. If you were posting a letter in Dublin to Clonmel, you wouldn't need to add 'Ireland' at the end of the address cos the chaps in An Phost would be quite capable of 'locating' Clonmel without it. Readers here c×an't be relied on to have the same knowledge as An Post workers, so we give them some help. We add some extra geo-location info to help. That this info is also shared by address databases is neither here nor there. It's just useful geo-location meta-information that we format and structure into readable prose. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thread was automatically archived by automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Unarchived to allow further input/action. --RA (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I previously withheld support for a similar topic ban in the hope that the editor would see that their position was not generally supported and even disruptive. My mistake. I particularly resent the accusation above that editors who disagree with LL are a claque (sic) of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki. False! This clearly shows their ideological motivation. Iwould have supported an indef. topic ban as I have seen not a scintilla of evidence, over an extended period, that the message is getting through. RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia

Users ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia have been engaging in a long battle at Talk:India Against Corruption and attempts at moderated resolution are failing. WP:3O was unsuccessful and after posting an RFC ThinkingYouth simply started a new thread. It has gone beyond a passionate discussion and has shifted to personal polemics. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to all senior editors concerned in Talk:India Against Corruption for my editing, but let me clarify Editor ReformedArsenal RFC had no purpose/resolution regarding the ongoing dispute/edit warring . It 's not even minutely addressing the problems discussed/debated/disputed in Talk:India Against Corruption.I had no other option but to start a new section explaining the major issues of the ongoing dispute ,so that other editors can understand the ongoing dispute/editwarring,and take appropriate action accordingly . ThinkingYouth (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Revised Rfc by ReformedArsenal is now a precise summation of the concerns first raised by User:ThinkingYouth at [56]. His concerns were clarified here [57]. Therefore the Rfc is directly on the original concern raised by the other editor, ie.

"There are so many fake IAC website link to to Www.rise.net.in . Please add third party verified source to claim official website of India against corruption . Do not add fake IAC website and link to Propagandize".

NB: I thank User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As i explained , in my previous comment , this confusion or lack of understanding in the editors to understand the major issues of ongoing dispute at Talk:India Against Corruption, is the sole reason i started the new section below the WP:RFC by ReformedArsenal ,to explain myself and the ongoing dispute/edit_warring in details ,so that concern editors can take the appropriate action accordingly.Please read [58]

FYI: RFC is about "Should http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ be listed as the official website" .It is not about www.rise.net as explained by fellow editor AcorruptionfreeIndia.

NB: I thank all the concern editors and specially User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach.ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that AcorruptionfreeIndia is pov-pushing there and at Aam Aadmi Party, and that they probably have a COI. It's possible that ThinkingYouth has similar issues but the whole thing is a bit of a mess at the moment and it does seem to have degenerated to a sort of point-scoring situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited India Against Corruption] for over 1 week except for 1 edit where I merely restored the page to one by the blocking Admin's last edit after some cryptic deletes by Sitush. Yes, I had contributed mucho text to that article on the past, but I don't own that article. So don't quite get how I'm POV pushing. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How could,raising BLP issues in talk page of concern article become (probably)COI? Well, Thanks to admin and other editors,after their interventions and edits(deleting biased POV),i'm proved right. ThinkingYouth (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading this, I don't see anything wrong with starting an RfC after a 3O. Third opinions are merely advisory but have no real standing in terms of consensus. Why don't you publicize the RfC on WT:IN, you'll get a lot more input and won't be stuck with just two editors duking it out. --regentspark (comment) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: WT:IN is certain to escalate it to other level(s). IAC related pages are quite controversial. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Apparently, the dispute has now spread to Aam Aadmi Party. I would like to propose a 48 hour topic ban on both ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia for anything related to Indian Politics, as well as Category:Corruption in India ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Take my word ,I've already stopped editing these two pages. ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is poorly sourced and badly written, with most of the sources being hopelessly outdated or just plain bad (eg. Sitush restored a source which claimed Arvnd Kejriwal was with IAC in June 2013, and then he also had to delete it). I won't edit the article itself, but shall confine myself to its Talk Page (in small doses if other editors cooperate) if there are also previously uninvolved editors on that article (a 'request not demand). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented what I did. You made so many poor edits that it was simpler to restore to an earlier version and then step through he subsequent stuff, reinstating the useful elements of what you had done. This is clear in the edit history. You've also made unfounded allegations that I am in cahoots with ThinkingYouth (for example, here) and you have made ad hominem attacks such as this and this. I'm not fussed about you sounding off - I've had a lot worse - but I am concerned about the quality and purpose of your contributions. I'm also a bit concerned that a lot of what you say on talk pages seemed to make little sense, but perhaps that is just me being a bit thick. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Saeed Naqvi piece of 6 June 2013 (which I deleted twice as a poor source) was first reverted by ThinkingYouth and the 2nd time round you also had to drop it (because you saw, like me, the huge problem for Kejriwal if it was allowed to stay on page). The "wikistalker" link was given when we were not talking. User:ThinkingYouth can now explain why in his first 400 edits he just "happened" to edit 40 pages you had previously edited including some pretty obscure ones, WP:BURDEN on him. The link does not allege anything, it is a factual result being reported to the dealing Admin who had locked the page. On the ad hominem "attacks", you're being slightly oversensitive - "Sitush, please explain WHY its wrong. Not clear to me." is an ad hominem attack? If something is incorrect (like source not matching article text) I simply delete the whole of it, as I can't deal with Cantabrigian types who nitpick grammar/style (<--- This is not NPA, just fact on how I edit). I leave it to others to fix. Is that "poor editing" ? "Its not perfect till there is nothing left to remove" - Motto of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My intended diff was this, sorry. I didn't see any "huge problem for Kejriwal" nor would such a thing usually be a reasonable rationale for removal unless there was a specific BLP issue. Finally, it would be better if you try talking before making inappropriate allegations. Even in your latest response here it seems that you are het up - walking away for a bit might be a good idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"WikiStalker" ;-) .. I really don't know why sitush and my edits have 40 commons! may be it's a small (edit)world out here..! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you check my supposedly WP:SPA first 400 edit against Sitush's ? Its not funny, stop winking, this is serious and I expect a serious answer from you on an ANI incident concerning you. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk)

@Sitush snarky was possibly in reply to garble. On the Saeed Naqvi article, you were wrong. It was published on 18.Nov.2012, so Ps_Nitin who inserted that "June 6 2013" date is a WP:SPA who has loaded this article with non-RS POV and deserves to be booted off Wikipedia for causing us to fight. And so to bed. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is funny ! Wikistalking ! ;-) i hope, am not getting any restraining order and that was my serious answer ..! I really don't know why we've 40 commons , do you have any brilliant reasoning about it? BTW, i don't see any point here,discussing a edit-warring, which is already resolved by admin and other editors! good nigh ThinkingYouth (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC itself

In all this din we keep avoiding 1 issue, the original Rfc itself. How is it that editors who continue to claim that "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" is a "FAKE IAC" website despite being shown its impeccable 3rd party WHOIS, are allowed to keep reinserting "www.aamaadmiparty.org" back as AAP's official website when the WHOIS for AAP is in someone else's name ? Could User:ReformedArsenal please shed some illumination on this, B'coz I'm getting quite tired of Wikipedia now and this uncle may be retiring. 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Summation

• After reviewing User:Sitush's latest version of Aam Aadmi Party I find that 68.3% of my previous edits (almost exclusively deletes) to that page have eventually not been incorporated back by him.
• Several edits which he disputed, (such as controversy over "launch date" of the party) could not be fixed by him. Hence my approach to delete was the right approach in hindsight and supported by policy.
• The bulk of the material removed by me was repeatedly POV'd in by User:Ps_nitin and User:ThinkingYouth as the page history amply records, both accounts opened as WP:SPAs for the topic.
• The article Aam Aadmi Party is still pretty poor and unbalanced.
• Accordingly I intend to keep editing these articles assuming / assuring Good Faith to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia project.
• I trust my co-editors shall respect my knowledge, competence etc. and evaluate me by my future work.
• I presume that nobody here has any objection to "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" as the Official Website for India Against Corruption.
• Finally concerning my "poor edits" (essentially amputations) as contrasted to those who have x100 my edit count, there is a famous Indian proverb which translates as "100 taps by a goldsmith cannot equal a single blow from a Blacksmith". AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And.. we shall take your version as gospel's truth .Right.? ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not understanding this process at all, are you, AcorruptionfreeIndia? Either here or in articles and their associated talk pages. I don't know how I can better explain the behavioural and content-related issues to you but there are lots of them. Hopefully, someone else can set you straight. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing editors are required to have in common at Wikipedia is respect for and adherence to Wikipedia:Five pillars. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me try again to explain a few things:

1. ANI is not the place to settle content disputes. It exists to handle "incidents" which, by and large, tend to be behavioural issues. Things such as the official website issue are not for this forum, nor your opinion that the article is currently "pretty poor and unbalanced"
2. You were within your rights to delete information that you felt was not supported by sources; I was within my rights to restore it and then rapidly resolve the problems that you felt existed, especially since the sources did support something and the problem was really one of phrasing or (in at least one instance) your own misunderstanding of how sources do things. Your edits were poorly executed and seemed to be based on a desire to trash an article whose subject you dislike but the problems with your edits were understandable because you are fairly new here. Or, at least, you do not have many contributions, even though your policy knowledge and expertise in edit summaries makes me think you have been editing as an IP or some such for some time
3. There is no deadline and effectively no "perfect" version of an article. Many articles take a while to knock into reasonable shape and then continue to develop (improve, hopefully!) as time goes by. Analysing something as you claim to have done within 24 hours of a major attempt at improvement is not a useful exercise
4. If there were POV edits at some point in the past then that is now history. If you had an issue with them then you should have raised the concerns at that time
5. You can contribute to the project in any way that complies with policy - no need to make a song-and-dance about it, just do it
6. Homilies, ad hominems and similar tend not to go down well, so perhaps best to avoid them. Some things just don't come across via a screen and keyboard in the way that they would if people were interacting face-to-face. Indeed, much of what you say above reads like the words of a smug, self-righteous, arrogant type of person ... but I am sure that the description does not fit your personality. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• • You're quite correct, the incident for this ANI was User:ThinkingYouth's hijacking of the "Rfc" after he had successfully prevented any "3O" from taking place by bloating the article's Talk Page (at one point 57.9% of the page was contributed by him - all in the space of 5 days). This ANI has also been similarly hijacked away from his behaviour into mine.
  • "smug, self-righteous, arrogant type of person", I was about to write something on the same lines for you, but I restrained myself, per WP:NPA.
  • I had twice raised my POV concerns for AAP on its talk page, giving more than adequate time to the conflicted editors to clean up their edits on their own while clearly stating I did not want to place maintenance tags at the head of the article. Not surprisingly neither did ! In future I shall edit only after placing the appropriate indication tags.
  • My deletes were as per policy. We can differ on how Wiki Policy is to be interpreted, but henceforth we shall do so on the talk pages of the concerned article(s), as I believe that, ultimately, we both desire to improve the encyclopedia. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My behavior, seriously?.....FYI: I've already apologized for creating/editing new section below RFC(&mentioned the rationale),what else do you want from me. ThinkingYouth (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic SPA

There's some problematic editing going on that the Stewart Raffill and Standing Ovation (film) articles. The account User:Rovaf123michael appeared on June 6 and began editing both articles, making significant changes. Some were ok, but others are clearly an attempt to whitewash by deleting portions of direct quotes: [59]. I placed some warnings on the account's talk page, which received no response. Another account User:Rovaf123, obviously the same user, appeared June 10 and began reinstituting the same whitewashings as the other account [60], as well as edit warring over the removal of a film poster image [61]. A couple of IPs have also been involved here and there. I'm bringing this here because it's not simple enough for AIV and because there's more at work here than plain old sockpuppetry. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The edits made by User:Rovaf123michael in the Stewart Raffill article serve as a copyright violation, using the organization's website. That said, the editor never received a copyvio warning. I would block User:Rovaf123 as a duck. As far as the Standing Ovation (film), the editor is clearly whitewashing the article. I would then indef User:Rovaf123michael to make sure he understands and is able to comply with guidelines and policies pertaining to NPOV, COI, and copyright violations. Note that while you placed one "level two" NPOV warning, you didn't escalate after the editor continued adding/removing inappropriate content. In the future, you can just offer some guidance (if amenable), then if they continue to violate policy, just escalating the warnings. If they keep going after the fourth warning, then it is a simple report to AIV. Thoughts? Cindy(talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem logical, except that I only report blatant vandalism to AIV because they tend to deny everything that isn't run of the mill vandalism. And especially since I've now started a thread here, they will just reject it. I note that the user has again blanked the image from the Standing Ovation article without discussing [62]. Can someone please block these accounts since they are whitewashing, adding copyvio text, engaging in slow edit wars and refusing to respond to notes on their talk page? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor continues their attempts to whitewash the Standing Ovation article, still has not responded to any notes on their talk page, and is also now editing logged out. This is blatant abusive sockpuppetry and refusal to discuss their changes. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mikefromnyc and company articles

User:Mikefromnyc just came onto my radar through a recent edit they made to the MicroStrategy article, where they first added an advert tag (not that big of a deal, though they appear to have the opinion that any article about a company is an advert), but then removed the external links section and all of the categories. I've just delved into their editing history and this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident.

Here they add an advert tag and remove some references (of which I have no opinion on), but then remove the See also section and the categories. Here the user removes just huge chunks of well referenced section in the article, including the history section.

This just goes on and on through their contribution history. Every edit they've done (which isn't all that many) has been to remove information from what looks to be a select series of articles. I don't know what to think of it. Silverseren^C 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If this sounds snarky I don't mean it to, just the limitations of conversing in written text, but couldn't you have asked him about it? They're a month and a half old account after all(AGFing that there is nothing else sinister going on or that it's not a cleanstart account). Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that practically their every single edit from first creation has been to remove information from company articles, often information that was perfectly referenced or had no reason to be removed, it looks like they have some sort of campaign against company articles going on. I'm half of a mind to consider the edits outright vandalism. Silverseren^C 09:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Many of the edits are problematic, such as removing infoboxes, but not all are. Look at this one, which removes unsourced content that sounds like something straight out of Dilbert. I don't have time to investigate more fully, so I'll just note that we shouldn't treat this user as we would someone who's doing nothing but harm. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That problematic edit you linked is very emblematic of the problem though. He thinks that having the logo of a company in a company article is advertising. I suppose the best thing is to wait for him to comment here. I already notified him when I opened this thread, so hopefully he responds soon. Silverseren^C 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he did respond on his talk page. I've asked him to move his response to this thread. Silverseren^C 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike's edits are more or less defensible. There is promotional content on the pages he edited and he is right to call attention to that. Perhaps a better article would result from more selective trimming and rewording, but let's see if he D's now that he's been R'd. No idea why he removed categories and such - hopefully it was just a newbie editing accident that won't be repeated. Kilopi (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this edit, where he removed an infobox because he considers including a logo in it for the article subject to be advertising? Furthermore, this page's history] doesn't show much "D" going on. A lot of "R", actually. That's true for all the article's he's edited, actually. Silverseren^C 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an advertising platform, is it? If advertisements are permitted then Wikipedia should remove their request for donations and charge advertisers such as MicroStratey, Ciphercloud, and all the others Mikefromnyc (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Nishidani

On June 9, I reverted some changes User:Nishidani made in the article Itamar and tried to explain the reasoning as best I could in the edit summary. We have since been engaging in a conversation on Talk:Itamar about what is appropriate in the article and what isn't. He/she has recently started personally attacking me. This includes insulting my command of the English language, accusing me of POV pushing without substantial evidence, and calling me "incompetent to edit on Wikipedia". Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks.

Here, on 10:40, 10 June 2013, Nishidani accused me of POV pushing to malign Ha'aretz. I have nothing against Ha'aretz whatsoever and have used it as a source in other articles. On realizing that some of the text could be construed as misleading regarding a Ha'aretz journalist, I altered it to specify that the journalist had made the comments described in a television interview, not the newspaper in question.

The attacks on my diction started here, on 10:38, 11 June 2013, when Nishidani told me to "Please learn to construe English correctly before either editing or engaging in a discussion" and suggested that I "can't distinguish elementary points" of the language.

I took it to his/her talk page because WP:NPA recommended doing so and asked him/her not to insult my English or to make assumptions about my motives and behavior without substantial evidence. I pointed out that some of things he/she said are defined as personal attacks according to WP:NPA and provided a link to that page.

He/she responded by saying that he/she was only "[stating] the obvious". He/she insulted me again by saying that I "do not understand English with any degree of sophistication, or choose not to" and that I "don't understand simple English, or don't care too much about what is being edited and discussed, as long as [my] view prevails". He/she also claimed that, following the first revert, the "rest of [my] editing was to prettify the settlement's image". Every edit I made afterwards was directed at adding references where there was a "citation needed", adjusting the text so there's no original research, replacing unsourced information with sourced, and altering the description of one particular incident to show the Palestinian side of what happened, as it had previously only shown the settlers' (edits shown here and here). Before that, I had only fixed red links and added a date to the lawsuit section.

There appears to have been some sort of misunderstanding, as Nishidani said that I accused him/her of "[passing off suspects to a murder, released for lack of evidence, as indeed murderers]".

Here, I explained that I only objected to this text: "Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers". I was not saying that he/she accused the suspects (Gadi Tene and Yaron Degani) in question of murder but that I didn't think it was right to say that two settlers murdered a Palestinian man when none were convicted and the only two charged were released for insufficient evidence. I apologized for not being clear enough, reminded him/her that he/she was using personal attacks according to the guidelines, and asked him/her again to not verbally attack me.

Instead, here, he/she called me "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Here he/she changed the title of the section to "Personal attacks (1ST7/ POV-pushing incompetence (Nishidani)". He/she went on to describe my explanation and apology as "Proof of [my] incompetence, carelessness with sources, indifference to verifying texts, and use of WP:OR". He/she insulted my English again, called me incompetent again, and accused me of "[ignoring] all wiki protocols".

It appears that I did remove two sources Nishidani added without realizing it; that was an accident, and I would have restored them quickly had he/she pointed it out on the talk page, but the subject never came up until this most recent response.

However, I don't see this as an excuse to insult someone personally the way Nishidani has been doing. I have asked him/her twice to stop attacking me like this and to focus complaints on the content of the article, but that has only escalated matters. This seemed to be the best place to go next. If an administrator could please help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. --1ST7 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" would be considered a personal attack, since, well, sometimes you have to question someone's knowledge, talent, or competence. So I looked - that line was added to the guideline merely two weeks ago without any discussion. So, let's keep that in mind, that while these may or may not rise to the level of personal attacks, let's not stick to the letter of a two-week old unilateral law on that. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I think that questioning someone's knowledge or experience might be acceptable in a situation in which a user is only being disruptive; but I don't believe it's alright for an editor to repeatedly call someone they disagree with incompetent, insult their English, or call them "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor" without any significant evidence. I think that last one would fall under "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --1ST7 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Its completely different when an editor quesrions another editors experienced. And another editor promotes or advertise the other editors incompetence, especially if its not true.Its spreading a reputation that cant be fixed, it discourages editors to even try to build consensus. AWp:NPA should be updated.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Itamar is an Israel-Palestine topic area, it is subject to strict discretionary sanctions as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Editor misconduct in this topic area should not be tolerated, although I am not expressing an opinion regarding misconduct in his case. I don't think that is correct to use the word "murder" when a legal case was dropped and no one was convicted of murder. Murder is a legal judgment. The article already uses terms like "lethal attacks" and "violent acts" to describe events near the settlement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "belittling" sentence has been removed from WP:NPA and, by the look of the discussion on the talk page there, is not going to go back. There are times when it is necessary to inform someone that their edits are not up to scratch, be it on account of their language skills or otherwise. Whether this is a violation of WP:NPA depends on how it is done, not merely on the fact of it being done. Zero^talk 01:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is alright to politely explain to a user that their edits are problematic, but the manner in which this was done is hurtful and unproductive. I consider it a personal attack to directly call someone "incompetent" not once but several times. There is still the issue of making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", which I believe Nishidani did by saying that I "ignore all wiki protocols" and am "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state that editors should not insult others but rather "explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it". The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an understandably volatile subject, but I don't see why editors can't have polite debate. Lashing out at a user this way only causes problems and hurt feelings. --1ST7 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani does a lot of reading (books, not just Google), and it is extremely likely that he could produce compelling evidence to support any assertion that he has made (or to quickly acknowledge an error if found to be incorrect). In fact, a quick glance at User talk:Nishidani suggests he has made a solid start on explaining his position, so why not engage with the substance of what Nishidani wrote? It looks as if he is concerned that his reliably sourced edits were blanket reverted without discussion. For example, there is a comment on Talk:Itamar at "09:28, 9 June 2013" where Nishidani started a discussion on why he removed certain text, yet it appears that nearly all his edits were reverted ten hours later without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - these charges seem to be groundless, with or without recent edits to WP:NPA. User:1ST7 appears to have a set of WP:COMPETENCE issues in regard to fundamentals such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS and even a fine cool editor like Nishidani's patience being stretched would be highly understandable, except patience has been maintained. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained one of many problems with the plaintiff here. This is an extremely difficult area to edit. The villages and settlements in the West Bank have been variously defined as 'Disneyland with guns', 'the Wild West'. Law itself is suspended. Huge interests are at stake in spinning stuff, even in sources. Editors who do wish to work those articles must above all (a) read what sources say (b) not remove, as did the plaintiff, impeccable, university published books introduced correctly to improve documentation by prior editors (c) engage on the talk page and, above all (d) read and represent the views of editors they disagree with by correctly construing their views. The plaintiff, in my view, waived all of these procedures. I'm pernickety about grammar, and do get grounchy when I end up dragged into an exhausting conversation in which my interlocutor appears to me to be ignoring the niceties of English. Here I was being told that I must not say a Palestinian was 'murdered'0 by settlers. Well, several good sources use that term, and, if you check, the article has the word 'murdered' appropriately used of Israeli victims. I just follow RS language. I did not intrude my own judgement here, as the plaintiff asserted. I generally like to work articles thoroughly, in rapid succession. and, against the two preceding editors' views, do make errors, esp. with IR because I can't understand it. When poor editors intervene, this gets particularly troublesome. It's the trip wire that makes articles like these, desperately in need of several cool and close editors review, particularly hazardous.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "murder", please consider Cullen328's comments above. "Murdered" is only used to describe the Israeli victims in cases where the perpetrators were convicted. I already explained that the removal of the university published book was an accident and that I would have restored it quickly had it been pointed out on the article's talk page. --1ST7 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - If we talk about personnal attack, the first one came from 1ST7 in the comment of his global revert when he talked about "biaised wording". All this is groundless and just time consumming. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack; I said nothing against Nishidani personally. I said that the wording used in the article to describe the Nasasrah incident ("Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers") sounded biased for reasons explained above and that that was why I changed it. --1ST7 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith can sometimes be more "insulting" than not assuming good faith. Explaining poor edits with the editor's poor command of the English language is IMO a very nice way to assume good faith – and certainly no personal attack. Ajnem (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Incivility/Personal Attacks by User:AmericanDad86

I believe there's plenty of examples to work with here, but I can provide additional examples if necessary. Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's fascinating is that the post you're referencing seems like precisely the kind of thing that belongs on this very page, rather than the American Dad! talk page. What I'm saying is that AmericanDad86 seems to be in half the mind to do this very thing. I'd advise that you notify all involved parties in this dispute, such as Kww and CTF83! and call for consensus. Judging by their comments on the American Dad! talk page, this may all be a misunderstanding that simply calls for enhanced clarification. If you believe this is an issue that requires administrative intervention, I'd advise that you expand your presented case. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe AD86 needs to be told by an editor they'll actually pay attention to that their conduct isn't appropriate. In the linked discussion I asked them to tone down the personal attacks, and they proceeded on the same tack they'd been on the whole time - unfounded accusations and a significant failure to AGF. I'll notify the other editors of the discussion but am short on time to do more right now, and would welcome the input of other editors. Doniago (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Doniago, this is an administrative board where one asks for administrative intervention, not for intervention by "an editor they'll actually pay attention to". In addition, you said in your initial post that you'd provide additional examples, but when asked to do so by DarthBotto, you said you didn't have time. If you don't have the time to present this properly, then you should consider withdrawing it, irrespective of the merits of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Doniago wants an admin to talk to him, as they can block for incivility. CTF83! 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so. I meant that I didn't have time to add additional examples at the time I made my earlier reply, not in general. Additional examples of what I would consider questionable edits follow: [63], [64], [65]. Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either. As I doubt AD86 will listen to any advice I could give them regarding refraining from incivility, if you don't feel this is the appropriate place to bring it up when their incivility is disrupting discussion regarding an article, I must ask what you believe would be a more appropriate manner of addressing this. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that they were previously blocked for exactly this sort of behavior. Doniago (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it regrettable that there has been no movement on this so far. It's my opinion that by allowing AD86 to address their fellow editors in such a manner, including personal attacks and misrepresentations, without repercussions, we are implicitly saying that such conduct is permissible. I sincerely hope that that isn't the message that the admins feel we should be sending. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin User:SemperBlotto has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

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

---

User:SemperBlotto has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy by punitively blocking my account DonThorntonJr on Wiktionary.

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

21:14, 12 June 2013 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) blocked DonThorntonJr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spamming)

Since I am blocked completely, I am unable to resolve this issue with the admin.

From the BlockList page, it seems this admin has engaged in this type of abuse for some time.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:BlockList — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an administrative noticeboard just for English Wikipedia. You should take this matter to the administrators over at Wiktionary.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks! please explain since I am unable to do anything at Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible violation of interaction ban

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

---

User:Prioryman may have violated a community-imposed interaction ban: [66]. Relevant links: [67] [68]. User:Youreallycan is currently banned and I believe his talk page access is revoked. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman has been notified of this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I'd completely forgotten about that - but does it still apply if the other party is banned? In the circumstances there's no possibility of interaction. Prioryman (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend removing your comments and honoring the ban going forward. Interaction includes you talking about them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done this now. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes being banned does not make your own restrictions moot. Jehochman is offering good advice here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you just saved Prioryman from a long block. That was a very nice thing you did here. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

While PM did violate the interaction ban, it also seems to me that given the inability of AN/I regulars to moderate themselves properly in that discussion about Yrc, AN/I is itself subject to a de-facto interaction ban with Yrc. I.e. while Yrc's ban won't be lifted by AN/I due to there not being the consensus for it, Yrc can raise the matter via BASC and then the fact that there was a big consensus against the lifting of the ban here is not going to have a big impact on the outcome, because of the way editors behave here. For AN/I to be more relevant, we have to keep our heads cooler here. Count Iblis (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that WP's administrators rarely investigate any issue to any great extent. Usually, several editors will post a strong opinion, with one or more of them saying something negative because they have an adversarial relationship with the individual (like PM with YRC), and then everyone else will pile-in with support or oppose votes based on their being influenced by the earlier postings. It's a bush league way of administering a website. Cla68 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed. Particularly as the evidence can be so easily hidden from non-administrators. Eric Corbett 13:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Masem has gone mental!

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

---

For some reason they seem to be rather insistant on replacing encyclopedic images with unencyclopedic and crappy images. They seem to have no understanding of why what they are doing is wrong... at least... that is how I see things anyway... If we are supposed to replace good images with shitty ones because free then I will happily accept that! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Massem has not "gone mental"; in fact they're downright sensible in replacing trademarked non fair-use images with good-licensed versions of each console. For now until we can actually purchase the consoles, this will have to do, and they are actually fine images for what they are. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also PantherLeapord, don't remove comments you disagree with, like mine. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the Foundation's resolution - if free content of equivalent encyclopedic nature is available, non-free may not be used, and that's reflected in NFCC#1. Both consoles are out in the public and we have CC-BY-SA photos of them, just not as "professional" as the press kit ones, but you can make out the unit and controllers in both. That's "encyclopedic" given that there's no discussion on the look of the units in either article. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And note that I went out of my way to look for free images and happened upon those. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Well why don't you go and replace EVERY image for EVERY console article with a shitty version from their respective E3's. See how much that improves the encyclopedia because free! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? We have free images of those units. And when these units are more accessible (possibly when they get store displays) we can get better images. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is just another case of newbie-itis, or "I like to use pretty pictures I find on teh interwebz!". Block the disruptive accounts, restore the free-to-use image as WP:NFCC calls for, and we can all move on. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

If nobody is willing to cooperate with regards to the PlayStation 4 article, nor will the edit-warring stop, then PlayStation 4 needs to be full-protected for quite a while, preferably for 1 week. --MuZemike 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord is unblocked, having sworn to stop edit warring. Shrine Maiden seems to be heeding my warning. I think the problem will ease up.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I just hope someone comes up with a better usable image soon (Despite the fact the one used in the article before today easily meets every criteria for CC-BY-NC images to be used here!)! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

every criteria for CC-BY-NC images to be used here is wrong on several points. The promo pics that manufactures post are fully copyrighted, and even then the nc clause would be we cant use them. Werieth (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for administrative action again User:Curb Chain

This is my first time at AN/I during my time here on Wikipedia, so you'll excuse me in advance if I don't state everything the way that things are normally stated here. I was directed here by another administrator (User:postdlf) at the tail end of the recently closed AfD over the Wikipedia article List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I realize that the article in question here isn't a very high profile or "important" Wikipedia article. However, a few of us are disturbed by the actions of Curb Chain (CC) both at that AfD and in the article itself recently. Quite frankly, I've never seen the kind of behavior exibited there by anyone on Wikipedia in my 5 or so years as an editor.

Consensus in the above AfD rapidly developed that CC's initial nomination had no merit, but that unfortunately did not deter CC from repeatedly, intentionally & disruptively blanking the list that was in question at the above AfD in order to try & "win" that doomed nomination. CC unilaterally (and against current community consensus) got rid of all of the entries on the above list that were already on List_of_death_metal_bands twice. The first time was from 20:24 on June 9, 2013 to 03:10 on June 11, 2013. He was reverted by the above-mentioned administrator (after discussion of CC's disruptive edits in the above-mentioned AfD) at 10:07 on June 11, 2013, then CC simply just re-applied basically the exact same edits again at around 22:09-22:17 on June 11, 2013 using the edit summary "Everything is unsourced or not reliably sourced", which CC knew at the time wasn't the truth at all. Most, if not all, the bands that CC has twice removed from this list in question have sources both in their own individual Wikipedia articles and/or on the massive listing entitled List_of_death_metal_bands.

CC tried to deceptively describe his above edits on the list in question's talk page by saying that "I'm going to continue to remove more entries without sources after looking at the wikis' pages within the next few days", "I have added sources from the artists' wiki pages to source the ones that I found to have sources. I have not included artists that have been written to be playing this genre without a source", and "The AfD is not closed". CC did not attempt to engage in any constructive discussion about how the list in question should be edited on any talk page.

I do not engage in edit warring. So, I request that the current version of List_of_American_death_metal_bands by reverted to the version from 15:25 June 11, 2013 so that more sources for the bands that should rightfully be on the list can be added in the near future.

I have no previous experience in banning members of Wikipedia in any capacity, but I do not think that simply reverting the article in question will end this dispute between CC and other members of Wikipedia that are trying to improve articles here. Since I have no experience in this area, I'd like to leave any other decisions on other administrative action again Curb Chain to this body's collective judgment here. Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Guy linked the AfD above, so I'll just leave it here for your convenience: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I don't intend to get involved here, though, so please try your best not to bug me about it. Ansh666 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the above AfD is now unfortunately at DRV here. Curb Chain also deleted my notice of this discussion here on his talk page with the edit summary "sign your post". Like I've said already, I'm newb at this whole thing here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment its a common or garden content dispute. Whats really annoying is that its on a list where every article is a blue link. I did a spot check from the last (seemingly complete) version and they all appeared valid, so its not surprising it was justifably shot down at AFD. However DRV *is* an option, and while its annoying and time wasting, its not really a reason for admin action. Suggest letting it run. Curb's changes have been reverted a couple of times with 'seek consensus' for what he wants. So if he keeps doing it, best place to take it would be at the edit-warring noticeboard. Hopefully it wont get that far because they will get the hint now and discuss it or try and work with people on the talk page. Oh and deleting talk page notifications is ok. You can take it to mean they have seen it and acknowledged it. They may choose to respond or not. That is up to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanx for the comments both above & below. I understand that DRV is technically an option. It didn't end well for Curb Chain (CC) recently, which is not surprising, and I was especially displeased to see CC misleadingly try & frame the issue there like all they were asking for was a "merge" of content from one article to another ("Formatting of the broader article is all that is needed to include the information present in List of American death metal bands so to merge with List of death metal bands"). I appreciate "Only in death's" reversion & subsequent edits to List of American death metal bands. As I said earlier today on that article's talk page, we're basically back where we need to be now, and another editor has attempted to expand & improve upon the list as well, which is good.

I will, if necessary, take this issue to "the edit-warring noticeboard" (though I've never had any experience there either) if CC's actions don't change in the future. I haven't seen any recent edits from CC on Wikipedia since very early this morning.

I've seen other Wikipedia users attempt to delete notifications before on their own talk pages, and then try & say later that they "never got them"...that's why I documented that behavior on CC's behalf above. Thanx again. Guy1890 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is actually a distinction between good faith content dispute and WP:IDHT behavior. Curb Chain is veering toward the latter by sending to DRV a SNOW kept AfD. Hopefully that DRV will be the end of this matter. If Curb Chain continues to edit war on the list itself in attempt to delete it by a backdoor, in violation of the clear consensus, then admin intervention should be swift, and I don't mean just reverting him. He did not seem to get the message though [69]. That list is not a matter of some BLP urgency to require immediate blanking of all entries without an inline citation. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• If Curb Chain were editing in good faith, he could copy the inline references from List of death metal bands, !–K etc., because that covers a superset of the list in dispute here, which is restricted to the American bands of this genre. He has edited those bigger lists most recently on June 7, so he is clearly aware of their existence. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that Curb Chain's behavior is inching toward IDHT territory. Removing entries from the list when you are aware that sources exist in another article is problematic, as is citing the fact that the entries were removed as a reason to delete when you did the removal. It's hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• They are now arguing that because a music journalist has not described a band as death metal, they cant be classed as death metal. Regardless of how the band self-identifies in primary sources. A band's website is a reliable source for non-controversial info. 'We play death metal' is such. I have explained this a few times now but its falling on deaf ears. All of curbs removals I have checked (to blue-linked articles) are sourced/linked (usually to the bands website or other sources) that they are death metal. I am not about to go through and individually revert each one when a spot check shows they are all problematic. He is now resorting to policies like WP:COI. COI? Over if a band plays death metal? I dont think Curb actually understands the policies they are quoting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea, I've counted around 16 bands that Curb Chain (CC) removed from the list in question that are likely death metal bands. From what I've seen of CC's history of "justifying" their behavior, it's either that CC doesn't understand basic Wikipedia rules or CC is conducting themselves almost like a pseudo-troll. I really don't know how else to describe it. CC will go from one almost meaningless excuse for what they've done to another without skipping a beat. It's certainly frustrating. Guy1890 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Does he do any useful editing on death metal or other music genres? I'm asking because I don't have the time to investigate his long-term history myself) If he's only messing with others' work, then a topic ban may be the best way forward; otherwise, if he does do some useful editing in that area, maybe a RfC/U should be started... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think Curb Chain needs some kind of sanction, but not necessarily a heavy one (a final warning or a brief block for incivility perhaps, although the latter probably would be unpopular.) Their behaviour in the AfD was evidently disruptive, as was the filing of a DRV so soon after a request for clarification. Furthermore, CC's logic escapes me, with regards to his issue with the name (I fail to see why it has to be a genre?), and it's far from the only nationality-based thing, like the List of American grunge bands list. Now, in fairness to them, they've been going through and referencing things themselves since the DRV was closed, but the systematic removal of things present on other lists yesterday was bang out of order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest mentoring if I thought Curb Chain would actually cooperate with it. I've seen this kind of editor many times before, and it's like they are so wound up on whatever self-appointed mission they have that they can't sit still long enough to either listen to others or to give a clear and focused explanation of why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, Curb Chain just rotates through rationales (which are borderline coherent to begin with) without ever developing them or without ever responding to counterarguments, like he's just saying whatever words might possibly get his way. You can't have a discussion with someone acting like that, and his blatant misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, not to mention misunderstanding of simple article content, means his edits need to be constantly watched. Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? There have already been a few complaints about his behavior in the ANI archives, often people concluding that he doesn't mean to be disruptive or whatever, but at the end of the day intent doesn't matter when the effect is clear. Someone who can't or won't collaborate with others should not be editing here, nor should someone who's demonstrated poor reading comprehension time and time again. Or we can all spend our time sifting through his edits, as he continues to remove entries from the list that he keeps trying to get his way on no matter how many other editors have told him he's doing it wrong. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement needed of topic ban of IP editor Wickwack

A dynamic IP editor that geolocates to Perth, Western Australia and has a history of socking was recently topic banned [70] is attacking other editors at the Ref Desks again[71]. Wickwack didn't sign obviously due to his topic ban, but he has often been critical and abrasive towards StuRat such as with this [72]. --Modocc (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: Was the editor in question notified of the ban? Complicated answer: Through no choice of his own, he edits from rapidly changing IP addresses. (It's the policy of Telstra, Australia's biggest ISP.) So, who knows if he even knew of his ban? I'll acknowledge that he probably did, but how can we know for sure, and how do we advise him this time that he is again under discussion, and how do we "punish" him this time? Our policy allowing unregistered users to edit becomes very problematic when a user does not have a fixed IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I notified his most recent IP address of this discussion [73]. He didn't sign with one of his usual aliases, and he has contributed frequently, almost daily in recent weeks. He's should be aware of his ban and its definitely him based on his current and past behavior, and bans are not to punish but to stop repeated disruption. --Modocc (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses, and per the specific conditions of the ban, our only recourse is to simply remove the contributions and move on. Just revert and/or remove the contributions, cite Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which contains the text of the ban, and that should be it. There are no other methods of stopping this. --Jayron32 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Wickwack" is indeed trolling. He almost fooled me. The elaborate story he wrote (claiming that the info on Dyn-o-gel was totally bogus) is instantly dismissed by a search. Dyn-O-Mat, the start-up making it, may have gone bust in the meantime, but it was a real company at one point. (The fact that a NOAA FAQ page scores even higher than the Wikipedia article on google and dismisses Dyn-o-gel as ineffective is probably part of the reason why the company went under.) Since "Wickwack" is WP:UNBLOCKABLE, perhaps a notice should be posted to RefDesk so people ignore his replies. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin User:Pi zero has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

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

---

User:Pi zero has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy by punitively blocking my account DonThorntonJr on Wikinews.

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

02:46, 13 June 2013 Pi zero (Talk | contribs) blocked DonThorntonJr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours (account creation disabled) (Spamming links to external sites)

I have followed the recommendation to add { {unblock|your reason here} } to my talk page to contest the block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs)

This is not Wikinews. This is Wikipedia. We have no control over what goes on there. --Jayron32 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Threat outside Wikipedia

I saw this post in Facebook about an article called "Don Bosco Bandel". User:TheShatadruSeth has threatened to mass rollback each post by others on the article. Please take appropriate action. Here is the link. 1. Perilydona (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee, it's nice of you to create an account just to tell us about this. TheShatadruSeth has made only three edits and only one to the article, and that was a couple of weeks ago. Why don't you wait until there's an actual problem? You are also supposed to notify the user of your post here; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like a classic case of biting a newbie. Someone read a potential threat to Wikipedia, and despite not being a regular editor, went to the effort of creating an account to let us know about it. I think the better response is "thank-you".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that part of my comments was bitey; I've struck that part.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would concur with SPB there. Thanks User:TheShatadruSeth. Someone will watch it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to thank User:Perilydona? User:TheShatadruSeth was the editor s/he was reporting. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Report-Intentional deletion of information in the page- Kerala.

Hi! I have put my hard work in searching and and improving the page Kerala with adequate reference. However a user- Green Giant -intentionally deleted 191,967 bytes of my works. Which I had reverted back. Immediately another user- Ser Amantio di Nicolao -reverted the change so possibly a psudo of the same person. Warninig issued by user- DMacks.

All information has been provided adequate reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala&action=history

Administrator intervention requested reinsert my content and protect wiki from vandalism.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalidhdhd (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence that these are the same person:

• User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Green Giant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They both made a WP:EDITSUMMARY-rational basis for undoing the edits. Third time you inserted it, I warned about the WP:3RR rule, which is a behavior concern unrelated to the content itself. After which time User:Malayalidh is created and whose first action is to complain about my edit. I indef'ed it as an obvious sock. DMacks (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, why indef Malayalidh and nothing for Malayalidhdhd? Block both or neither, I'd say; Malayalidhdhd doesn't even have a talk page note about sockpuppetry or about the other account. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I'm not a sock of User:Green Giant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I will say that I gave my edit some consideration before making it; I looked at Green Giant's rationale, and at the edit itself, and decided that I agreed with him. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Malayalidhdhd appears to be caught in the autoblock for Malayalidh, so the message Malayalidhdhd got about that is a pretty direct notice to him (as well as being a block of him). I indef'ed the sock for being a sock, and a side-effect was that the main got a block of 24h, which is standard for ew anyway. I'm AGF for the edits themselves (the removals of them appear as a simple content-dispute), but feel free to lengthen the main one's block to account for the socking. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because they appeared to be an attempt to push a particular point of view, using flowery language, to indicate the supposed superiority of one language/culture over another. The user's very first edit is a significantly large edit to make me suspect that this user has extensively edited before, and is using a new account to get around content disputes. Indeed I would allege that the complainant is a sock puppet of User:Ram777ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who had 28 very similar edits reverted about 3 weeks ago for copy-vio reasons and received a warning about this. Green Giant (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin z Sheraton

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

---

The pages User:Robin z Sheraton/Leszek and User:Popierdolony Sobkowski/Eponims should be removed (because of vulgarity and personal attacks). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please ID the personal attacks in the second and first one? DrPhen (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• First page deleted as obvious trolling. What is the issue with the second (obvious language issues here - also it was created by a different user)? Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vulgarity, in Polish. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin z Sheraton has also edited User:Popierdolony Sobkowski/Eponims and note the main user page User:Popierdolony Sobkowski Google translation, which appears to be an attack page on another editor User:Michał Sobkowski (an administrator on Polish Wikipedia as well as on an 83 year old Polish female scientist pl:Eugenia Sobkowska (an article which has been repeatedly vandalized with multiple revision deletions). There's more than a hint of duck here. And it wouldn't surprise me if both Robin z Sheraton and Popierdolony Sobkowski are socks of the banned user Pacynka_Sobkowskiego. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

2/3 COI users

I think I found two cases in which I think the COI policy is broken

The first cases relates to users: User:Cancilleriaec and User:200.6.8.4. I got they impression they are single purpose accounts created to promote the person and article of Ricardo Patiño. As can be seen in their user contributions they only edited the article of Ricardo Patiño, the Foreign Minister of Ecuador. The name of the first account stands for Cancilleria Ecuador, which is the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If agreed, then the article should probably be reverted to an earlier version, which excludes their contributions.

The second case relates to User:NIBR and the article Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, which has the acronym of NIBR in Norwegian. Same principle goes: this is the only article that user:NIBR has edited. Crispulop (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they edit neutrally it might not be a problem. I didn't see any particular problem with the NIBR article. I will also assume that NIBR was editing in good faith. They were warned about the username/COI issue, and don't seem to have edited more after that. Since this is a Norwegian institution: On Norwegian Wikipedia, we tend to be more open to people/institutions editing their own articles, so they may be used to "Norwegian rules" and get surprised by the stricter "English rules" (allthough the username policy is somewhat the same). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you looked at the recent version of the NIBR article or at a previous version, but in the current version I already deleted most of the institute's edits as they were copying material from their website. Anyway, I'm just mentioning these examples because I read Wikipedia:Blocking policy > Common rationales for blocks > Disruption only: Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. Crispulop (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about PantherLeapord

While he stopped the massive edit war he instigated last night over removing an image on PlayStation 4 that he believed was of insufficient quality (which also, by the way, I accidentally brought WP:NFCC into because somehow I thought he was restoring the non-free image too, when he really wasn't. It was getting late; we all get weird at night), and was unblocked on the condition that he would stop edit warring. For the record, said image has been replaced by a much better one without the poor angle that he was complaining about.

But after being unblocked, he proceeded to campaign against the previous image, grudgingly canvassing his invalid arguments (asserting that we can still use a non-free image on PlayStation 4 because the only free images available are not of "same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public"; despite the non-free image still being invalid as primary identification because the design of the console as a whole, which a non-free image would show completely, is not adequately discussed in the article)) to every possible talk page and in edit summaries (with one reading "Hopefully they see reason and stop edit warring the bad image in when a perfectly good NON-OBSTRUCTED image is available and meets ALL criteria for CC-BY-NC files to be used here!"), and also made attacks against Masem on this very page claiming he's gone "mental" for not going by his interpretation of policy.

I think he needs more discipline, personally. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've been pleased with his behaviour since being unblocked. He obviously vociferously disagrees with NFCC, but he promised not to edit war if I unblocked him and he's been sticking to that. If this keeps up at this intensity it will be disruptive, but it's only been 12 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the "gone mental" comment probably falls a little short of NPA, and preceded the block.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Needing discipline" makes it sound like blocks are punitive, which they are not (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So... what EXACTLY is wrong with wanting an unencyclopedic image replaced? PantherLeapord (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it at all. Just like there's nothing wrong with me liking the Ferrari parked on the street yesterday. Helping myself to it, however, would be illegal - just like using non-free images when VALID free images exist. Copyright law is just that: LAW. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case then why do we even HAVE NFCC use criteria that allow us to use CC-NC and other noncommercially licensed material? The LAW does not have exceptions! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They do. It's called fair use. But our rules are made to intentionally be stricter than fair use for legal reasons. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, making much of this discussion moot - I found another flickr user that uploaded a better shot of the hardware with a CC-BY (free) licence, and did appropriate uploading and cropping so that all the images now on PlayStation 4 are free and without the case edge in the way. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Revdel for a copyvio

Could someone take care of this revision? Someone posted the entirety of a news report to the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I can not access my account !

Troll has been blocked ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am really User:AjaxSmack but I can not access my account, nor my e-mail, as if it has been hacked. I am an established user so I was wondering what the procedures were to get my account back? I have a new e-mail, and of course have a 'spare' account, which is this one. If need be, would my old accoint have to be closed down? Or is there a commitee/admin I could speak with to retrieve my old account somehow? Thanks guys. --AjaxPieter (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

91.155.236.125 back from block, and immediately back to pushing nationalistic fringe theories on multiple articles.

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

---

Two days ago 91.155.236.125 was blocked 48 h for tendentious editing and pushing fringe theories on multiple articles after being reported here at ANI. The blocking admin, Future Perfect, noted that If they continue, escalating blocks should quickly be re-imposed. Well, the user is back and is reverting at full speed. So a swift new block, for a suitably longer period of time, would be appreciated. Thomas.W (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week by Future Perfect. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Waited99

This user keeps removing an AFD template from Michael Collings (singer) and keeps removing warnings from his talk page. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rescind, removing content from talk pages is not against the rules. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

But the page Michael Collings (singer) is, since it's a virtually identical content fork of Michael Collings, an article that has been nominated for AfD but is having the AfD-template repeatedly removed by User:Waited99. Thomas.W (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say a) we need to block Waited for EW on the article, and b) block Citrus for EW on Waited's talkpage ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed. The relevant article is Michael Collings. He hasn't removed the tag since your final warning about doing so; given that he's blanked the AfD page, removed the tag a bunch of times, and told someone to "fuck off", he's lucky no-one has yet blocked him, and that's surely what will happen to him if he removes the tag again. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• apology from waited99: A wiki user AnemoneProjectors keeps repointing a legitimate page on Michael Collings the Britain's Got Talent singer who has gone on to releases 3 singles an EP and is working on a album, is 3rd biggest fast car on spotify, 5th biggest youtube video of 2011. tours, and has over 50 million hits on youtube on songs not related to Britain;s Got Talent.

  AnemoneProjectors has taken it upon himself to decide this Michael Collings does not deserve his own page and repoints the page daily to 1 paragraph on a BGT series page.

Michael Collings was last on national TV this week for 5 minutes on ITV2.

AnemoneProjectors has now nominated Micahel Collings for Speedy deletion and threatened to report me for undoing his re-pointing edits.

I am glad that this has now caught the attention of other WIKI members and they can decide whether AnemoneProjectors campaign against Michael Collings is legitimate or not. I apologise for not knowing all the Wiki rules. Apologies for deleting other peoples messages off my talk page. I thought it was my message board that I could delete messages once read! Now I know this is not the case. Waited99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waited99 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Waited, actually it is a message board, and this edit by Citrusbowler is completely incorrect. Wait--Citrusbowler gave you a final warning for that? That's the pits. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Waited, you can remove stuff (most stuff) from your own talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. What you may not do is remove AfD templates from articles, and if you do it again (I know you won't) I will block you: you have been warned often enough. I can't say I'm pleased with how either you or AnemoneProjectors behaved in that article's history; an earlier AfD nomination would have been better. Both of you have been edit warring there, there is no doubt about it, and you have not taken the high road. The only reason I'm not blocking you right now (though you kept removing the AfD template after a final warning) is my faith in your good sense. Don't disappoint me. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused. My last involvement with Waited99 was to give a level 4 warning. First for removing AFD template, second for telling me to "fuck off", third for removing AFD template, fourth for removing AFD template. I realise that I probably should have issued two level 1s, then a 2 and a 3, but he since received another level 2 and another level 3. The older warnings have probably been missed because of blanking, and though users are free to blank their talk pages, it's usually, in my experience, those receiving multiple warnings that do so and it could lead to those warnings being missed and users receiving softer warnings instead of being blocked. So I expected Waited99 to have been blocked by now. As for Michael Collings' article, I didn't feel there was a real edit war going on until today, as there were several days between reverts previously (and I was not the only person redirecting the page), and that's why I only decided to go to AFD today. I would like to point out to Waited99 that I did not mark the page for speedy deletion. –anemoneprojectors– 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• So am I: I don't understand the back-and-forths in the history. Someone redirects, someone objects--that's the B and the R in BRD, but there was no D, only a subsequent set of Rs. It takes two to tango, and this probably should have been brought to AfD a long time ago (I'm doing the same thing right now with two redirects that were reverted). As for blocking Waited, blocks aren't punitive. I didn't get into this until--well, you can see the time stamp, and the first thing I see is Citrusbowler bullying Waited around with invalid warnings. Besides that, they quit removing the AfD template, so the goal of stopping that disruption seems to have been accomplished. No? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• When I posted all this I had not yet seen that BWilkins and Finlay McWalter had responded above. I hope that this can be handled without any blocks for those two overzealous editors. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not excusing my reverts but a) I (wrongly) thought it was clear that Collings isn't notable outside of BGT and (wrongly) assumed that Waited99 would stop recreating the article, b) the D part of BRD is supposed to be down to the reverted person (Waited99), not the person who reverts (me). Again, not excusing my reverts, and I fully admit that on this occasion I was also out of order, and I apologise for that. But yes, it's stopped now, which is good (again, I started the AFD to stop the edit war, but it didn't stop Waited99 from removing the template, which I was fully entitled to revert). In the grand scheme of things, no real harm has been done, right? –anemoneprojectors– 12:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahuljain2307

Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rahul RJ Jain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Fake ID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has history of removing sourced contents, categories, infoboxes, wikitables, templates, section markers, redirecting articles, moving pages without consensus etc. Almost 90% of his edit summaries are blank. Instead of trying to be constructive to build encyclopedic articles and finding sources or tagging with 'citation needed' or refimprove tag', he blank contents with 'unreferenced' or 'unreliable sources' summary converting articles in bad, tattered state.

User:Rahuljain2307

I started checking his history from date of creation of his first account. First he did this with Syādvāda with this and this edits. Rishabha was disambig page for two separate deities but he redirected Rishabha (Jain tirthankar) to Rishabha with this edit. He also redirected Rishabha (Hinduism) to Rishabha but another user reverted it. Then he removed contents, infobox through many edits citing 'unreferenced' reason, reduced article from 34K to 14K. He even removed Category:History of Jainism from this article about founder of Jainism. He keep merging contents from this article to that article like this, this and this. If you check revision history of Jainism, he has reduced size of article from 105K to 53K claiming 'unereferenced' or with blank summary through many edits. When his peer review nomination, FAC nomination 1 and FAC nomination 2 failed, he created sockpuppet to edit GA template on talkpage of article to declare it good article. Finally too many nominations, user talkpage requests (from his both accounts) worked and some experienced editors helped him to improve article and Jainism article is good article now.

User:Rahul RJ Jain

This account looks more blatant than first account. He began with removing cats from dozens of articles which were must (eg this). He moved on to remove infoboxes(eg this), sometimes templates, wikitables, section markers etc. He stress on refs but have removed sourced contents from many articles with blank edit summaries ( eg this). He abused AFD process, have nominated more than half dozen articles for deletion. None was deleted. His most recent AFD is Deva Devali which is most important festival of Jainism, the day on which Mahavira achieved Nirvana. It is equivalent to Diwali festival of Hindus. But he claim this festival is not encyclopedic. Recently, related to Chanakya, he also claimed that Chanakya may be Brahmin, reader/preacher of hindu texts, devotee of Lord Vishnu but he was not Hindu at all. I have not checked all of his edits. Most of his edit summaries are blank. And I can't post all the diffs due to edit box 5000 chars limit. I request admins to check history of all of his three accounts. But if you need, I will create separate page to write all of his history in detail. As per WP:Vandalism, WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE I propose indefinite ban on Rahuljain2307. neo (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh look. You're back. Again. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Green (athlete)

• Bill Green (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've already requested assistance for this at the BLP noticeboard, to no avail--my guess is that lack of response there encourages and accelerates the problems: WP:BLP, WP:SPA, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR are issues for starters. Appears to be an unsourced autobiography, with long term ownership issue. I can't even make a maintenance template stick there now. Assistance would be appreciated. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• I reverted to one of your earlier versions, and scrapped some video links. I don't see any 3R issues that don't also pertain to you. Remember that boomerang throwing is not yet an Olympic sport. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Touche. Is that any way to talk to 99? I'll stay away from the article, if you can keep an eye on it instead. Thank you very much, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I recognize you from across the Mason-Dixon line. I'll keep an eye on it, and I've left the hammer thrower a note on their talk page as well. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has a long history of single-purpose accounts beefing it up. The IPs contributing to that effect—Special:Contributions/71.6.126.82 for example—resolve to MEDICAL UNDERWRITERS, which seems to be related to the employment record of the subject as it was described in the article (medical malpractice litigation.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 is making a number of clearly POV edits

User:Anonymous209.6 has been making (at least what I would consider) some POV edits to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Those various edits can be found, here. However, a little more disturbing is that he/she is now redirecting redirects to other pages, besides this one. These are pages that clearly should be redirected to this page. His recent changes to the redirects can be found, here.

The changing of redirects is clearly an act that shows a clear intent to edit away from WP:NPOV. I would simply ask in help reversing the changes and help stopping future disruptions. Thank you for your time.Casprings (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Those redirects are correct. Every redirect he has made has been to Todd Akin, which is the primary subject of the redirect phrase. I am not sure how you can call that a POV edit. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So a person that wants an article on Todd Akins 2012 comments or "legitimate rape", is looking for information on him? Isn't it likely they are looking for information in the current article? In my view, this was clearly done to prevent the reader from finding the article. That is clearly related to the POV if the editor.Casprings (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Akin article has links to the 2012 article. If readers are looking for information specific to Akin, then Akin's article is the correct article. Arzel (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also pont out that there have also been some edits that go against the conversations on the talk page.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

New inexperienced user making wholesale edits to protection templates in articles

I may be a bit daft but I can't see why a new inexperienced user (PrivateMasterHD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)), with a user account that is less than one month old and a user talk page full of complaints about his/her mistakes, would make wholesale changes to protection templates in articles, including changing to templates that AFAIK don't even exist ([74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79], and so on). I posted a question on his/her talk page earlier today, asking what he/she was doing, and by what authority, but when he/she came online again he/she just deleted my question and kept going. Am I ignorant or do we have a loose cannon onboard? Thomas.W (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor was notified, but the removed it.[80] Same as with the other notices in the past. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Loose cannon is a bit strong. There doesn't seem to be any disruption here. These templates exist as redirects so the worst that is happening here is some inefficiency in serving pages is being introduced. Hardly worthy of administrative action. I've left a note on his/her talk page with some more info. As far as your alternative to having a loose cannon onboard, well...  :) Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PrivateMasterHD's previous username, User:VGPHD, and previous user page linked it rather closely to the indef-ed account User:VideoGamePhenom. There was some discussion about this at User_talk:Amatulic#Re:_User:VGPHD. Much like the discussion here, we found it mildly annoying but in good faith and not worth blocking at the time.--Michael Greiner 04:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Block review of Stenen Bijl

On 3 June, Stenen Bijl (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3 days by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) for personal attacks / harassment. That same day I increased the block to indef following threats to OUT fellow users, including Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs), DVdm (talk · contribs) and MelbourneStar (talk · contribs). Stenen Bijl then proceeded to send numerous further similar threats of OUTING etc. to Heironymous Rowe and myself via e-mail, so I removed e-mail access. It is likely that Stenen Bijl has used 24.22.208.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (currently blocked) to block evade, see the SPI. They have continued to e-mail me, now stating they simply wish to return to normal editing, "just to fix content problems the same as would an IP." To be truthful I am not wholly convinced that unblocking Stenen Bijl will be a net positive to Wikipedia, but they seem to have realised that threats/insults will get them nowhere, and collaborating with others will work well for all involved. I therefore propose (in the spirit of WP:ROPE) that we unblock Stenen Bijl, with the knowledge that a repeat of any previous behaviour will result in a swift and final re-blocking. GiantSnowman 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as my e-mail access is limited (non-existent during the day!) we might wish to consider allowing SB some talk page access so they can answer any questions/queries/concerns you might have. GiantSnowman 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should give him a 1 month block to teach the lesson and then let him remain editing. We can have an uninvolved admin watch over him to make sure he is not doing any harassment. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, threatening to out other editors is kind of a dealbreaker for me - personally, I would not unblock under any circumstance. But that's just me though. This goes beyond a standard offer sort of situation, I think - what could this editor do to convince the community that unblocking is worthwhile? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is way too short a period after such behavior. Let them sit a month or two and then they can ask again. Gamaliel (talk)

So...Stenen Bijl is blocked for a short time for personal attacks (a block which I feel was warranted and proportional to the problem). Rather than either change his behavior or simply wait out the block, he immediately resorted to aggressive threats. And I can confirm that they were quite aggressive, though I won't confirm exactly what was stated or who I got the information from. But I will say that the threats were very clear: let me resume editing, leave me alone, I'll just do minor editing, or I will do very bad things to you, off-wiki. And now, after none of us involved caved to the threats, he's now coming back to ask nicely?

My first inclination, of course, is to even wonder why would consider this. Oddly, though, I'm tempted to restore talk page access again and see what he says. If it's just an attempt to make a quick flurry of attacks, well, we can not only re-block but also oversight the comments. But if he's willing to commit to fundamentally changing the way he interacts with both other editors and article subjects (the original problems related to some AfDs of religious leaders/mystics; some of the AfDs were legitimate, but Stenen Bijl's antipathy to subjects showed that he wasn't even considering the idea that these might be legitimate article subjects, and when editors defended the articles, he lashed out at them), then that might be acceptable. I would not accept a "Let's not talk about that, instead I just want to have the ability to gnome." Nor would I accept any sort of blame-shifting, either to the AfD participants or any of the editors involved in the blocking. Unblocking must be conditional upon an acknowledgment of past errors and commitment to change in the future. I guess I'm saying that I might be willing to turn the other cheek, but only if Stenen Bijl first confirms that he's not still holding a knife and a grudge. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then let's restore talk page access, and let SB make their own case. GiantSnowman 08:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh

There's a rainstorm of IP socks at this AfD (following blocks of various registered user socks [81], [82], [83], [84]) and they're becoming very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AFD now closed,article deleted and SALTed. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Hoopes

User:Hoopes has left non-neutral messages about a dispute between him and me on a number of talk pages, including some users he knows from previous editing. Among other things, the message falsely asserts that I am trying to push my own POV - a charge I have denied more than a dozen times and repeatedly asked Hoopes to stop making. Thus, he has violated WP:CANVASS. I have replied to use message to point out the non-neutrality and the fact that I dispute his assessment on the situation. I request another editor delete the messages (and my replies) and replace them with a neutral message where appropriate (e.g. the project talk pages). Of course help mediating the actual dispute would be nice too, but to be honest I'm not sure there are many concrete points we disagree on except on whether or not I have a POV.

The canvass edits are: [85][86][87][88][89][90][91] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review the discussion on my talk page and that of User:ThaddeusB concerning this matter. The issue of whether or not User:ThaddeusB is pushing his own POV in the editing of the article La Ciudad Blanca is the one at hand. I assert that he is while he asserts that he isn't and we are at an impasse. (Extensive discussion of disagreements can be found on the talk page for that article.) It was he who first suggested having a third party review our disputes. I think that is a viable and I have tried to follow through on that by requesting assistance from qualified editors. As stated on its talk page, the article on La Ciudad Blanca falls under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America. I think it also falls under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica, so I have requested assistance from editors affiliated with those WikiProjects. Hoopes (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, the problem is not with the requests but the non-neutral nature of them and selective notification of people whom he had previous positive editing experiences with. As I said, please leave the notices where they are appropriate, but edit them for neutrality. (As an aside, I have created a list of points that I think are in dispute on the talk page and encourage Hoopes to review/add to them.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute the charge that I have violated WP:CANVASS. The guidelines state, "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." The notices that I posted on relevant pages have these characteristics. I really don't understand why User:ThaddeusB objects to my having contacted Wikipedia editors with whom I have have had previous positive editing experiences. Surely that is not contrary to Wikipedia policy! Hoopes (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your notices are both selective (by your own admission you contacted 2 editors who had supported your edits in the past and also contacted a personal friend off wiki) and non-neutral. If you can't see why contacting editors who agreed with the POV expressed by your editing in similar articles is a problem, I don't know what to say. All I am asking is that this error be corrected. I am certainly not asking for disciplinary action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And I am saying that you are mistaken and that there are no errors that need to be corrected. I did not say that I had contacted editors who had supported my edits in the past. I did not say whether they had supported my edits or not. In fact, they have supported some and not supported others, which is precisely why I thought they would be good arbiters of neutrality. Hoopes (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith and refusal to stop making them by Hoopes

In particular, progress on the article has been made utterly impossible (for me) because Hoopes feels the need to accuse me of bad faith editing in every "discussion" about the subject. See Talk:La Ciudad Blanca#Inappropriate behavior by Hoopes and previous requests to stop: [92][93] (among many others). Even if the content dispute can't be resolved, an admin really needs to explain to him why this is not helpful. He seems to feel that the attack is justified as long as it is true. (Full disclosure: I have lost patience and responded in kind from time to time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I do not feel the need to accuse User:ThaddeusB of bad faith because I think it will be apparent to an unbiased third party who reviews the evidence. There is abundant evidence now on the talk page of the article La Ciudad Blanca of ad hominem attacks on me (in spite of my repeated requests that he stop) and a pattern of hostile, unhelpful responses from User:ThaddeusB despite my attempts to engage in a reasoned discussion. Editing of the article has become almost impossible because my edits are being repeatedly reverted so that the POV of User:ThaddeusB prevails. It is really time for a neutral third party to step in. Hoopes (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoopes own words he just posted contradict the last statement (which is why I posted this) - just see the linked talk page. We both have engaged in attacks in the past. We agreed to stop a few days ago. I did' he didn't. Today I lost patience and reverted to commenting on his behavior since he felt the need to justify every "discussion" by accusing my of bad faith editing in his opening comment. For the record, Hoopes has been the one repeatedly reverting to his preferred version today; I have stopped trying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have decided not to edit the article again until the situation cools off. I will also be attempting to minimize my comments on the talk page as I doubt any progress can be made without the help of multiple third party editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of making a single edit requested by User talk:ThaddeusB (the addition of a citation to a source), I have also decided not to edit the article until we have more feedback from multiple third party editors. One has responded with helpful comments. It would be good to hear from others. I will continue to monitor the talk page for La Ciudad Blanca and to use it for discussing issues relevant to improving the article. Hoopes (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Aedmin action requested, will someone uninvolved please close this?

For the record, I came here through an automatic notification when John Hoopes mentioned me on his tak page. John made it clear there that he had contacted me. His posts as described above are not canvasssing according to WP:CANVAS. There's clearly no vote-stacking and he hasn't been " Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." Active editors frequently contact other users when there are problems - this is, after all, a collegial project. As no Admin action has been requested by the original poster I will not comment on the issues and ask that this be closed. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for action (not blocking though, just commenting) on the repeated assumptions of bad faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is adding this news report from San Francisco Chronicle inappropriate?

Please let me know if there's anything wrong with adding this article to the Falun Gong wiki:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

If you feel this article is not notable, not relevant, or inappropriate, I will agree. Or how best to add this news report.

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that Margaret Singer was a recognized expert on cults. Disclosure: I met her once. My thinking is that this is a halfway decent source, but that a claim this controversial should be backed up by a impeccable source, such as a book published by a university press, or something equivalent. And discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. They are bound to be controvesial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically personal experience counts as Original Research which cannot be used here unless backed up by a reliable third party source. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the article itself. It seems to be reliable enough... (I have notified Zujine of this discussion as they seem to be involved in this. For future referance: You are supposed to notify them.) PantherLeapord (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, PantherLeapord. There are a few issues to consider regarding inclusion of this source. One issue is that User:Bobby fletcher has a conflict of interest, but I'll start a new thread in the appropriate forum to deal with that (see here). A second is that ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes. Otherwise:

• The San Francisco Chronicle article is a reliable source for the claim that these three individuals presented their opinions at an American Family Foundation conference in Seattle in 2000. However...
• When deciding whether this should be included in the article, reliability of the source is not the only concern. The notability of this event, especially when stacked up against the mountains of academic literature on falungong, is important to take into consideration, as is the broader context. If we include a news article saying three people giving a talk at an obscure conference 13 years ago, it opens the door to include all sorts of irrelevant things.
• This article is not notable, and the views it presents are fringe views that have been discredited in more serious scholarship on falungong.
• There are tens of thousands of news articles covering a range of views on falungong, and half a dozen excellent books, as well as journal articles. In order to summarise the views of reliable sources, some level of judgement and discretion is needed. Otherwise the article would become an endless battleground with people vying to have the news article they like included above the rest. To prevent that from occurring, when dealing with contentious debates, we endeavor to use the best sources available--namely high quality books dedicated to falungong, or academic journal articles, etc.
• In the books and journal articles written on falungong, experts analysed why it was that a small number of Western anti-cultists were so eager to support the Chinese government's claims that falungong was a 'cult', and they explored the impact of that on helping to legitimise the government's human rights abuses and blunt the appeal of falungong to western audiences. That kind of secondary source analysis is worth including (and it had been included in various forms), but shouldn't be given undue weight. (An an example, Ian Johnson—who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of falungong—notes that falungong does not share the characteristics of a 'cult,' but that some members of the West's anti-cult movement had "a vested interest in attacking new groups" in order to keep their field of study relevant).
• Back to the SF Chronicle article: the field of 'anti-cult' studies is a relatively obscure and marginalised one. The conference where these people presented was not an academic conference. None of the three 'experts' cited in the article held tenured professorships; one was an undergraduate student, another a grad student. None have published books on falungong. Their names don't appear in the bibliographies of the leading academic books on falungong (there are one or two exceptions, and in those cases, they are held up only as examples of how not to do scholarship).
• Mainstream scholars and experts have thoroughly dismissed the idea that falungong is an 'authoritarian cult.' The views of Singer et al are fringe views on this subject. Mainstream views of real experts, published in academic and other high quality presses, should take precedence.—Zujine|talk 11:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, isn't it? I'm not sure how it relates to behavioral issues. The way the top scholars situate the cult argument when it comes to FG is to describe it as a propaganda tactic by the Chinese government - it is never actually taken seriously and analyzed on its own terms, largely because the term itself is disputed and vague. Bobby Fletcher appears to be using singular sources to further an argument that is roundly discredited by scholars. I'm not sure where that leaves us. "More discussion," perhaps. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Hello! I came here to bring Kazakhs and Kyrgyz_people for your attention. I am exhausted of correcting POV edits on facts about religions and races by IPs and new accounts. As you can see on [[94]], [[95]]......, somebody have been continually reverting good faith edits from different users on these pages for a long time! Could any admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you! Chris1636 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good target for use of the pending changes option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by blocked sockpuppeteer

Wikivigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sockpuppet of Vigilant (talk · contribs) and is currently repeatedly going after Jimbo Wales' user talk page. It's been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vigilant but frankly when it's this obvious there's no point in doing an SPI - could someone please nuke the sock? Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuking socks is a great thing to do on a cold winter day to get your feet all warm and toasty, but be sure you have the proper footwear for it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It can be helpful to post SPI reports even in obvious cases. The SPI report archive can be used as a central record of the problematic behaviour, which can help identify further socks. At least, this is what the clerks and checkuser admins tell me. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anon removing Shared IP template from own talk page

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.139.161.148&diff=prev&oldid=559840490 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.139.161.148&diff=prev&oldid=559840365. The anon has been making unconstructive edits for the past several hours and removed warnings from talk page, which is acceptable. Is it acceptable to remove the Shared IP template as well? Should I let this go? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same for Walter Görlitz. He or she is condescending my edits. 71.139.161.148 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the notice and explained why on the IP's talk page. Hopefully this will clarify that it's not just a matter of preference. I see that there may be some underlying disagreements here, but that's unrelated to the shared IP notice issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Emmanuel College (Queensland)

There's some trouble in this article on a secondary school in Queensland. Litigation of some kind is or has been happening, and it has spawned an edit war between, on the one hand, some (newly) registered accounts who keep removing the information (editing perhaps on behalf of the school) and, on the other, a couple of IPs (editing perhaps on behalf of the litigant). I've blocked two of the registered accounts (obvious socks or meats of a third) and have semi-protected the article for two weeks. I have removed the information, which relied on primary documents.

Possibly the best way forward is for some knowledgeable editors/admins to have a look and see if any of that content is valid, if sourced to secondary sources. Or perhaps the content is valid with the sourcing there is, though I have my doubts, and it's certainly not written well. Your attention, Aussie editors, is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tony1, for your help. Note, all y'all, that Tony cries out for uninvolved editors to fix the article. Here is your chance to make a difference in the world. WWJD? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)