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

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting -- He has shown respect for the sanctions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.

While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor cannot change. Every time the ban is lifted, the editor returns to his former behavior. Too risky. 1999sportsfan talk to me 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was around before the Topic Bans occurred and experienced the problems. However, reading and considering the answers given to the questions, below, and on the basis that this really is a final chance, I would support lifting the Topic Ban for this last time. If re-imposed, it would be difficult to support any future lifting. If anyone else causes disruption, then so long as HighKing behaves in the ways he has said, I don't think he should be penalised for other editors' bad behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If the community recommends that you have a mentor as a condition for the lifting of the TB, then I suggest you accept Snowded's offer. It didn't work out for me, that was because of my own behaviour/conduct. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take up Snowded's kind offer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.

There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.

Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.

You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that in general, there's more regular community members saying that the ban should be lifted than not. But the general concern appears to be that *if* I edit (on "British Isles"), *and* there's disruption (unspecificed), *then* that's a situation to avoid. So as a compromise, can you please comment on the proposal below as a step to ease concerns please. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Highking and Murry1975 are never far from each other. Some would consider this suspicious. BI and IMOS editing are inherently linked especially given that Highking has been topic banned for replacing BI with Britain and Ireland. I'm not sure Murry1975 should be removing any user comments and especially without notifying said user. I'm sure an Admin will be along shortly to speak to him.Dubs boy (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Following on from various discussions, the following proposal was suggested by Doc: "trial or "probationary" period suspending the topic ban would be more realistic than a complete removal of the ban, FWIW. If no disruption occurs as a result of the ban being lifted during that specified amount of time (like 6 months minimum), we go from there." I'm agreeable to such "probationary" period. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. But, seeing as there's no consensus for that, a 6-month probation is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was just barely a consensus to lift the Ban, but I'd rather address the concerns properly. Thanks again GoodDay. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The editor seems to have an agenda which cannot be fulfilled as a result of the present ban. I suspect that if the ban were lifted the situation would revert to how it was previously. Neil Edgar (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per what I have said above. This proposal is not substantially different since there are no concerns about disruption while the ban has been in place. The ban is doing its job. Chillum 01:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to what you'd like to see in the proposal? It would also be helpful if you articulated what disruption you believe I played a part in. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I said there has not been disruption since your ban, meaning the ban is working. A probation period is of little use since there is no issue with you violating the ban. I used to me known as HighInBC, perhaps you remember me, I used to warn you about the behavior that led up to the ban. I still believe you want the ban lifted so that you can go back to what you were doing before. Chillum 16:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The topic ban works, and it concerns me that the editor is so keen to return to an area where they created many problems previously. Number 57 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As you have seen above Highking and Murry1985 operate on a tag team basis and would give The_Dudley_Boyz a run for their money. Remove the topic ban and you will see these 2 continue to collaborate promoting a skewed POV.Dubs boy (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Two reasons: One, i remember the huge amount of kerfuffle this editor (and others) have caused in the past, and see no reason to go back there; perhaps he has moved on, learned his lesson but, Two, below, in the answers to DDStretch's questions (specifically Question C), it seems to me that he really has not need for the ban to be lifted; clearly, it has worked, is working, will continue to work in the future with no real effect on the planned editing of HighKing. Thus, why change it? Simply to avoid some putative shadow? Not worth the risk. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Second set of Questions

It is true that every editor should be given the opportunity to change his or her ways (to "reform", if you like), and that giving them an opportunity to show this is all part of the process of reform. So, with that in mind, I'd like to ask the following set of specific questions of User:HighKing. Some have been covered in previous messages, but it is worthwhile to have them all centrally given and answered, I think, here:

A. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour now?

B. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour before any of the Topic Bans?

C. Are there things you can't do now, because of the Topic Ban, that you would want to do if the Topic Ban was removed?

D. What are the areas you currently contribute content to, and how would those areas change if the Topic Ban was removed?

E. Suppose the Topic Ban was lifted, and then you saw a number of articles that used the term "British Isles", what would you do? Would you: (a) Remove "British Isles" from the articles; (b) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles" with a statement that unless people gave adequate justification for its use, you would remove it; (c) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles", perhaps join in any discussion, but refrain from editing out the term in the articles; (d) Do nothing and move on; or (e) Something else?

F. Would you keep to the decision you selected in the previous question if the Topic Ban was removed, accepting that an immediate re-imposition of a Topic Ban might happen if you don't, and that this new ban would be unlikely to be removed in the future unless really convincing and clear changes in attitudes and behaviour were shown?

I would be grateful to hear your clear and full answers to them. I've asked them with the aim of then determining the chance of disruption brought about by consequences following from any and all of the answers given.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DDStretch.

• A. I think the behavior you're seeing for the past 6 months is most likely to continue as is. That is, no "gnoming" of large numbers of articles, try to focus more on content.
• B. I would hope you'd have seen and noticed a big difference already. Gnoming was the big behavioural problem previously. Before the Topic Ban I was caught up in a bubble with the idea of implementing strict definitions across articles for terms such as "Ireland" for the name of the state, "British Isles" to mean the geographical region only. That led to edit wars and long disagreements over references. I can see now how that idea isn't workable because it doesn't reflect real world definitions and usage. There's none of that behaviour any more. The job of Wikipedia isn't to define a term, especially a narrow and tight defintion that doesn't reflect day to day usage.
• C. Nothing springs to mind to be honest. I've no desire to jump into any particular topics or edits. But it's normal and healthy to want to show the community that lessons have been learned, and to remove the shadow of editting under a Topic Ban.
• D. I mostly contribute to Irish interest articles and topics (history, local articles, sport, nature, names), technology and food/drink.
• E. OK, trying to answer this in the sprit I believe it was asked. I'm not sure if you mean to say "a number of articles"? If it was a single article, and if I thought the usage was really wrong and not a "grey" usage, I'd do C. Not A. Not B. Also E. - Snowded has offered to "mentor/monitor" any edits, and if that offer is still open I'd pop him a message on his Talk page and wait to see what he thinks. Ideally I'd prefer, even if I pointed out something that was incorrect, that the community made the edit if they felt it was appropriate, but sometimes there's no engagement at all at the Article Talk page. In the situation where there's no engagement on the Talk page, and Snowded thinks it is fine, I'd like to think I could make the edit. I don't want to derail the discussion, but realistically, the elephant in the room here, is the sock. Perhaps its not obvious, but there's a high probability that if I make an edit, any edit, correct or not, the sock would revert anyway. Also, realistically, the community has no appetite to deal with any disruption relating to "British Isles". Too long and too complicated, and a trivial matter at best. So unless there happened to be a clear plan or process in place to deal with any sock-triggered disruption relating to any of my edits that resulted in the removal of "British Isles", I wouldn't and couldn't be confident that no disruption would take place. So I know that realistically D should be the logical next step to avoid disruption. On the other hand, I'm sure that we, as a community, should be aghast at the idea of allowing a sock (any sock) that kind of power/influence. But thats a different issue and I don't want to derail this discussion. I'll take whatever direction and advice people have in this regard. And after C/E above I'll do whatever, including D, if that is what the community believes is best.
• F. Yes.

Thanks DDStretch, answered as best I can. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those answers. Having read them and considered them, I think that as long as you edit wisely and carefully, and try to take up Snowded's offer (or anyone else's similar offer) for the situations I asked about, then I will support lifting the Topic Ban. You may have to convince others still, though. But good luck!  DDStretch  (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. DDStretch can you formulate something to get consensus? We might want to check out on some of the editors commentating here as well. At least one has had an antagonistic pro-Unionist position on the Derry articles for example. So it might be an idea to ask for uninvolved editors to make the decision. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded, I'd like to take you up on your kind offer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney

DangerousPanda has blocked Barney the barney barney repeatedly for personal attacks on Bearcat. Today, DangerousPanda ratched the sanctions up again by blocking Barney even from editing his own talk page. Realistically, Barney has not been behaving himself. But it's becoming obvious this did not happen in a vacuum. Bearcat has continued to pick at the scab, obviously gloating over Barney's predicament and doing everything possible to annoy Barney. He should simply walk away. But also, I'm concerned with the growing appearance that DangerousPanda may be too WP:INVOLVED, that it's starting to become personal, a test of wills. When I pointed out my concerns (respectfully, I thought), DangerousPanda's response was as insulting and in the same way as what got Barney blocked from his own home page, questioning whether my brain was working. I don't think I deserved that but I do think it's evidence that DangerousPanda's handling of the situation is no longer helpful. Discussion may be found at User talk:Barney the barney barney#August 2014. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

False, at no time did I insult you. This has been discussed, and clarified with you directly, and subjected to consensus - please stop using your erroneous reading as a need to provide some form of action against me. the panda ₯’ 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is the "consensus" outcome DangerousPanda is referring to. You'll pardon my uncertainty. It happened so fast. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try to be specific in your responses and make them actual responses to the points being discussed? First, you complained about Dangerous Panda, then when I responded about his actions, your response to me was about Bearcat, and when I responded to your point about Bearcat, now you are talking about Barney. We're not going to make any progress to any outcome if you are veering all over the map. I still have no idea about what specific outcome you expect to come from this discussion and what steps you think we should take to get there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "boorish" about responding, politely, to continued namecalling and continued mischaracterization of one's behaviour — especially when the editor in question was actively @pinging me, even when he was responding to somebody else, to make sure I knew that the personal attacks were continuing. I was not purposely watching his talk page to see what was happening; I was getting active announcements in my notification queue that I was being discussed, and responded to those notifications in exactly the same way that I'd be perfectly entitled to respond to similar discussion of me, and/or similar active @pinging of my attention, in any other space on Wikipedia. I will step away as you wish, but there is no basis for claiming that I've acted inappropriately at any point in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.

• What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing and disturbing trend for admins to indefinitely block content builders, demand that they grovel as a condition for their return, and then gag them by blocking access to their own talk page when they get upset. Another point of view is that this is a destructive strategy that unnecessarily alienates content builders from Wikipedia. That included content builders who just see this nastiness going on from the sidelines. Presumably admins who employ these methods feel that the mission of admins is to severely administer discipline to the rabble of content builders and show them who is boss. After all, there is no mission statement for admins. No one knows what they are here for, and individual admins are free to make up and follow their own ideas. There are many other ways of resolving behaviour issues, but admins are not taught about them, and generally seem to lack skilful means for resolving them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, here is my take on the situation. This has nothing to do with blocking "content builders". DPs response was to a situation involving disruption of an AfD and personal attacks for which, not unreasonably, a 96 hour block was imposed. That should have been the end of it but BtBB chose to engage in further personal attacks on Bearcat, resulting in an indef block. BtBB's subsequent unblock request claimed "I haven't done anythign (sic) wrong" when in the preceding Talk page section he had once more attacked Bearcat. That led to the withdrawal of Talk page access, again, not unreasonable given the circumstances. Disruption and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and in my view DP has acted correctly and in no way become "involved". The standard OFFER will apply if and when Btbb choses to return. Meanwhile, the mission of admins (yes, there is one) is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, prevent disruption and ensure that editors do not engage in behavoir that is considered unacceptable by the community per AGF and CIVIL.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's unclear on just about every point, Phil. To mention a couple, where is this mission statement you refer to and what is this "integrity" admins are supposed to be protecting? Who ensures the integrity of the admins themselves? I'm not sure why you think BtBB doesn't qualify as a content builder. You say that the "standard OFFER" applies to BtBB. According to that offer BtBB is in effect now banned for six months, after which he may shop around and see if he can find an admin to grovel in front of, a grovel which "usually takes a few days". In the meantime if BtBB want to return, he would be "well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects". That's sickening. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my thoughts unclear–let me clarify. I didn't use the word "statement"—I said "mission" while the "integrity" I refer to is ensuring compliance with the corpus of guidelines and policies that shape Wikipedia according to consensus. Admin's are !voted in as trusted members of the community and you are free to question their interpretation of community consensus through discussion. I also didn't say BtBB did not "qualify as a content builder", I said that the matter under consideration had nothing to do with content building, which it doesn't. The standard Wikipedia procedure in the case of an indef block is covered in WP:OFFER. If a review is considered appropriate before the expiration of six months, then everyone will have the opportunity to comment at the subsequent discussion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a mission statement, the "mission" you refer to is just one you decided upon yourself. Which is the point I was making, that admins just make up their own mission. Likewise, the guidelines and policies are controlled by and largely written by admins, not the community. There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. But admins have appointed themselves for life. In long past halcyon days, would-be admins including school children needed do little more than ask to be an admin. Many of these legacy admins would not get community approval if they ran again. Nor would many of the more recent entrants to the admin corps. So it is not correct to say that admins as a body have the trust of the community. The admin corp might gain trust and respect from the community if enough admins found the courage to address the absurdities of their own system. Rational change can come now only from within the body of admins. Content builders are powerless, and recent events have clearly shown that Jimbo and the Foundation lack the insight needed for helpful intervention. Wikipedia has been hijacked by an admin system which controls its own terms and refuses to look squarely at what it is doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The admin in question was in fact rejected once by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DangerousPanda (redirects to /Bwilkins) in April 2009. Later, they were accepted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 in January 2010. This was four and a half years ago, and the last discussion had 116 participants, the overwhelming majority of whom were in favor of adminship for this editor. Your generalizations are moot at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your strange "rebuttal" has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact I said the diametric opposite to what you apparently understood: There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. Bwilkins was not remotely in my mind when I wrote that. My generalizations are in fact accurate and easy to authenticate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the apparent topic of this discussion was not remotely in your mind when writing here, then why are you writing here and not in a separate section? Do you not see the potential for this kind of a tangential rant to be offending to that person? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the principle of indefinitely blocking content builders, which is most certainly central to this thread, and replying specifically to Philg88. Do you not see the potential for this kind of failure to read what was said to be offending? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit hard for barney to respond to the all encompasing witch-hunt now that he's had all editing powers removed. Maybe unrevoke his talkpage first to see if he's able to discuss this now he's had a chance to sleep on it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. But I suggest a 48 hour cooling off period.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't do anything that EVER resembles "cooling off blocks" - that's a dangerous suggestion. This is the second time I've removed talkpage access - it was returned, and they continued their attacks. They've had a couple of weeks to "cool off" if that was indeed possible. Barney still has many avenues of appeal open to them; let them use those wisely once they have formulated their appeal offline the panda ₯’ 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well as long as you look like a reasonable human being and not some crackpot on a powertrip. Good work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If letting him edit his own talk page hasn't worked in the past, how about if we make a couple changes that might give us a better chance it will work this time? First, ask Bearcat to stay away. His stirring the pot isn't helping and the fact you defended Bearcat's boorish behavior rather than stopping it isn't helping either. Second, let's ask you to stay away, too. I don't think Barney is ever going to "knuckle under" for you but I also don't think that should be the condition for being able to edit here. The condition should be that he behaves himself. Let another admin decide whether Barney can behave himself at least on his own talk page if there are no new provocations. If we can make these changes, I think it can work. Msnicki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what? You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit. I don't play power games, and such suggestion are inflammatory rhetoric in and of themselves. Those are serious accusations that you neither provide proof of, or withdraw. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Having had implications made about my competence and knowledge by BtBB at discussions surrounding Talk:Jacob Barnett, to the point where he/she tried to get me topic banned, I have been following the above discussion. The problem is that when you are subjected to personal attacks, it becomes very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands. The signs of emotion are usually there, I see them in the above contribution. Therefore I would tend to support the view that DP should withdraw from this case, and should probably have left it to another, previously uninvolved admin to extend the block to the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the propriety of the block but this is another case where watching a blocked editors talk page allowed us to get exercised about inflammatory comments which would otherwise have been read by nobody. We should have some sense of proportionality in these situations. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need to bring up a new development in this matter — namely, about three hours ago Barney sent me a pvt e-mail consisting of one line: "It is not too late for you to apologise for your actions." Apart from the fact that I still haven't at any point taken any actions that need to be "apologized" for, there's obviously a veiled threat here of what might happen if and when he decides that it is "too late" anymore. I'm certainly not going to engage the matter by actually responding to his e-mail at all, but the fact that it was sent at all needed to be raised. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the protocol at WP:EMAILABUSE; note that emails should not be posted online. (This is not an endorsement of Bearcat's interpretation of the email, just a note that conduct in emails are out of scope of ANI due to copyright / privacy concerns). NE Ent 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should apologize, Bearcat. Per WP:IUC, "Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If he read my advice to him earlier in the day, he knows that apologies are always voluntary, else they'd be worthless anyway. If he can't be required to apologize, he knows you can't be, either. So I'd be inclined to take his remark at face value, that he's open to negotiating a way to bury the hatchet. Of the three possible choices I outlined for him, avoid, get along or fight, but only within the guidelines, maybe he'd like to get along. Perhaps he'd be willing to exchange apologies. There's nothing wrong with asking him, well, if I apologized, could I expect one from you? WP:AGF Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Indefinite Block Be Limited?

There are at least two questions here. The first is whether User:DangerousPanda became involved in the block of User:Barney the barney barney and should have let another administrator handle it. The second is the length of the block for User:Barney the barney barney, who is currently under an indefinite block with talk page access revoked. The first question is about the past. The second question is about the future. I propose that we discuss the second question. In my judgment, Barney is a contentious editor who is a net plus to Wikipedia. I haven't located the AFD that was the original locus of the dispute, but I infer that it has been closed. Disruption of an AFD and personal attacks are inappropriate, and are appropriately dealt with by blocks. However, indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as vandals, flamers, trolls, or incompetent editors. Barney isn't one of those. Barney isn't the sort of editor to whom the standard offer applies, to see whether the editor has learned and can become a net plus, but a contentious editor who is already a net plus. I propose that the community change Barney's indefinite block to time served, slightly less than two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as described above. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. It's time to move on. But to avoid new problems, I would also ask that Bearcat avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for a period of 3 months to let this heal. His behavior, continuing to stir the pot, even after Barney had already been banned, is a big reason we're here and coming from an admin, I find this inexcusably boorish. Additionally, I would ask that DangerousPanda avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin for a similar period, again, simply to let this heal. There are lots of admins; if Barney has done something new and even more egregrious, surely another admin can be found to deal with it. And I would ask Barney, try to move on, behave yourself, learn from this experience, don't blow it. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read my response above to the first time you characterized my actions as "boorish" — users and administrators are allowed to respond to namecalling attacks and mischaracterizations of their actions, especially when their attention to the discussion is being actively @pinged. Perhaps I misread what the result was going to be, but my intention was a good faith attempt to clarify the matter rather than to "poke" it or "pick at a scab" — and there's nothing "boorish" about politely responding to a personal attack. I gave my promise above to step back as you requested, but I'm not going to accept being described as "boorish" in this discussion for simply responding to personal attacks in a polite and civil manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your earlier comments about being pinged whenever he had something nasty to say about you. Like Robert, I haven't even been able to find that AfD that apparently started it all and frankly, I don't really care that much how it got started. I do care about fixing this and getting good behavior all around. I don't think this is about the AfD anyway. I think it's just about people who don't like each other.

I am not calling you to task over any response you might have made before he was blocked. I am calling you to task for this specific post to Barney's talk page after he'd already been indefinitely blocked. This was over the line. You had to know this couldn't possibly improve the odds the situation could be defused. I think the whole point was to give Barney another poke and see if he'd make another mistake. You should have simply walked away. That post was where I became sympathetic to Barney's position. If you were that boorish (and, sorry, that is the word), that determined to keep beating the dead horse even after you'd won and gotten Barney blocked, I thought it seemed a lot more possible you could have been truly annoying in a heated debate and not nearly so innocent. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the right as a Wikipedian to directly respond to any and all attacks on my intelligence, integrity and capability, regardless of the venue in which they're occurring — it's not my responsibility to have predicted that he would respond by ramping the attacks up even further, nor is it my responsibility to ever leave a personal attack on me sitting on the table as the "last word" in any discussion. My responses were always polite and WP:CIVIL — I've been accused in the past of being a bit too blunt, and sometimes coming off more aggressively than I intended to, in my writing style, so I (a) make every effort to be careful about how I phrase myself in a conflict situation, and (b) only ever respond to the substance of what the person is saying, and never attack or insult the individual who's saying them. I'd certainly be willing to accept "boorish" if I had lapsed into responding with similar insults, but I refuse to own that adjective for responding civilly to personal insults that I had no responsibility to not respond to. I'll certainly own up to misreading how productive the attempt was actually going to be, but there's still a massive gap between "misread the situation" and "acted boorishly". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who care, this is the AFD that some people are pretending doesn't exist. Look at the edits. Look at the hatted comments. Look at the edit-summaries. Every editor has a right to nominate an article for AFD if they truly believe it's not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. They do not deserve to be called a "liar", a "troll" and/or an "idiot" simply because they nominated an article for deletion and defended their nomination. It is the behavior on this specific AFD that led to the original ANI report, the original block, and BtBB's behavior has led to all escalations since. This block is NOT about "boors" or "people who don't like each other", it's about one person's behaviour; period. Indeed, I have neither likes nor dislikes for any of the editors on this site - you're simply someone on the other end of a computer. I may dislike behaviours, but that's not the same as disliking a person. Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending this AFD is not the reason for the block is short-sighted, and fails to get to the true root of the overall issue. If you want to have someone unblocked, the root behavior needs to be addressed the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a real misunderstanding of the purpose of an indefinite block above. "Indef" means "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". I blocked BtBB originally from an ANI report about disruption and personal attacks, primarily in an AFD. When he continued his personal attacks, I removed talkpage access. Following a brief discussion at ANI, I returned their talkpage access. They then used this newfound freedom to not only continue their personal attacks, but to increase their ferocity. This led to me increasing the block to "indef", using the definition above, and when they continued further, re-removal of talkpage access - no member of this community should be forced to live with continual personal attacks. I have admitted more than once that BtBB can be a beneficial content creator, but that the personal attacks MUST be curtailed before the block can be lifted. The process for unblock is clear in WP:GAB: they need to recognize their behavior was contrary to community norms, and give the community (or at least the reviewing admin) that there will not be a recurrence. In the times that BtBB has had access to their talkpage, they've done nothing but attack another editor. As such, there cannot be an unblock at this time, based simply on the process for unblock. When they're able to make a WP:GAB-compliant request, they're welcome to use UTRS for that purpose. There's also ZERO question about me being "involved", as there's simply no proof put forward that such a relationship existed: calling me involved does not make me involved the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose barring some sort of recognition on his part that those personal attacks are inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I supported Robert's proprosal but per my comments above in the main section at 03:03, I would also support proceeding in steps, first lifting the talk page block and setting as a condition of lifting Barney's indef that he state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. But to make any of this happen and make it stick, I think we need to ask that both Bearcat and DP step back. Their continued involvement is no longer helpful in achieving the desired outcome, the one in which Barney is able to contribute and there are no behavior problems. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The block was justified and necessary to prevent further disruption. All Barney the barney barney has to do is convince the community that the behavior will stop. The amount of time served has no bearing on whether he understands why he was blocked and what he needs to do differently to have his edit privileges restored. I disagree with Robert McClenon's premise that indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are NOTHERE. - MrX 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But, as shown above, your comments are not correct. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per EatsShootsAndLeaves; behavior needs to be addressed first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not like he's banned. He doesn't even need to grovel or apologize. All he has to do is convince the community that his disruptive activity will end; that could easily take the form of a classic non-apology like, "Mistakes were made, and I regret my involvement. I am ready to drop the stick and move on." Alternatively, he could be given a chance to hang himself, which I am sure he will do rather quickly given his prior behavior. He's really not doing himself any favors by aggressively dismissing the possibility of collaboration with others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This matches the advice I gave Barney on his talk page when all I knew was that he'd gotten himself blocked and probably deserved every bit of it. It's still my advice. But I think the real problem is 3 people who don't like each other and have become locked in a pattern. Expecting Barney to offer up even a non-apology to an angry Panda who also happens to be defending Bearcat's continuing stirring of the pot is just silly. The simple answer is to separate these 3, at least temporarily, and see how much of the problem that fixes. If you think of this as a problem in negotiation, of negotiating good behavior from Barney, I'm proposing what's known as changing the negotiator. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, suggesting I'm "angry" or dislike BtBB. False on both counts. I have no emotional involvement when it comes to BtBB at all ... you and your false and unfounded statements on the other hand ... so seriously, screw off with that bullshit. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. "I'm not angry, not a bit!" For more on just how not angry you are, please see here. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted already multiple times, that is nothing to do with BtBB: that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person the panda ₯’ 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. Now I'm a liar? Isn't that one of the characterizations that got Barney blocked? But how much sweeter when you say it, I guess.

If indeed you aren't invested in this, not emotionally involved, why is it so hard to walk away? Why is it important that you have to be admin who reviews Barney's next unblock request? At minimum, you know he doesn't like you. So why can't that be handed off to someone else? What is the benefit of your continued involvement? Is it more likely or less likely the problem can be resolved if you handle it? Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance the panda ₯’ 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're willing to walk away? If so, I think this can be solved. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors, and act what I believe to be appropriately when a) needed, b) not involved (except in emergency situations). If there's ever CONSENSUS (not unfounded accusations) that I have erred, I will deal with that accordingly as I always have in the past the panda ₯’ 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal is not aimed at enhancing admin privileges and power. The usual voting pattern with such proposals is opposition from admins and would-be admins and support from content builders who are not admins. That is the voting pattern above, with just one possible exception. Admins and would-be admins have a conflict of interest here. A parallel would be allowing the military in a country with a military dictatorship to decide what powers and privileges they should have. There is a lot of appeal to the "community" above, when what is meant in practice is merely the views of a blocking admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A misunderstanding is that indef means forever, it doesn't it means when an uninvolved admin sees fit the block is lifted. Indef blocks are also not to be confused with bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef is not infinite. Also the WP:STANDARDOFFER is there for any and all blocked editors to return to the editing community. Epipelagic if there is empirical evidence to support your blanket statement please present it. Otherwise please mark your comment as opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2014
• Oppose Indef doesn't mean forever, and considering the circumstances, I think the appropriate block is in place. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indef is often used to quickly get rid of an issue, but i think indef should be only used in very rare cases, for users who have been blocked repeatedly, without any signs of positive contributions. My suggestions if for indef in general and i do not want to judge the particular incident discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I hope Barney will eventually satisfy the Wikipedia community that he/she will refrain from referring to other contributors as liars and idiots but from his/her most recent posts I see little evidence that that is about to happen. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (reading section titles is hard) Wikipedia is certainly strong enough to persevere in even these strenuous times when a blocked editor calls another editor a liar, idiot or troll on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of block without concerns leading to the being addressed. Having said that, no objections to restoring talk page priveleges to allow for normal block appeals. It is of course understood that misuse of the user talk page again will lead to revocation of talk page again and likely be seen negatively in later requests as well. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing block length until BtBB makes some sort of commitment to tone down the attacks. This is troubling; even a token gesture of a non-apology apology is needed here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Barney has made a habit of being hostile and uncivil for quite some time; this isn't a bolt from the blue but the result of a consistent pattern of behavior. When he's willing to put forth a good-faith effort to follow policy, including the Five Pillars, then the block can be lifted immediately - but until then we need not to let the usual chorus of admin abuse (i.e. abuse aimed at admins) cause, once again, somebody who refuses to follow policy be given a pass because 'they create content'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The only person who has mentioned "abuse" in this thread has been you, Bushranger. So what is this "usual chorus of admin abuse" you refer to? If you just made that up and it's not true, then you have just provided an example of an admin gratuitously abusing content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - long-term nuisance editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I stand with those saying enough is enough. Jusdafax 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I believe Dangerous Panda revoking the Talk Page editing from BtBB was justified, but I do believe that BtBB deserves a shortening of the block. On second hand an indef block doesnt always stay Indef, as I have seen many cases where that "Indef" lasts less than a month. As long as BtBB is willing to be civil in the future, I support. --Acetotyce (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Let it go and move on. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal

There's clearly some but not a lot of support for Robert's proposal that we simply lift the indefinite block on Barney, turning it into time served. Many editors cite (correctly) that all Barney has to do is promise to stop making personal attacks. And while I supported Robert's suggestion, it was more generous toward Barney than I came seeking and, if none of the rest of the people dynamics were changed, I questioned if it would actually work. Here is my proposal, which I think will work.

1. The indefinite block on Barney's talk page should be lifted, i.e., Barney's access should be restored to his own user talk page only. I contend that the talk page block serves no purpose except to pour more salt in the wound and make it less likely a positive outcome can be achieved, especially under the circumstances at the time, with Bearcat stirring the pot and DP supporting that boorish behavior.
2. Standard conditions should apply to lifting the indefinite block on Barney's privileges outside his talk page. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, this could take the form of the usual non-apology, though personally what I would like to see from Barney is that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat.
3. Another uninvolved admin should monitor Barney's talk page and review any new unblock requests Barney may make.
4. Bearcat should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for 3 months, simply to let the situation heal. I agree he had the right to post to Barney's talk page even after Barney was blocked, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Bearcat's actions clearly made it more difficult to resolve the situation and as admin, he should have known better. I called his actions boorish because they were; the word simply means "ill-mannered". It's not a crime but it's not helpful. There was already an admin on the job ready to take immediate action if Barney didn't behave himself and the idea that Bearcat needed to defend himself is just silly.
5. DangerousPanda should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin, also for 3 months, also simply to let the situation heal. DP claims he's not at all emotionally involved, not a bit angry, but his acting out and disrespectful behavior toward me (calling me a liar, telling me to screw off or that I should "act like an adult" and that he no longer considers me a "respectable person") simply for having raised the question all completely belie that. Of course he's angry. The thing is, all of us are human and we all experience human emotions. There's simply nothing wrong or surprising about that. And as Viewfinder points out, when you're being attacked personally, as DP was by Barney, "it's very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands." So DP's behavior is completely understandable. But an admin who's beginning to experience emotional involvement is compromised. He's no longer able to manage the situation dispassionately. An admin should be able to recognize the signs of his own rising emotions and voluntarily step back to let another admin take over. That didn't happen and it should have. Further, even if DangerousPanda doesn't dislike Barney, it's obvious Barney dislikes DP and that requiring Barney to submit unblock requests to DP is not helpful. Even if DP doesn't think that amounts to "knuckling under", it's pretty obvious Barney does. And it's just not needed. Barney needs to behave but he should be able to demonstrate that to any uninvolved admin. There's no reason it has to be DP.
6. As nom, I also would voluntarily agree to avoid interaction with the parties, namely, Bearcat, DangerousPanda and Barney, for the same 3 month period and for same reason, to allow healing. As Gamaliel correctly points out below, my bringing this to ANI has also stirred some emotions.

If we can agree to this, I think we can de-escalate and resolve the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like a solution in search of a problem. This is all standard stuff that should happen or is happening anyway. Regardless of whatever potstirring may or may not have occurred, I see no evidence of continuing disruption on the part of DP or Bearcat which requires intervention or all this talk on this page. But I will support this proposal in order to bring this matter to a close, on the condition that the nominator also avoids any interaction with the parties or this matter for three months as well, as I feel that the vigorous pursuit of this matter has exacerbated a situation which would have come to a natural resolution on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, NP. You make a good point. I've revised my proposal accordingly to incorporate your suggestion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: any "evidence of continuing disruption", what evidence would you expect? Barney is now completely blocked, even from his own talk page. Bearcat might have enjoyed potstirring when Barney could be provoked into another poorly-chosen response, but what would be the point now? And I wouldn't expect DP to be reviewing new unblock requests if Barney's not able to post them. The question is what happens if all we do is unblock Barney from his talk page. If we don't ask Bearcat and DP to avoid him, I think we're doing what didn't work last time and expecting a different result. Bearcat volunteered above that he would avoid Barney. I asked DP directly but he hasn't answered. I think it would be helpful to put this into an actual agreement, one that was Barney also could rely on in choosing his response. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as I think there's no reason to needlessly hammer on an editor for attacks made while they're blocked there is also little reason to enact some sort of ad hoc framework to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. If we can ask bearcat to ignore the personal attacks made we can surely ask barney to ignore the comments made on their page and get on with editing. I suspect DP will exercise their judgment in interaction w/ Barney--that's not a euphemism for "won't interact" but a statement that we should trust them enough to interact in a reasonable manner as judged by them, not a random AN/I discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No problem exists here. The suggestion above is that I've somehow done something wrong, which consensus says otherwise. The sole person launching shyte all over the place is MsNicki who continues to make false claims, attribute false intentions, not just about me, but about other editors. IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks which she makes simply because she (as she already admits) refuses to actually read the entire situation. Neither Bearcat nor I have acted in any way uncivil, boorish, or inappropriately, as per continued consensus. If a block is going to get Msnicki to drop the WP:STICK and go back to what they do best, then great. BtBB's way forward has already been set in stone. Close this farce and move on people the panda ₯’ 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm saying your choices weren't very good and that I thought they were adversely affected by your emotions. I don't blame, dislike or disrespect you for any of that. I get mad, too, like everyone else, so I know how my decisions become compromised when my emotions are running high. This is what it means to be human. But I thought your escalation to blocking Barney even from his own user page was too fast and that your defense of Bearcat's posts was unhelpful and I suspect your emotions were an unhelpful factor in how it played out.

Fundamentally, my complaint isn't that you did anything wrong, it's that you didn't perform very well. You started with a routine situation involving two otherwise productive people who'd been fighting over something apparently quite unimportant, one of whom had now crossed the line into silly playground personal attacks. Eleven days later, you'd escalated it into a situation where one of those editors will likely never be back. The successful outcome should have been, the behavior problems have ended and both those editors are now productive again. Sure, you could argue, that's all on Barney. But it's not. As the admin, you were the manager of this people problem and it's reasonable to ask, can you solve a people problem like this or not. Here's one that only got worse, the longer you worked on it. Frankly, as soon as you knew Barney disliked you so intensely, that alone should have been a reason to hand him off to someone else, even if only so that Barney could know for sure that what was happening to him wasn't personal and he really did need to shape up. But I think Barney probably got to you with his insults and that's why you couldn't give it up and why you were so inclined to support Bearcat's actions even though obviously they were torpedoing any chance you had of a successful outcome. When I asked you to reconsider the talk page block, you blew me off. That's why we're here. When I asked (above) if you'd now be willing to walk away, you didn't answer. That's why we're still here. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't answer above because I told you in advance that I wouldn't due to your continued false statements, personal attacks, and bullshit which you've merely rephrased and repeated above. I have more than once disproven your "emotion"; you call Bearcat's post "unhelpful" when it's been shown by both a good reading AND by consensus to be otherwise; I have no knowledge nor understanding that BtBB "dislikes me intently", nor do you have such confirmation - it's not inherent in any of the written words so far, so we cannot assign background "hatred" to anything; what you NEGLECT is that I once already returned his talkpage access, and returning access led to BtBB escalating his attacks - even you have admitted that you have refused to read the actual DISCUSSION that led to his block. You jumped in mid-situation, read the entire situation wrong. CONSENSUS through multiple discussions has said otherwise, yet you continue to refuse to drop the stick and and gigantic chip on your shoulder. BtBB's block AND removal of talkpage access has been determined by the community to be valid; Bearcats comments and ability to comment have been confirmed by the community - now you're simply attacking Bearcat and I, hoping that some shit will stick - modifying your words, and modifying the locus of blame to where it doesn't exist does not make for some special kind of velcro. Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop the panda ₯’ 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're not sure how Barney feels about you? Wasn't this a clue? Msnicki (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Never saw that before. Entertaining, but it appears that he removed it before anyone could see it. I don't get rattled, nor put stock in what someone says in the heat of the moment and then remove after rethinking; it's continual insults like yours that rattle me :-) the panda ₯’ 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal I've put on the table is that we all just walk away. If we have an agreement, I am done. There won't be anything continuing from me. Barney becomes someone else's problem but he does get another try on his talk page with a different admin and less provocative conditions to do the right thing.

(Barney, if you're reading this, you need to know that I'll be really disappointed if I discover I've gone to this much effort, basically for a stranger I felt sorry for, and you blow it. If you get a second chance, you do need to do the right thing and move on. I won't feel sorry for you a second time.) Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is based on a bunch of lies, a bunch of incorrect readings, and a bunch of things that have been rejected again and again. Again, your harassment and personal attacks are unwelcome. Stop, and drop the stick. If anyone has damaged BtBB's case, it's you by screwing this up so royally. I have advise BtBB that I fully support them making their appeal to BASC or OTRS. Drop the stick. This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you...but this one has been a doozy that you could have avoided by a) reading, b) following process, c) re-reading the panda ₯’ 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've persisted in this and I've tried to ignore it. But I think it's time to remind you, as KonveyorBelt already tried, that per WP:NPA, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." An admin who can't resist making personal attacks of his own doesn't seem to me like the best choice to manage people problems involving personal attacks by others. 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who this random person is, but you've solidified my point: MsNicki has cast aspersions again and again, has assigned emotions and motive where none existed, called people boors, and yet has never been able to link to a single place that proves her point - THOSE are clear violations of wP:NPA as you note above. All I've ever done is remind her every time she does it that it's a PA. As such, I have never levelled a single PA here. Thanks for clarifying it for everyone the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump in on either side, but personal attacks don't further your cause. KonveyorBelt 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose MsNicki keeps making blanket statements about how things "are" yet provides no evidence to back up these assertions. De-escalation has already occurred and, as stated more than once, BtBB has a way back to editing - it is called the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that standard offer starts with demanding that Barney wait six months. I don't think that's justified. I'm asking that we dial back and let Barney try again under less provocative conditions to post a suitable unblock request on his own talk page now. He could turn around and blow this, in which case, you can bet I certainly won't be rushing back to his defense. But I think this is worth a try for an editor with a history of otherwise generally helpful contributions. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I personally don't think that the standard offer is required. As I've said before, he can formulate his unblock request offline, submit it through WP:OTRS or even the Arbs unblock process (wasn't WP:BASC a way of doing this, or did they stop). Last time he was granted access to his talkpage, it didn't go well - we have no proof that's going to change. Using OTRS or BASC will allow him to create a WP:GAB-compliant request, realizing that he's going to have to abide by his promises - this cannot be empty words. Indeed, OTRS or BASC might add additional limitations/restrictions on unblock, but that's not my purview. Nobody has provoked BtBB for the last 2 weeks, so people need to actually read the entire set of exchanges, and STOP suggesting that there's anyone's actions "at fault" but their own. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point, we're better off letting BtBB form the unblock request offline, as this is out of the line, and when taken the rest of the matter into consideration, I can't help but to think that there's not enough assurance that similar attacks on editors won't repeat if we return the talk page access to BtBB. So unfortunately, I must vote no on point 1. The rest I'm neutral on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If Barney is unblocked from his own talk page and decides to use it for more bad behavior instead of doing the right thing, believe me, I'll be the first to ask that the block be reinstated. I'll be genuinely annoyed that I'll have wasted my time on someone so undeserving. But if the rest of this agreement is place, I think he'll do the right thing and I'd like to see him have the chance to show us. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Msnicki: - at least 1 person (i.e. Knowledgekid87) thinks that your first point meant an unblock when what you mean to say is restoring the talk page access. I think fixing that would definitely help. (To Knowledgekid87: If I make the assumption erroneously, you have the permission to WP:TROUT me. Or even {{whale}}.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. That's very helpful. I've added some additional clarification that I hope will help. Let me know what you think. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should Barney be given another chance here? I mean what is the difference between him and all of the other editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this situation was managed far more poorly than usual. Where else have you seen someone who's just been blocked suffering long argumentative missives like this one on his own talk page, stirring the pot just 40 minutes after the second block? Bearcat should have known better and when apparently he didn't, DangerousPanda should have stepped up to manage the situation and discourage this behavior. Instead, DP endorsed that boorish behavior, yet still expected Barney to cool down enough to prepare a suitable unblock request for an admin he likely began to perceive as one of his main tormentors. This was never going to work and that wasn't Barney's fault alone. DP mismanaged what started out as a routine problem that should have been easy to solve and that part's not on Barney. That's what's different. Msnicki (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks - this situation was NOT managed poorly, in fact, as per consensus above, it was managed quite sanely. Repeating that I shouldn't have done something when the community says otherwise is improper. Just because you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow does not mean I managed anything poorly - I gave BtBB a hell of a lot of rope, and he used it as I hoped he wouldn't. Stop questioning my competence (because that's a personal attack) when the community has determined otherwise. Again, this is harassment, so cut it out the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Based on the latest The unblock request, it is again attacking users and using the everybody but me wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as given in the section above, in addition to this being another case where WP:INVOLVED is misunderstood. 'Involved' explicitly exempts administrative actions - including (but not limited to) blocks, warnings, and policy advice. If it's felt that an admin shouldn't be further handling a case where they have blocked someone, then those cases may or may not have merit, but waving the flag of WP:INVOLVED on them makes them invalid from the start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• The policy says Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.. What Msnicki got was That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. I do not consider such discourse "calm and rational," and, as an editor in good standing, Msnicki deserves better. Administrator conduct states Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ...Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. NE Ent 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Another model display of deftness deafness in dispute resolution. I know I was satisfied, about the way NE Ent must also feel about now. It wasn't like you'd said something clearly rude, like "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen". It wasn't at all like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

More insults or just sarcasm (or both)? English is not my first language, after all...sometimes I miss some of the nuances the panda ₯’ 08:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is some advice I just posted to Barney's talk page. I realized that if my proposal was accepted, I would no longer be able to give him this advice. I should do it now. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto

This apparent tag team has turned uncivility into a habit. As they have shadowed and dittoed one another's edits when attacking an editor like me or others, the team label seems appropriate.

They do this primarily on talk pages, and a review of their style of comments will show a continual and long-term misuse of talk pages for making personal attacks, boastfully assuming bad faith, and generally engaging in discussions in an uncivil manner, all of which amount to disruptive editing.

In reviewing, please also note that while PAs, etc. are frequent, there is never a counter-attack or reason to attack an editor to begin with. It's simply their method of discourse which has become so expected that I usually ignore them. However, their most recent comments on Peter Sellers talk has been noted with disgust by a new editor to the article, User:Wordreader, who wrote, "I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude." I personally am embarrassed that WP is shown in such a poor light.

For the record, while I'm posting this issue, I don't expect any censure of any sort against them. Their blatant PAs have appeared on talk pages with hundreds of watchers and many long-term wikipedians also commenting, and most seem to cower and say nothing, effectively giving their PA style tacit approval.

Just a few the diffs from various talk pages.

Peter Sellers talk

1. diff 9/2014
2. diff 9/2014
3. diff 9/2014
4. diff 6/2013
5. diff 7/2013
6. diff 8/2012
7. diff 8/2012

Stanley Kubrick talk

• diff 8/2014

Charlie Chaplin talk

• diff 11/2013

Light show (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightshow, you have engaged in endless sniping during the Sellers re-write—sniping that has lasted from mid-2012 to date—and managed to turn the work on the Sellers article into the most unpleasant editing experience I have experienced on Wiki, and you are the one that has managed to suck the joy out of that process. Your behaviour on the article has been so bad that a topic ban has been mooted here more than once.

This is yet another re-hash of a previous visit to ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article which was quickly dismissed, as was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Request review of personal attacks. A trawl through the Sellers talk page will show everything from Lightshow/Wikiwatcher's abuse to passive-aggressive sniping that merits a topic ban on Sellers. Requests for him to take Sellers off his Watchlist have proved fruitless, and a ban might be the best way forward here.

Finally Lightshow, numerous people commenting against you isn't tag teaming: it's people disagreeing with you, based on the fact that you're not a very good editor. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but I agree with my fellow tag-teamer. From the moment we touched upon Sellers to this very day, Lightshow has done nothing but condemn, snipe, and criticise all the hard work that we have put into it. We have taken Sellers from the lowly depths of C-class to the heights of FA which Lightshow disagrees with; he/she has done nothing in terms of helping with the articles development. Instead, they keep the article on their watch-list hoping that one day, someone will come along who is as like-minded as they are and join their "this article is shit" gang. Until then, every time a new editor comes to the page with a question, Lightshow seizes upon the opportunity to bad mouth the article and the two of us. Frankly this ANI is pretty wasted, but nothing unusual as this is always how dealing with them ends up. Pathetic! Cassianto^talk 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, your PA phrasings and word choices have become so similar and repetitious, I'd like to suggest a new one you can freely use with my full approval: Sucker. When you first started editing Sellers, you both honestly had me going for a while, with Schrocat writing friendly notes like:

"Hi WW, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - a brief holiday intervened! I think the article is broadly OK, but it doesn't hang together well at the moment—I think because of the alterations of passing editors. The overall structure is also broadly OK, although we need a few tweaks ("Acting technique and preparation" is in the middle of the chronological run through of his life, for example). I suggest that most of what is already there remains and the following structure is used (please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion!)"

I assumed your intentions were positive. That was then, this is now. And now you can freely call me "sucker." --Light show (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was friendly: I always am when there is a receptive editor to deal with. Unfortunately you did not prove to be amenable to the development and improvement of the article, and attempted to block every change, edit warring and running spurious RfCs to hamper every step. The RfCs were largely rejected out of hand, and numerous editors advised you to drop the stick, but all to no avail. After such a campaign of negativity, even a saint's patience would have evaporated by now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - User:SchroCat 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC) That's not cool no matter what the provocation. If you're that angry step away before typing, regardless of whether you think you're "right".__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither is two years of trolling, bitching and sniping, but let's just gloss over that behaviour. FWIW, I stand by every word, as it is true, justified and entirely correct. I'll also add that I wasn't angry at all: it was written while I was extremely calm, and is an honest straightforward appraisal of this editors approach both on the Sellers page and elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor appears to be engaged in a form of Wikihounding of those who he either disagrees with or won't let him have his own way, despite rules or consensus. He seems obsessed with the Peter Sellers article and the talk page history shows his many RFCs when that doesn't happen. Here we have one started at Mike Todd over the photo he placed in the infobox. The Sellers obsession is everywhere; up it comes at the Red Skelton talk page.

Those of us who don't agree with him become a Wikimafia in his opinion. From the article sandbox he started: "Obvious problems: You have greatly expanded a clear and brief paragraph into six separate topics, mostly film-related trivia, divided below, all jumbled into one hodge-podge paragraph. Which, btw, is exactly how the demolition of Sellers began. Note also that another editor has joined your team by now tagging the lead image." The infobox photo was a copyvio. He's been unwelome at my talk page since an exchange in March over a Commons-deleted photo ruled to be a copyvio.

As for his complaints about incivility, This comment "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?" to User:Dr. Blofeld is taunting and rude, yet he's crying about civility. Let's close this misuse of ANI and hope this editor will finally learn how to work congenially with everyone else.We hope (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of congeniality, I'm not sure I ever thanked you for getting me blocked from the Commons, investigated with your CCI, and for tirelessly tagging hundreds of recently uploaded public domain images, currently used for leads or body, with large red warning signs. --Light show (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To refresh your memory and for the edification of everyone else This is how you got blocked from Commons. We hope (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your off topic Lightshow. Leave others alone and concentrate on trying to get me and my tag-teamer blocked. Cassianto^talk 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was We hope that decided to join in with his image issues, not me. Nor am I concerned with getting anyone blocked, since you're both obviously immune from even mild censure or criticism. This is a notice board, and it's worth noticing the level of arrogance that has become acceptable. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I urge an admin to close this thread asap, obviously there is no action to be taken against Schro and Cass in light of the circumstances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience both users indeed act like a tag team, often together with two other editors. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone co-propose and hopefully support an IBAN here, as I tried to do on Kubrick's talk page? The same three editors, SchroCat, Cassianto, and DrBlofeld, as can be see on Sellers talk, are creating an atmosphere for new editors that does not invite collaboration or goodwill. My proposal to self-impose an IBAN is being ignored. The three editors, I've already pointed out, blitz-edit, comment, and perpetuate uncivililty in an identical team manner, and mock what they know is unacceptable talk page behavior, for example. We don't need to turn away more new editors, we need to attract them. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban User:Light show from editing at the Peter Sellers article

Some of the above comments look pretty bad taken out of context, but entirely understandable when this haranguing has been going on for two years and I think this situation needs some resolution. After SchroCat and Cassianto put considerable effort into taking this article to FA standard (which they successfully steered through an FA review), Light show (under a previous user name) proposed junking all their effort and putting the article back to its C-class version: Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?. Now, I think it's fair to say that anyone who sincerely believes that junking an FA rated article is in the best interests of that article probably has nothing more to contribute in a positive way. Therefore I propose an article-ban for Light show: the article, SchroCat, Cassianto and Light show himself would all be better off if they didn't interact any more at that particular article. SchroCat and Cassianto are the ones that got the article promoted so they are best placed to stay and maintain it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Non-issue: As Schro-Cass has/have prevented me from adding so much as a comma over the last few years, putting up a no-trespassing sign when the article is already ringed with barbed wire, will add nothing. As the proposer has, in their comment at the link above, accused me of somehow reprogramming Wikimedia and gaming user feedback, I'm not sure their good faith is clear in their proposal. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Betty. It's not just the Peter Sellers article though Light show has kicked up a fuss about, it's other articles on film biographies any one of us has been involved with. But all were motivated by the Sellers vendetta he has and it is indeed the Sellers article which creates the bulk of his comments still. An interaction ban banning Light show from editing or discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass would be more appropriate. I support of course, but I fear a ban on just Sellers will prompt petty responses on other articles. I 'd suggest a full interaction ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support What Dr. Blofeld has said. The insult difs above took place on the Stanley Kubrick talk page and the sandbox the editor started. While the basis for this is the Peter Sellers article, that rancor has been spread around by him. We hope (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Lightshow, to say anyone has stopped you changing a comma is an untruth. It's also an untruth for you to say that Betty Logan has accused you of anything: she provided you with an explanation regarding the feedback, not accused you of anything. Sadly the two untruths here are just the latest in a string of mud-throwing from you, where you a unable to accept that anyone who disagrees with you on Sellers is part of some massive tag-team. It's time for the community to stop your interaction on the Sellers talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, needless to say. Lightshow has shown himself to be a thoroughly difficult editor to work with. I'm sure he does some good somewhere, so for that reason I think a full on block is not justified, but I think the ban as proposed above is a great comprise. Lightshow needs to let this one go and accept that the C-class Sellers is a long and distant memory. He also made things difficult for the FA nominator's on Charles Chaplin, but that is a different article altogether. Move on with your wiki-life, for god's sake! Cassianto^talk 21:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on this article and a broader one one should anyone propose it. A read of the relevant talk pages shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that makes editing by other members of the community an unpleasant task to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think waiting for some neutral editors to review and comment is required, since the editors above, excluding MarnetteD, have in some way, repeatedly attacked the editor, his edits, comments or uploads. There is no way to assume their neutrality. It's also worth noting how the original ANI against their PAs has digressed and been hijacked so easily into blocking the complaining editor. The message is that guidelines about civility, including not using PAs, can be ignored. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

this-"I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits." and this-"Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events." is civility? We hope (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The request, yet unanswered, was reasonable. Unlike this comment, from one of the above team members. And my mentioning his soliciting support there, was also fine. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although I would expand this to include the talk page, as that's where much of the conflict between the three has happened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I concur with Crisco 1492 and the earlier editors supporting the proposed ban. I have not previously encountered Lightshow, but the evidence above and in the pages linked to makes it clear that such a ban is in the interests of good editing and collaborative conduct. Tim riley talk 09:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – and, yes, it should be extended to the talk page as per Crisco's suggestion; hopefully the dissent will not continue to spill over into the other articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking a bit kangaroo here. Looking at the article history, Lightshow hasn't edited the article for about six months. If you look at the history there is a clear pattern of SchroCat reverting all changes made by many other editors to the article during that time. It looks like all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included. Not a very welcoming environment. Dr. Blofield's comment is telling here, wanting to ban someone from discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass. It's hard to read that as anything but a demand for uncontested ownership of certain articles. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: Frankly I'm sick of your sanctimonious uninformed comments here. You have no experience of what we've had to put up with for two years and it is rather annoying for some holier than thou individual to make judgements. Butt out, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Elaqueate, and you are? Cassianto^talk 17:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have to be someone to comment here? How is this attitude supposed to convince other uninvolved editors that others weren't similarly "welcomed" on pages you edit? Is this a "closed" !vote? Are we somehow not at AN/I anymore?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, no, just stop commenting on things you know bugger all about. Lightshow has a very long history of making snide comments on talk pages of articles, Peter Sellers mainly, but his vendetta has surfaced in article talk pages as diverse as Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick. It is incredibly annoying to have somebody who has not had to deal with this for the last two years turning up and telling people to be civil or accusing people of OWN. That several very experienced administrators support a topic ban should tell you that this has gone on so long it's time for something to be done about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just asking who you were, that's all. No need to swing your handbag at me, if anybody has an "attitude" it is you sir. Oh, and FWIW, I'm not here to convince anyone. Cassianto^talk 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You were just collegially asking me for my papers, got it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got the shitty end of the stick. I didn't know in what capacity you were commenting from; bystander, admin, etc.. But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. Cassianto^talk 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Classy argument.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

and one it appears, you have no business in. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I should keep talking to someone who just called me shit?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would that be, because I haven't called you anything. Are you having trouble understanding, or are you only reading what you want to see? Cassianto^talk 20:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to descend into personal attacks it reflects on you more than me. It doesn't improve anything here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another question to my a answered "Who would that be?" What personal attacks? Cassianto^talk 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the smear, especially as it is catastrophically wrong: I have not reverted "all changes made by many other editors". I have reverted the introduction of errors (grammatical, factual, or use of the wrong ENGVAR elements), which is entirely acceptable, I believe. If I am wrong on that point, please let me know. You are also very wrong to say that "all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included": that utter tripe. It's also not a question of ownership either: it's a question of having to deal with the behaviour of one disruptive editor who has been sniping and trolling on the talk page, not within the article, as well as on other talk pages. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: In my experience it is very normal for all the but the highest quality edits to be reverted on a featured article. The standards are very high on those pages. Chillum 14:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum:, you are right that changes to a quality FA should be made conservatively and that most proposed changes should demonstrate they meet that higher standard. I was only commenting that it seemed to be an individual editor that was ultimately judging that quality over a very long period, and that struck me as a bit of a warning flag for possible POV bias, conscious or not. FA doesn't mean perfect or finished.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If I had not reverted the poor edits, someone else would have done. I have not reverted any improvements to the article, and it have explained my edits when I have reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you find your own edits reasonable and necessary. Thanks for sharing that opinion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, however, find your smears and untruths to be reasonable or necessary, but you seem to have skated by that. Thanks for sharing and smearing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussed editor hasn't edited the article in six months, and the talk page currently only has a total of seven comments. No recent diffs were given in this proposal, but that hasn't stopped people from !voting on it. I can't see that any uninvolved editors have been given any actual evidence, other than being told to "butt out". The only diff given in the proposal is two years old and the user had a different user name (what's the deal with that? Is that public?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The change has always been noted at the top of my user page. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I noted above, it's even worse than a kangaroo court, as I came before this body with diffs to show a lack of civility and habitual flinging of PAs. Yet that original reason has been hijacked into a digressed topic of banning the complaining editor with almost no mention of the original complaint or its validity.

For a current example of how and why Schro-Cass resort to simple name-calling over calmly discussing things, visit the current Sellers talk page, where a new editor, User:MrBalham2, who is trying to point out exactly what I did years ago, is already being badgered and seems to be leaving in disgust. A quick link to what he observes in the article was first pointed out by me here, and the result of that was later pointed out here, which supports his and my observation. But this is not about Sellers, it's about the near total unconcern and ready acceptance of uncivility by this board.--Light show (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone appreciating some ironic humor, note SchroCat's first reply to the new editor: in the future, please comment on issues, not editors. and his most recent one, I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors . . . not just insults to others, when in fact that editor was extra civil. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have considered your own actions before rushing to ANI and posting this hastily added report. As for MrBalham2, they came to Sellers asserting their own POV which has been opposed by SchroCat and I. Their edits are not an improvement, and like you they can't accept that. It's just a coincidence that they are complaining about the same thing as you and they have an unhealthy interest in Sellers. Oh, and they came at the same time as this ANI having never expressed an interest in Sellers before; a bit iffy if you ask me. Cassianto^talk 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of iffy is when a new editor, SchroCat, starts working on Peter Sellers, and 5 minutes later, you, another new editor, join in supporting his every edit, comment, and PA from then on. That's what may be called iffy, IMHO. And noting such things can get one banned from a talk page, it seems. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor? I have been here since 2010, SchroCat possibly longer. It sounds like you feel aggrieved at us "new" editors coming along and making your shit C-class version into an FA. Careful, your pal Elaqueate may accuse you of ownership if your not careful... Cassianto^talk 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editors to Peter Sellers article, in case anyone wasn't clear about it.--Light show (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Light show's edits and talk page postings at Peter Sellers (and other film biography articles) have been entirely disruptive over a very long period of time, and their behavior is not collaborative, but rather intended to upset other editors and make it so unpleasant for them that they will not challenge his/her edits. I also support the broader interaction ban. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is difficult enough to bring an article to FA without someone stepping on your shoes the whole way. Light should contribute to areas completely unrelated to Mr. Sellers. I am not sure about a wider ban, though I think as long as Sellers is not mentioned it may be okay. Repeat performances would likely result in quick consensus for widening the scope. Upon further reading I support a wider ban cover Kubrick and such. Chillum 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support and we should probably look at Stanley Kubrick as well. This is a talented and potentially productive editor but needs to learn to work better with others. Over-quoting is a defining and annoying fault, and doggedly defending the over-quoting starts to make other editors think about walking away. --John (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having seen the present issue spill over to Stanley Kubrick, and judging by other interactions I've had with Light Show which, by no means the same degree that would require any type of action, do point towards a battlefield mentality they hold when they don't get their way. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made 517 edits to improve Kubrick, vs. 0 for you. Thanks for your support. I'll also note that Kubrick is a more honest example of how I, and other editors, should collaborate. For instance User:WickerGuy, the primary contributor, began his edits a year and a half before I started editing it. We, and other editors, including MarnetteD, had many discussions during the 8 months or so that it was heavily improved. There was never a heated discussion, no PAs, no uncivility by anyone. After much of the article was improved, WickerGuy even added some positive comments to my talk page. I know how to collaborate and work with other editors. You will not find any accusations about uncivility anywhere since I started editing 7 years ago.--Light show (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your talk page behavior, eg [1], clearly pitting yourself as one side against Dr. Blofelt and SchroCat, specifically bringing up the Sellers article issues here. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An odd example, since you agreed with me that he was adding trivia. And under your watchful eye, you've let Blofeld do to Kubrick's personal life material, namely turn it into a choppy hodge-podge, of short, disconnected factoids, exactly as Schro-Cass-Blofeld did to Sellers. Blofeld did that to Kubrick, cutting out 75% of his personal life material, about 2,000 words, under your protection, all in a matter of minutes! All three(?) of those editors use the exact same editing style, and unsurprisingly they all use the same uncivil PA style of discourse in protecting their demolitions. Their comments above prove the point. Nuff said. Kubrick should have stayed in NY.--Light show (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm sure @John: would agree on this, no personal life section needs to be well over 2000 words!!! I cut it by 75% because it needed such a drastic cut. I haven't got around to writing a decent personal life section yet so obviously it's still not going to read wonderfully well. You're absolutely clueless how to write encyclopedia articles and don't just get that bloat and excess quotes are just not good. An actor dies and there you are adding excess quotes and bloating it out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld—are you really responding to User:Light show? They pointed out that this was all done "in a matter of minutes". Incremental edits are conducive to collaboration. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary editor on Sellers had also thanked me: You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done. --Light show (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by maintaining the battleground attitude here, trying to drag me into this when the only reason I have the Kubrick page on my watchlist was from NFC issues years ago. Yes, some of what Blofeld added was not really well suited, but note the difference between suggesting that trivia be cut down for improvements and holding a grudge from a different article. The ban from editing the Sellers article seems well merited until you can drop this attitude and work cooperatively. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The ban from editing Sellers has been in effect for about two years. Every attempt to change punctuation or almost any other minor change by me or anyone else, has gotten reverted often without the courtesy of a rationale. A new editor tried to make some change yesterday, calmly discussed it, and still got pulverized with uncivility immediately. Maybe we should add the new editor to the proposed ban, just to make sure he doesn't try to improve things again. I do make comments on the Sellers talk page, but banning that kind of activity by a civil editor would amount to eliminating freedom of speech, not something I'm used to on this side of the pond. I do not use uncivil language, which is a bit tricky when pounced on by the PA team. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a lie to say there has been a ban on editing the page. Numerous people have improved the article and their edits stand. Those who introduce errors, change spellings (and punctuation) to AmEng variants, or introduce unsupported information or delete sourced information may be reverted, with an explanation. The editor yesterday (with whom the discussion continues) was not "pulverised" with anything, although he has been requested not to make personal remarks about other editors (he is extremely new and has not yet learnt the ropes here). You manage to turn up to pretty much every thread, and will bitch about the article, linking back to one of the many, many RfCs you started during the re-write (which the community decided against your opinion on nearly every one). Your negativity on the Sellers page has been seen in comments on threads on Chaplin, Kubrick, and I think one or two others, and I sincerely hope this will bring an end to it. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We haven't banned you, we have disagreed with your attempts to try and "improve" the article. Your edits were not an improvement and went against everything which seemingly passed the strict reviewers at peer review, GAN and FAC. But somehow, you think you're above all that and when you were rebuffed, you snipe at the "state of the article". Two years...of that! Cassianto^talk 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should anyone need an example of the exact opposite, note comments by another new editor to Sellers, who also had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I chimed in with a link to a similar issue from an earlier discussion. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, also hasn't returned. That's the kind if banning I'm referring to, the psyop kind. Very effective. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that as soon a someone makes a comment you "chime in" with the same old comment that links to one of the pointless threads you implemented during the least enjoyable editing experience I suffered on Wikipedia. As to Wordreader, I agreed with his comment, and less than an hour after he had posted his comment, I edited the article to overcome his issue, and commented appropriately in the talk page. All you did was bitch and moan. Can you not see a) just how annoying and depressing it is for others for you to constantly bitching about the same topic, and b) why this thread has been proposed by a third party with no axe to grind here? As to saying Wordreader hasn't returned because of the comments, I find that so dubious to be laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask him? And that third party proposer, out of the blue, accused me of gaming user ratings, so your editing team wouldn't be too embarrassed, I presume. Oddly, all user ratings disappeared from WP soon after. --Light show (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that the above discussion in the link, whereby I was immediately attacked, took place just a few months after the team began their editing of Sellers. Back then, SchroCat made comments like: Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section and this is now actually smaller than the previous version and a lot tighter than it was: I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before. or . I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers -, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! Within a few weeks, his comments took on a different tone, I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers And a few weeks later, he stopped using "Cheers" to sign off. And Sellers, IMO, is now in the cellar. Cheers.--Light show (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of us who support a ban are more than tired of being served Wikiwatcher/Light show WP:SOUP regardless of the type. This is the Skelton talk page, yet your inane nattering about the Sellers article found its way there. If there wasn't an agenda, this wouldn't have been posted there by you. We hope (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If any neutral editor read those comments, they'd have a hard time calling it anything but totally logical and inherently beneficial to discuss. So I'm glad that was the best you could find.--Light show (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOUP's on again! We hope (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements? Says who? Cassianto^talk 20:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – re-reading the exchanges above, I wonder is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? It looks rather as though this is an interested user flying a flag of convenience (a sock-puppet, I think is the WP term). Is it possible for Elaqueate to identify him/herself as a separate entity, please? – Tim riley talk 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. This: is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? is completely fabricated. What is wrong with you?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a break, then log off and log back in as Light show... Cassianto^talk 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Elaqueate, a user who has been editing here since Aug 2013, is a sock of Light Show. Such an accusation would need significant evidence. Chillum 20:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum: see Elaqueate, that's all you needed to say in response to my first question to you. Now all Elaqueate has to do is show me "the personal attacks" I have made against them and who called him/her shit? Cassianto^talk 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you are interested in that then go to their talk page. This is not the appropriate place for you two to bicker. Chillum 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate inasmuch that it was a question which he/she failed to answer. If he/she had of told me their interest in the case to start with then we wouldn't be here now. Their failure to answer even prompted someone else to ask. My original question was a civil, pertinent and innocent question to ask which was ignored. That is why we are here now. Anyway, moving on... Cassianto^talk 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't want an editor who just accused me of sock puppetry without proof and said But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. anywhere near my talk page. I think I've been pretty patient after being told my true colors are shit brown, but I don't need to deal with more of it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you two go to one of your talk pages or not. Do not engage in back and forth bickering about each other in a topic about another user. The noise being added to this discussion is not helpful. Rule of thumb, if you are talking about someone other than Light Show then you are posting in the wrong place. Chillum 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as Light show, I'm beginning to see why there are only "Supports" here, even though I can see that various editors supported some of Light show's suggestions on the concerned talk pages at times. Whatever Light show's behavior, it seems to have been met with some pretty nasty business in return. I didn't even cast a !vote and I was told to "butt out", asked to identify myself twice, was told my true color is shit brown, and had a sock puppet accusation as a "new user". I wonder how much filth I would have gotten if I'd actually !voted. Something's off here but it looks more entrenched than anything I'd want to spend too much time on. It doesn't look exactly one-sided to someone outside of whatever bubble people are editing in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The real rule of thumb, practiced by the team, is "The best defense is a good offense." Hence, an editor going to ANI about uncivility by a tag team, turns into a proposal to ban the complaining editor. Forget the rampant uncivility. Or when some new editor calmly suggests changes on a Sellers talk page, notice how the new editor is set upon immediately by the team. Very sobering and discouraging stuff. You would have been amazed at seeing how the team jumped on some other editors who were also criticizing Sellers at its peer review. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose. At least on the Peter Sellers Talk page some of the above have presented a caustic environment for those that disagreed with them. I disagreed with some of the above folks and User:Light show disagreed with some of the above folks. I don't think these comments are proper for Talk page use:

• "Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks."

• "And, once again, it's trivial shit by someone who never met of knew either man."

• ""The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. -- Then again, they may not give a toss. Now move along, there is nothing to see here! "

• "These are trolls, pure a simple. Let's stop feeding them."

• "THIS IS NOT OUR FUCKING OPINION, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK! Dr. B has addressed that. Now for gods sake move on!"

Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you "oppose" here based on our comments? Sorry, I thought it was Light show on offer here because of his behaviour? This is not a valid vote as you have missed the point of this proposal entirely. If I remember rightly, you accused the article and us of anti-semitism? Cassianto^talk

There has been some incivility, I don't think anyone supporting this proposal would deny that, but what do you really expect when someone has sustained a 2-year campaign to junk other people's work? The problem isn't really the incivility, that's just a symptom; the problem—and it's a fundamental one—is that you have an editor who is committed to a vastly inferior version of the article and who won't let go. The reason I proposed an article ban (and I did intend for that to include talk page input) is that I simply don't see how to resolve Light year's continued involvement in the article with maintaining its quality. You can see from the tone of this discussion just how much bad blood there is, and if it isn't ended here then it will almost certianly continue back at the article. Do SchroCat and Cassianto have another two years of this haranguing to put up with? What happens if they get so sick of it they withdraw and let Light year do what he wants to the article? The truth is it's a great article and it wouldn't be out of place in a professional encyclopedia, so the community should take action to safeguard articles of that quality. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment

Hello All

I'm a "newbie" so please treat me well. Please excuse typos and bad grammar, formatting etc. I think there are a lot of experienced editors here. Some of you have done some great work and rightly some of your articles have been promoted to FA status.

However, with your experience a little arrogance has crept in, and with that you've forgotten that anyone can edit these articles regardless of experience. This is the golden rule and the overriding principle.

Any disputes are discussed on talk pages. However, I've come across something that is worse than vandalism on these pages.

Some of these articles have over 300 notes and references. A majority of these pointing to a handful of books and their page numbers. But also sophisticated named ref tags as well. Deleting lines also means deleting these named tags. There is a lot of hard work put into them. The people who have created them have read all these books and created these references.

These editors have done some painstaking research. In this pursuit they have become quite experienced and are aware of all the rules and coding. However, this is where the arrogance creeps in, and worse still, they have become "experts". They then start forgetting the Wikipedian principles and become corrupted in their overzealousness.

If you look at my experience, as an example, on the "Peter Sellers" Talk page you can see that a group of editors who have clubbed together and built FAs are commenting. Some of the FAs are very good...and here's the problem....some of them are not.

1. When the editors are challenged and and it becomes one editor vs another "separate" editor and it is merely a difference of opinion. If the "separate editor" stands their ground, another editor from the club steps in and sides with their fellow FA editor.

2. At this points the consensus principle is abused.

3. Here's where the sophistication comes in. A third editor steps in and becomes disparaging and also sides with their fellow FA editor. Opening statements are also confrontational. A distraction to anger/wind-up the "separate" editor from the original argument which gets lost into, and deteriorates, into mudslinging. Since all three club members have the consensus there is no chance for dissent or objectivity on FAs.

This "ganging up" tactic is worse than vandalism. It's perfectly good editors who have become corrupt and forgotten the Wikipedia golden rule is (and in the words of Brian Cohen) is that "we are all individuals". This "gang"/club consensus should be avoided.

Light show is quite passionate and annoying to some of you, but they are on their own fighting their own point of view. They are entitled to be as challenging as they want. You can't shrug the principle because you don't like someone.

If you choose to block this editor from the "Sellers" article, then equally, SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld need to be banned/blocked from this article too. I believe Tim riley is part of the same club as well, and should also be blocked. If there are others, please point them out.

It'll be a painful object lesson for them all, however, they need to realise that "gang mentality" or bullying is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Administrators please investigate this more widely. If there are already existing rules regarding "editor clubs" please make those on this thread aware. If there is not, then I have highlighted a policy problem.

Newcomers to Wikipedia will be put off by this type of hostility. Wikipedia is one of the great achievements of the net neutral internet. Please don't wreck it with bad behaviour and the arrogant assumption that you are the true "experts".

Please note I am not a sock puppet for Light show.

Good luck all and happy editing! MrBalham2 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained to you previously, having people disagree with you isn’t "ganging-up": it's part of the way things are discussed and agreed upon here, and once you have been editing for more than ten days you will come to appreciate that. In other words, people joining in discussions is how we reach a consensus, and is to be encouraged: just because people disagreed with you, does not mean that anyone has been "ganging up" on you. This has all been explained to you before, and you have not taken it on board, just as you did not seem to take on board explanations in the talk page. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not a good way to start your Wiki life, and I sincerely hope that you read and take on board other people's comments, both in talk and forums such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've let it go on on the "Sellers" talk page. Don't worry! That discussion is closed. I'm illustrating your process of consensus here.

I've already highlighted your method and how I think the consensus process can be abused, so have other editors. Administrators can decide on whether that process was fair and whether you and your Wiki colleagues should be blocked from that article. I'm merely highlighting your methods in discussions. I'm entitled give my views and experience of that process. Your tactics are under scrutiny. MrBalham2 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting forward a reasonable opinion on a talk page about edits isn't a "tactic": it's how wiki works, and I am not sure that with your ten-days experience here that you've fully grasped that. Additionally, just because other editors disagree with you, doesn't mean there is anything underhand about it: that's how we build a consensus, and how the consenus changes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm clear about the consensus process. It is you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I hope you concur. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are not clear about consensus on Wiki, given your comments here and at the Sellers talk page, and that you are still in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory here. I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you. As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to get the whole picture. This will include Light show's grievances. Light show has used my case as an illustration on this thread. This includes you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is also under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I'm entitled to express my views. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality check: Earth calling Balham – how would a ban on editing the Peter Sellers article make any difference to an editor (me) whose total contribution to it was correcting three typos in August the year before last? – Tim riley talk 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about! I think you work with the aforementioned Wiki colleague on other FAs. Administrators need to be aware if FAs are becoming "no go" editing areas apart from a select few.i.e. if an FA editor is having difficulty with a another "unfamiliar editor" standing their ground then other Wiki colleagues swoop in to help out by applying a consensus. I think it's a practice that should be stamped out. It goes against Wikipedia principles. MrBalham2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A "no-go" editing area like this edit, which was made and is still present on the page? Or are you just complaining because when you deleted half a paragraph of pertinent information it was reverted? There is absolutely nothing "no go" about editing on the article, as the evidence of one of your extant edits shows. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was content with both edits. Including your reversion. My attempt was to transfer the information to its correct area and reduce a overlong para I accepted your revert. It was when I suggested a reasonable alternative is when the "team" swooped in with the tactics I mentioned earlier. I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues. The Administrators need to be aware that this happens. If there isn't a policy then there should be one to stamp the practice out. Wikipedia is for all (even the one's who make your editing life hell) and not and for a select few "gatekeepers". MrBalham2 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

MrBalham2 wrote (emphasis added): "I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues." Sorry to "swoop in", but this page is on my watchlist, as indeed is "Peter Sellers", and I couldn't help picking up this discussion. So who has told you this "now", and where? Your claim about "common practice" does not seem at all evident to me in this discussion you've had with a third party, where you have been told quite clearly that "you need to be careful about editing featured articles since featured articles are the highest standard of quality there is"; and "The fact that the editors you are in conflict with are all quite experienced. You are free to request a FAR; however, you must be prepared to have a result that you are not quite happy with." Alfietucker (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That has also struck me, and I have asked MrBalham on his talk page about this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the others were implying? The link to the third party discussion is a very good example on how you make new editors feel after such an experience of “being ganged up” on. Yes I am aware of FAR suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. I was made “aware" by reading Light show’s exmaples further up this thread. I didn’t need need to be “told” by anyone.MrBalham2 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of private email! Cassianto^talk 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure MrBalham2 is aware that there are already policies related to tag teams. Luckily, he seems to understand the common sense policies of civility, which is one of the pillars supporting WP, and probably civilization itself. But, like me, is taken aback that that a basic pillar can be ignored and overturned so easily by so many. Hence, the original ANI against two boastfully uncivil editors, even to other editors on this page, is immediately hijacked into a proposal to ban the complainant, who no one has shown to have ever made uncivil comments.

Regarding accusations that I've created a "battlefield atmosphere" on the talk page, I can assure your the exact opposite is the case. A quick example can be seen here, where the alleged team, shortly after coming to the Sellers article begins to demolish it without discussion, attacks every editor commenting, and gains the immediate support of teammates: Local editor being SchroCat. It is he who has single handedly turned this article's fortunes around and made it a serious future contender for FAC for which he should be applauded not villified. Recall that those two editors began their editing blitz on Sellers shortly before, and 5 minutes apart. And of course a quick look at the Sellers talk page over the last few days proves that the battlefield mentality is created against any editors, and by only one group: the team. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Light show. I don't entirely agree with you about the Peter Sellers article but SchroCat is a great editor...although too stubborn for me, Good luck to you both on the outcome. MrBalham2 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no previous experience of the Peter Sellers or related articles. I was on this page because of an unrelated matter. But I think the responses to MrBalham2's politely phrased comment more than adequately illustrate the problems with these editors' attitude and behavior. "I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you", "Reality check: Earth calling Balham", "Ah, the beauty of private email!" Whether or not these editors liked what the editor had to say, these are not reasoned or reasonable responses. Just looking at the current revision of the talk page, I see what I would consider intolerable rudeness to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) by SchroCat, with Cassianto chipping in at the end with "I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter." And the reader is expected to assume the assumption of good faith. SchroCat wrote above, "As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page." Actually, no. The Light show ban is just a sub-section; the thread is about the behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto. (Note: all of this is without prejudice as to the outcome concerning Light show). Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that Norton was edit warring, breaking citations, introducing errors and cutting across cited material by trying to force a citation that didn't support the information he claimed it did. You can ignore the degradation of a quality article if you want, but I'm not sure it's the most sensible approach to article development, do you? – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that some people, including Scolaire, would rather read a shite article which is littered with POV, mistakes, bad prose and dodgy referencing just so long as everyone who contributes are lovely to one another. This, it seems, is more favourable than reading a featured article and having to - although not needing to - read a few "rude and disparaging" comments from those who are protecting the article from slipping into the gutter. In an ideal world everybody would get on famously on featured talk pages, but this is not an ideal world. If it was, I would be shacked up with Jennifer Lawrence! Cassianto^talk 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both for illustrating my point so well. I needn't say more; it would be just gilding the lily. Scolaire (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• How odd: there is nothing illustrated here, except the fact you did not look into the reasons behind the interaction properly, or you would have seen that Norton was warring and ignoring all requests to use the talk page; while he was warring he introduced errors. You still have not answered the question of how you think this is a sensible way to approach article development. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Wouldn't this be an issue to take to WP:DRN? Anyway, it would be good if Light show, and Cassianto and SchroCat, avoid talking to each other in regards to the article anywhere, not just on the article talk page. It may be that Light may have some useful comments, given the above exchanges, and that Cass's and Schro's comments, while justifiably angry because they've worked so hard to get this to Featured status, come out as too harsh. So, I'm not voting either way, but I think a topic ban doesn't resolve many problems if there are some useful suggestions, at least. In fact, an interaction ban would be more appropriate if considered. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding interacting with them as much as possible. My few recent comments on Sellers' talk were to other editors who had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I naturally chimed in to help. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, hasn't returned. And the following talk editor has also left for good. The team should simply be banned from ever interacting with me or discussing me, everything would go fine. I have no desire to talk with them again, ever since I realized I'd been conned:

Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section . . . I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before, or I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! --Light show (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants any more examples of why this proposal has been made, Light show's most recent edit should provide enough reason of what people have had to put up with over the last two years:

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough of this obsession with the Sellers article, with the constant sniping and complaining, and with continuing to spread this nonsense onto the Chaplin and Kubrick talk pages. DRN? I think we're way beyond that with Light show's approach. – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, no DRN then? Maybe an IBAN is better, as described above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat. Then maybe next time an editor goes to ANI about a general issue of uncivility, everywhere, you and your team don't hijack it into a proposal to ban that complainant from so much as talking on Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you say is wrong and a hinderance to the article, so maybe next time you will learn to think before you type. Cassianto^talk 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• For someone who claims never to be uncivil, you do an awful lot of uncivil accusations. There is no "team": there are individual editors who are making their own value judgements. As for something turning back on the complainant, it's called WP:PETARD, and it is the community that is discussing things here in an open forum! no "team" of anyone's. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is not right or fair that editors who come here in good faith to work on this encyclopaedia should have to endure this sort of disruptive treatment, and for as long as as they have had to endure it. If individual editors cannot work on an article collegially then they should not be allowed to work on it at all. Jack1956 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I make 16 supports to 2 oppose a consensus to have Light show switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin etc including talk pages. Are their any admins looking in who can close this pantomime now? Cassianto^talk 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You refer to having User:Light show "switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin". Are you gloating? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that makes you happy to call it that then yes. Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question about speed editing: How does an editor, ie. SchroCat, manage to make 19 fairly complex edits to Sellers over a 1-minute period, which is 3 seconds per edit? When I use the term "blitz," I mean it literally. The three editors in question have somehow managed that feat a number of times. Here's some of SchroCats earliest edits. This is a compilation of those 1-minute changes That miraculous feat was immediately followed by DrBlofeld, who could do about the same number of (not-minor) edits in 1 minute. Not to be left out Cassianto was nearly as fast, doing 13 in 1 minute. Should Cassianto take a speed-typing class to help keep up? --Light show (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• They look like good edits. If made quickly all the better. Chillum 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not getting your point Light show? Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Much though I would like to be able to be that fast, the 17 (not 19) changes were over the course of an hour (16:11 to 17:11), not a minute. The same is true for Cassianto and Blofeld's edits. Whether a minute or an hour, I'm still not sure of either the problem, or the relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I've been used to looking at my clock up top with the seconds on the right. The relevance was that with such rapid-fire editing by three editors, there's less ability for anyone to check things or make corrections. Looking back, with up to hundreds of edits a day, the article was totally changed without little chance for previous editors to comment, proof, check facts, or edit the prose. Your're right, whether it's 19 a minute or 19 edits an hour, makes little difference. This happened on Kubrick recently. My understanding of the guidelines was that incremental editing for such major changes was recommended to allow other editors to review or comment. That opportunity was mostly eliminated. When established primary editors wake up and there's 100's of edits to review, the consensus-based editing system fails.--Light show (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it made featured article seems to indicate that the changes were good. It is good when an article is racially improved over a short period of time, we give out barnstars for that sort of thing. The history is always there so that you can take your time reviewing changes and always find old versions. And yes it makes a very big difference if it is hours or minutes. Chillum 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained in an essay on tag teams, "it's a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." Had the team acted in accord with consensus guidelines, this whole issue would not exist. A good early example of what kind of blitz editing led to this dispute. All very avoidable. --Light show (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When people gang up to improve the encyclopedia it is a good thing. Chillum 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that's an essay, rather than a guideline, let alone a policy, there is no tag team here. Try to WP:AGF and think that perhaps very active editors are working on an article to re-write an essay. That's not tag-teaming or meat-puppetry: that is how articles can be re-developed. They can, of course drift for a few years with no-one attempting to do much, which explains the parlous state in whch the Sellers article was before the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to rub my eyes: Try to WP:AGF. Was that meant as a joke? I couldn't count the times you boldly interjected yourself into talk pages, where I'm talking to another editor, to make comments such as in Chaplin:

More bad faith silliness from LightShow? What a surprise! He's always in a state of shock if someone doesn't cast a celebrity in a glowing light and gloss over everything in a private life! - SchroCat.

I have never accused you and the others of BF. And like your other ABFs, they usually have almost nothing to do with the context of the discussion, but are made simply to PA a GF editor. I can find dozens of times you and the others, who edit and comment exactly alike, have started your responses, to me and others, with the BF label. I've come to ignore them long ago. Sadly, as this ANI implies, so have your 16 supporters. --Light show (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no? Talk:Mike Todd ":No need to ABF by implying hidden agendas. My only agenda is to improve lead images that IMO need improving. That's why I didn't bother changing an image you chose for Red Skelton's lead, even though I also uploaded a different one last year. Yours was fine, even though it was much smaller. Lighten up." And the reply: Mike Todd talk page "If we're going to mix apples and oranges on Todd's talk page, let's set the facts straight re: your claim of not changing the infobox photo at Skelton: (add different image) (The original image is better in quality. Maybe a discussion should be started.) If the number of edits you've made to the Todd article and what they were are BF, then so be it." We hope (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, as I once tried to show, the article before your blitz re-write, went from a reader rating of 3.5 (very good) for "Readability" to 1, (incomprehensibe). And went from "neutral and balanced," to "heavily biased," according to the first 39 people who, amazingly, managed to read through it, and kindly took the time to give their objective opinions. It took me hours to remove the mud and battle scars when I returned after making that simple observation. --Light show (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly Drmies looked at your comment, and then at the article, and wrote of your behaviour that "These allegations, besides ridiculously untrue, are disruptive and I believe they are made in bad faith, a result of sour grapes." Just thought I'd remind you of that further example of WP:PETARD. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Point being? You know that I asked him what "allegations" he was talking about, since I only noted reader's ratings, and neither they nor anyone responded. Although it was just another blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment, so thanks for noting it. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Errrmmm.... Drmies is an experienced and well-respected admin, so I'm not sure I would class their judgement on editor interaction as a "blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment", to be honest! - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you concur with Cassianto's latest expression of civility. De ja vu all over again. WP's pillars are being mocked. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

...again, your point is? Your being your usual, disruptive best on the talk page. Like I say, as long as the edits are constructive, any editor can edit anywhere and at any time they like? It's how the encyclopaedia is built believe it or not. Cassianto^talk 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Light Show has attacked Dr. Blofeld's changes that he has done over at Stanley Kubrick. (Here is Light Show's addition to the talk page today). He is calling Blofeld's 50-odd edits over a 4 month period (in brief bursts) as problematic rapid fire editing and a problem because Blofeld had never edited Kubrick's article before. Clearly part of this same battlefield mentality to try to get their way in the clear face of opposition, maintaining the battlefield mentality. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a better link to the full discussion, as it shows who creates the battlefield and how the pillar of civility is mocked. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been open for 2-3 days now and a clear consensus seems to have emerged it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could close this. Chillum 07:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper spamming livingselfsufficient YouTube channel

So far I've found 98.172.137.172 (talk · contribs), 190.198.148.91 (talk · contribs), User:91.238.146.30, 190.201.131.15 (talk · contribs) and User:190.204.106.127. Whoever it is quickly changes IP addresses. They are spamming [2]. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be addressed with an edit filter? The parameters for the {{youtube}} template used by the IP seem to change all the time, so I wouldn't know how to grab the actual output. Anyhow, we should put the full url on the WP:BLACKLIST. De728631 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment claim by conflict of interest editor

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

---

I reported User:Ruthjhendry at WP:COIN for her repeated attempts to add her name to the article Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) without appropriate references or verification. In her reply, she has made an accusation of harassment:

'I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'

I am elevating this here because of the seriousness of a harassment complaint, which should be investigated. Whilst I am here, I welcome editors to read the posts at WP:COIN. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should never have been raised at WP:COIN (or here for that matter). Ms Hendry saw a list on Wikipedia which she feels that she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and has offered what she considered to be a legitimate means to verify said claim. That such verification doesn't comply with WP:RS requirements doesn't make for a 'conflict of interest' at all - instead it is a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. A little more sympathy for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's bureaucratic labyrinth of policies and guidelines would assist greatly in avoiding such problems in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and I posted to the COIN page about it. 86.158.181.1 is being excessively confrontational. Dangerous Panda (at COIN) also should try to be more understanding if he decides to engage with an issue like this. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason it has been raised here is, despite having the policies explained by multiple users, Miss Hendry has not engaged in discussion and tried to force her edits through [3]. I have taken the time to provide details explanations for her. A conflict of interest is defined at WP:COI as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry's only edits have been problematic edits to include her name on the article that have avoided discussion. I hope you can see why a conflict of interest request was appropriate, considering the lack of discussion elsewhere. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw and commented on this issue at COIN discussion seen in this thread.I agree completely with AndyTheGrump's comment above. This is a legitimate request per our own article on Senior Wrangler. If there is a lack of understanding on how Wikipedia functions we should help and inform, kindly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

The article in question includes an incomplete list of Senior Wranglers. Wishing for the list to be as complete as possible does not constitute a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's objectives. And neither does failing to understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing constitute a conflict of interest. I can see no evidence whatsoever that IP 86.158.181.1 attempted to discuss the matter with Ms Hendry prior to escalating the matter at WP:COIN - and any complaint of a 'lack of discussion' works both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Avenger2015 resubmission

Original ANI report here. Despite a 72 hour block from admin Go Phightins! for failing to adhere to MOS:TV by submitting ponderous Cast lists that duplicated existing content in the article, user Avenger2015 continues to be disruptive.

In these two edits he adds another redundant cast list. In these two edits he continues adding to a duplicate cast list that he started. I think once a reasonable person learns that their duplicate cast list is objectionable, he would think to remove them, but he certainly would not add to them. And in the following four edits, he starts to add a cast list, then removes it, then adds it again, then removes it again. Taunting? ([4][5][6][7]).

Then, he makes 34 consecutive edits adding more cast to yet another duplicate section that he started in June. User has not yet gotten the message, and seems to be deliberately disruptive. Compounding matters, the user has never participated in a discussion, so admin help is needed here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a seven day block might grab their attention, unless, by coincidence, they take an eight day editing break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to dissuade the anti-community behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 604,799 seconds. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for blocking IPUser 213.224.50.154

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

---

After this IPUser received two "last warnings" at his/her userpage lately, today he/she made at least two more edits showing blatant vandalism, more specifically at Thibaut Courtois and Antwerp International School. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Schoolblocked for a week. For future reference, AIV is the correct venue in which to report this sort of thing. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing me. Kareldorado (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Trust Is All You Need and South Yemen

User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need is involved in multiple content disputes over the country article infoboxes. The South Yemen dispute (in which I'm not involved), seems to have got particularly nasty, culminating in:

• 26 Aug Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. (...) Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you.

And that, I think was that, until yesterday:

• This discussion does not make any fucking sense; its just four users who pretend they know something about something they clearly don't know anything about...
• And today wikipedia is not a democracy. Do whatever you want, but you stupid *****hole. Don't vote over nothing; just add the factual inaccurate statement in the article if you're stupid enough (you clearly are)
• [8] "I don't care, rape wikipedia. Go fuck it over. Add misinformation. Add information which doesn't fucking make sense. If you're stupid enough to think "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" is a real term (after living in South Yemen), fine add the fucking terms. I don't give a fuck. [...] But go rape Wikipedia, I don't care if you're stupid enough to add those descriptions [...] Again, go and rape Wikipedia and add inaccurate statement. [...] Go and rape wikipedia."

He has unilaterally closed the relevant talk page thread, struck others comments in the process and added the summary "Do whatever you will fools; add the description you like. Idiots do what idiots do best." He then took to a user's talk page to add the above. Somehow I don't think the current closed diff will be allowed to stand and it will probably escalate.

Pretty straightforward: an admin should probably warn him about egregious personal attacks and striking others comments; and block him if this goes any further. I'm not sure that others have been behaving impeccably (some attempted canvassing) but can't see anyone else there has lost the plot this badly. bridies (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, he obviously needs to calm down and observe consensus. It looks like he's getting parting shots in before he retires. If this continues, he definitely does need to be blocked to prevent further disruption. It's frustrating when you see consensus form around what you believe to be factually incorrect, but that's not a reason to disrupt the project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the 26 Aug diff above he said he was retiring, but then changed his mind [9] [10]. bridies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just remove/revert his disruption. If he continues, he can be blocked. This looks more like an isolated incident of blowing up, I doubt blocking here would prevent anything. Seems he's going to take his own break and hopefully he'll be refreshed when he comes back.--v/r - TP 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

block me. Who gives a shit. They add false information on Wikipedia, and I get blocked. Sounds reasonable. What about blocking me for a day, a week, a month, a year, maybe all eternity? Who gives a fucking rats ass; if the point with WP is that three editors are going to come together and make-up things (and then add on Wikipedia), I should be blocked for all eternity since it doesn't seem like I understood the encyclopaedia's agenda. Block me, who the fuck cares? Not them, of course, since they are adding false information (making up forms of government and so on). Go and fucking block me. I give up, I'm a good editor; but the discussion at Talk:South Yemen is literally making me crazy. If thats the point of WP , I certainly shouldn't participate . If you want to block me, 'block me'. The only winners are those who are misinformed! ... And yes, I'm a drama queen. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In his talk page he said to me: "Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. You're wrong, you're adding info on WP which you think make sense, but doesn't.. Marxist-Leninist state, what? Does a liberal state exist? Nope, Conservative state? Nope, but yes, a Marxist-Leninist state exists. Wow, who would have thought. Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you. Do I sound like an idiot? I don't care, why? I'm retiring (at least a very long "extended vacation")."

But he never took any break, he came back just a few hours later and is now active again.

This user page has been involved in anti-consensus edit warring, including violating 3RR, in multiple articles, to push his POVs. Just check his editor history. In every interaction he has several personal attacks. It is intolerable. Zozs (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since the filing, he has written https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624716502 this] on the ANI and this on the article talk page, and still presumes to carry on non-nuclear arguments on other talk pages. Suggest a temp block. bridies (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have watched some of this from the sidelines and without taking sides, I can see TIAYN's frustration. Clearly, he is here to build an encyclopedia based on his contribution history and from the comments shown above, is vehement in his belief that Wikipedia should contain factual information. That said, ranting and raving at other editors is unacceptable and is not going to solve anything, whatever the motivation. TIAYN please take a wikibreak, a walk, a vacation, paint a masterpiece or anything you like, just please walk away from this for a while. When you come back, act rationally and use the appropriate avenues to raise your concerns.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: OK. --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody close this please? Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No. He's said he's going to leave a thousand times already and then keeps violating guidelines. It means nothing. Zozs (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has violated WP:3RR in the Vietnam article (1, 2, 3, 4) along with other instances, in what was anti-consensus edit warring to push POV against what is standard, with no discussion in talk page. Zozs (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're raising a 2 week old edit war. Blocks are preventative. The question isn't what he did from this point back. It's what he is doing from this point forward and whether there is reason to believe he plans to continue being disruptive. This seems like a case of blowing up. It can happen over more than just an hour and can last for a couple weeks until someone gets their head straight. If he is edit warring now or he continues to be disruptive on talk pages, raise it here. But bringing up a 2 week old edit war is really hurting your case rather than making it. You're essentially saying there is nothing bad going on right now that would earn a block.--v/r - TP 18:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The continued suppression of <censored>

forum shopping. Nothing more to do here --Mdann52talk to me! 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently a topic is suppressed on Wikipedia. The suppression goes against all existing guidelines. A similar incident happened in the past, however it was deemed acceptable because there were no widely circulated reports of the incident. (see: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Wales-Denies-Censoring-Wikipedia-Over-Journalist-Rohdes-Kidnapping-497337/1/ and also http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments and also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059) In this case the deletion/suppression taking place is different, as the information has been widely circulated by highly reputable news sources world wide'. Suppressing an article from being created by locking out potential article names, removing the name from related content, suppressing Afd's and undelete requests, blocking users, and also removing references from articles because the name was used in the the title of the article goes against the all existing policies and guidelines in place about something that is world wide news and widely available and acknowledged world wide. The Oversight Committee has gone and created their own policy, instead of only acting within their established parameters. This erodes trust. Wikipedia needs to update their public guidelines/policies to disclose their position on censorship and that they do indeed censor/suppress based on the rejected principle of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm , or this topic ban/suppression needs to be released. The current topic ban destroys the credibility of the encyclopedia. MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) This is quite outside of AN/I's purview, IMO. You can't just keep forum-shopping a pet concern all over the project and expect favorable feedback. Actions were taken by the oversight team out of concern for a living person, per WP:BLP policy. I'd rather see them err on the side of caution, even over-caution, in situations like this. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy fanaticism by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This crosses several noticeboards (BLP and Edit Warring at least), hence why I'm posting this here. An issue has come to light by this particular User, but one that is repeated quite often on WP by others. That is using BLP policy as a blanket shield to revert endless times any content that they contest under the guise of protecting WP and/or the person the article is about. In this particular instance, the subject is not only upset over the perceived "gutting" of her article, but has since used her radio show and her Facebook page with over 10,000 followers to comment on this User and also to debase and degrade Wikipedia.

The specifics are as follows: Rebecca Bardoux, is a former adult film actress and currently an internet radio show host and a stand-up comedian. In July of last year, content began to be added (the expansion of a stub article) regarding her comedian work [11]. This went through various revisions, had references added, reworked, removed and re-added, but was left in the article until August of this year when the User in question removed it along with its cited reference [12]. It was subsequently re-added by several other Editors and then removed or reverted by this User [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] using various claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional".

Then the subject of the article noticed and commented publicly

It appears that new users where involved as well and my next point might explain why I believe this to be true. In the midst of this "BLP compliance allowed edit warring", the person who is the subject of this article took notice of what was happening to her article and she did not like it. She first commented on it on her Facebook page on August 27th [23](forgive me, I am unsure how to get that exact link, but its there now, just scroll down) and then again on her radio show on August 28th [24] at the 27:40 mark. The subject called for her listeners to go on this site and try to recover her article content which was seemingly attempted. Over these two days, Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways from being called unreliable to being "a bunch of bullshit" and calling Wikipedia Editors a "bunch of vigilantes". The subject even went to so far as to post Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' User name on her Facebook page. Others joined in and tried to update the article with additional sources, but this User just won't have it and continues to revert all of the material that has been recently added along with the associated references, see difs above.

The subject also mentioned on her radio show another adult film actress, Brittany Andrews, that she has similar problems with her article over several years. the other person also commented on the subjects Facebook page. The subject also questioned the legality of preventing accurate information from being posted on Wikipedia and speculated about what legal action would be required to prevent people from deleting accurate information about her.

Was this attention as damaging as this transpiring in a major newspaper or magazine, No, but my point is that a User who routinely uses BLP policy as a catch-all shield has not only obscured accurate information, but has caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and the image of its editors. Regardless of your opinion of the subject or her profession, past or present, what this User is doing is making all of us look bad. For the record, I did notify this User of the consequences of his actions here.

I don't know what corrective action to request, because I don't know how this problem should be addressed. We have Editors who use BLP policy to run roughshod over any article about a living person as they see fit regardless of what happens in the real world and/or seemingly without regard for accurate information that even the subject themselves actually want posted. I have heard about similar instances, but this is the first time I have seen it actually transpire as well as hear in the subject's own words about what they think of how their article is managed by the Wikipedia community. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The basic problem here is that PORNBIO is bullshit and these articles should be deleted, not edit warred over. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but this happens with all types of BLP articles. Another that comes to mind is for Robert Spitzer. This person has gone so far as to comment directly on their article's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those should probably mostly be deleted too. The reason we have all those restrictive BLP policies that screw up the articles' neutrality is our practice of writing BLP's against the subject's wishes. We should instead write them the same way we write other articles, but delete them if the subject asks us to. Anyway, yeah, it does look like HW is being POINTy and should back away. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I can find no evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, or commenting on that article's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, NO! That was NOT the intention or inference AT ALL. I was simply responding to the IP with an example of another BLP article where the had commented on their WP article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If we write only what the subject wants, we are not an encyclopedia. If we delete the article if the subject does not like it, we're no better than their PR shill. The policy of paying any attention to subject requests for deletion is a very dangerous one, and this and similar discussions have shown the dangers. (Yes, I oppose a broad interpretation current policy of doing it for non-famous by admin discretion--admin discretion at BLP is much too variable; the proper interpretation of our policy should permit it only in exceptional cases, where for one reason or another, it is not possible to write a fair article. (I have in fact closed a few AfDs as delete on that basis--my objection is to the overuse.0 DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If a person is notable, we don't delete their article just because they don't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways...being called unreliable" - well, that statement at least is correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think 50.0's main point is right, but his supporting argument is weak. If we had stronger notability standards, instead of standards that let us write articles on very marginally known people, then there would be far less problems with this sort of thing.

Notability should be a more or less iron clad answer to "Why do you have an article about me?" Achievement based SNGs are letting us write articles about people who, for some of them, Wikipedia is the only source of serious biographical coverage. That should not be the case. We should amend the GNG to require solid independent biographical coverage before we can write a biography, or amend all the achievement based SNGs to require biographical coverage (or just repeal all the achievement-based standards).

There are far too many cases of "notable work from non-notable people" that still merit an AfD-proof BLP under our current guidelines, which in turn often leads to marginal violations of our other core policies. Yes, the majority of the cases are benign, but this has become a systemic problem, a real flaw in our network of guidelines and policies that is slowly rotting our core mission. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Simply put, this is a crock.

Scalhotrod has saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he says that "several other Editors" added content to the article. There's no reason to believe this. Beginning on August 28, three SPA accounts -- User:Inyourhead4ever, User: Mosmos69 and User:Spottytina have been tag-team editing Rebecca Bardoux to add promotional content to the article. None of these accounts have edited any other articles. There is no significant variation between their edits. It's more than fair to infer sockpuppetry from this behavior pattern; at best, it's coordinated promotional editing in an attempt to evade WP:BLP standards.

Promotional content

The content involved (which can be seen here [25]) is highly promotional and dreadfully sourced. Using the reference numbers on that page, we have:

• (ref 3) An AVN article describing Bardoux as a "performer-cum-comedienne" and describing the audience as "barely aware" of her efforts at comedy. This is the closest to a reliable, independent source to be found in the disputed material.
• (ref 4) Promotionally phrased text taken from a promotional biography on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 5) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe, not really supporting the claim in the article, and inconsistent with other interviews.
• (ref 6) Grossly promotional text taken from a promotional page on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 7) Promotionally phrased text taken from a blog post promoting an appearance by Bardoux on behalf of the blogger's business. Neither reliable nor independent.
• (ref 8) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe.
• (ref 9) Audio recording of article subject posted under her name to youtube. Not independent, at best.
• (ref 10) Press release hawking future appearances by article subject. Not independent, not reliable, and as a report of future events doesn't support the claim that the appearances actually took place. It's particularly curious that the linked pages for the specific appearances (eg, the "Refried Comedy" page for the gig involved) don't even list Bardoux as a performer.

Extensive copyvios

The same disputed content is laced with obvious cut-and-paste copyvios. For example:

• Paragraph 1, "She broke into hardcore in 1992's 'Brother Act,' and soon was one of the hardest working women in the business" is word-for-word identical to the second sentence in the second paragraph of [26].
• Paragraph 3, "She is best known for her anal scenes that are showcased in many of the over 200 titles in which she performed. One of her most memorable scenes was a threesome with Peter North and Sean Michaels in Sodomania 2" is word-for-word identical to the closing sentences of the first paragraph of [27], except that the original begins "Bardoux is best known".
• Paragraph 4, a lengthy paragraph making up roughly half the body of the article, is cut-and pasted without change from [28].

There are 15 sentences in the article. At least eight of them are cut-and pasted from PR sources, in direct violation of both our BLP and copyright policies.

Scalhotrod's accusations

For all his invective, there's nothing to them. It's important to notice that he makes no claim that any of my edits are not justified by policy. It's even more important to notice that he misrepresents the events involved. Claims about Bardoux's putative standup career have been added to the article without proper sourcing since at least the beginning of this year, and I am neither the only nor even the first to remove them. (I believe the first removal was almost exactly a year ago when an editor using the name "Rbardoux" tried to spamlink her youtube channel and was reverted by a bot.) After multiple attempts to plug her as a stand-up comic without reliable, third-party sourcing were rejected, Bardoux used her Facebook page and podcast to inveigh against Wikipedia and. I guess, The Big Bad Wolfowitz. And then the dispute he describes really broke out.

And, really, who cares? This happens all the time. I don't think a day goes by without an article subject being pissed off that they can't turn "their" Wikipedia article into an advertisement or a promotional soapbox. Their wishes are not indulged. Their off-wiki complaints aren't taken as proof they've been mistreated. There's absolutely no reason to give Ms. Bardoux special treatment here.

So what's the bottom line here? Scalhotrod has repeatedly reinstated obvious, substantial violations of BLP and copyright policies to the Rebecca Bardoux article without any substantive explanation, just his standard "Wolfowitz bad" edit summaries. Removing such violations isn't "fanaticism"; it's applying very basic BLP and copyright policies in a situation where there is no reasonable doubt about their application.

Either Scalhotrod's failure to understand WP:BLP principles is so profound that WP:CIR means he shouldn't be editing BLPs at all, or he hasn't brought this complaint in good faith. As the comments made by User:Spartaz and User:Lightbreather in response to his comments about me here just a few days ago[29] underscore, he applies different standards to those he disagrees with than to himself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course HW, people that act like jerks, get treated like jerks, myself included. When I do something stupid, do I deserve to be scolded for it, of course. But the difference that I perceive between us is that I learn from my mistakes and make the effort to analyze, evolve, and modify my behavior. You... well, IMO you're kind of set in your ways and you're entitled to be that way, but the limits of WP:AGF shouldn't be tested (nor blindly invoked) every time someone wants to be a jerk. For example, Lightbreather and I have had our fair share of disagreements and as you've so keenly mentioned in various places, we've been subject to restrictions as a result. That said, I have learned such a ridiculous amount about the site's inner workings, processes, and procedures because of this interaction that I'll never be able to thank her enough. The most positive thing I have to say about our interactions is that the efforts (regardless of the intention) of yourself with regard to Porn related articles is that their collective quality is probably at an all-time high because so many have been inspired to research and cite sources that either were not cited or that were less than preferred. All we (the Editors who are OK with editing porn related articles) have to do is follow in your wake to see what needs fixing or improving. Thank you HW... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Though I'm not going to actually debate the merits of this case, HW's outright dismissal of any critique is completely anticipated. I brought a similar issue to ANI recently and while nothing happened, I did notice that HW's edit summaries had a lot less BITE to them once I reported. HW's style to other editors tends to always start with a BITE and get worse from there. The only exception is when he's writing to an admin, during which he assumes an obsequious tone so as to not raise attention to his normal communication style. It has inspired an essay I'm working to describe the "Eddie Haskell editor style" where one behaves politely only when the parents are around. All that said, the one thing I will add is that anyone's opinion that some BIOs should be deleted is completely meaningless to this discussion. If he (or anyone else) believes they ought to be deleted, take them to AfD for consensus. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself, because that opinion clouds the real issue here - of whether or not the edits are correct. I'm very thankful that HW spends so much time on PORNBIO pages, as it causes our paths to cross less frequently, as I don't spend any time there at all. Whether HW is gaming the system with all the red-letter fanaticism or not is for someone else to decide. I just know he needs to back off the personal attacks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at the content of the deleted material and I'm not seeing the problem with it. It could stand to be cleaned up for NPOV, but it is sourced. If the reliability of the sources is in question then maybe this should be brought to the RS noticeboard. In short, I see no BLP violations and the content is no more promotional than any information on any bio of a living person. It's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer without talking about their careers and what they do... Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed

Aren't discussions about content disputes supposed to START on the article talk pages? Please read what I wrote[30] on this disputed article's talk page. I suggest this discussion be closed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium raises some larger behavioral issues that might merit discussion here. That said, I don't particularly see this thread resulting in any useful outcome. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium appears to be another user with a grudge against HW and their comment is entirely diff free. That's character assassination not evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Devi ever : fx

I'm having a bit of an issue with a slew of SPA IPs and accounts inserting what I consider to be incorrect and unacceptable material in this little article about a minor company. Further details are on Talk:Devi_ever_:_fx#.22Controversy.22, and I don't wish to repeat myself, but in brief, primary references represented keep getting reinserted into the article, and a manufactured "controversy" keeps getting put in our article, along with information about the former owner--information that, if not an outright BLP violation, is at least deeply problematic. I'd like for an admin or two to assess a. whether these are indeed BLP violations, b. whether the editor (who I believe to be the same as two IPs in the history, and see talk page) needs a warning or stern talking to, and c. whether perhaps the article needs some protection.

As a side note, perhaps editors can see if this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I'm all for supporting small manufacturers of boutique stuff, but this one is really quite minor and the sourcing is, well, meager. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let me add, real brief, that I think there's a COI here as well--related to the company ownership, or perhaps to the botched Kickstarter campaign. Why else these comments on the former owner? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• In the meantime the new account has found the talk page, so the pressure is off a little bit. I'm still interested in opinions, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The company comfortably fails WP:CORP, and a run-of-the-mill kickstarter controversy doesn't make it otherwise. It's neither our job to support small companies nor give a platform for unhappy kickstarter donors. We don't need to dissect which parts of this stuff belong in Wikipedia - none of it does. Off to AfD with it. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devi ever : fx. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism account

User:ZNaseer5's edit history seems to contain only baseless modifications, usually of numbers, without any source or explanation. Please stop them before more damage is done.

Place to report vandalism is thisaway. Amortias (T)(C) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy doxxing

Wikipediocracy doxxed a couple users, including myself (though who I am is no secret) and a minor. REDACTED NAMES PER ADMIN REQUEST. I'm not sure if they're Wikipedia editors, but if they are, their actions are wholly unacceptable. Is there any way to find out if these folks are Wikipedia editors? If so, I'd like to see action taken against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of them are current Wikipedia users. The Wikipediocracy is an external website not under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia in any manner. More often than not though, as in this situation, their editorial 100% nails it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that you've insulted everyone who was editing that article and trying to include information about the issue as misogynists, I'm not terribly surprised you agree with them. But your ill behavior is not at issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that misogynists feel insulted. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, one other thing we have in common is that, unlike the other users involved in the editing of those pages, we both specifically warned @NorthBySouthBaranof: about his/her behavior. Not sure if it is related. Do you know who these people are, North? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would warn you about your behavior in attempting to smear living people on the encyclopedia, but that's already been done numerous times by administrators who have had to repeatedly revision-delete your scurrilous nonsense about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Given your penchant for making unfounded accusations about them, I'm not surprised that you're making unfounded insinuations about me. The answer is no, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation, or at least implication. You are understandably upset about what happened, but maybe step back and think about what you are saying, and reserve your anger for the four individuals at Wikipediocracy, one of whom is already indef blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) who the other three are, but if any of them are still active editors here, I'd support blocks for them. The fact that we cannot regulate what happens at other websites does not mean that we have to put up with the consequences of those happenings, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not upset, more... grimly amused? I mean, I've never been doxxed before. Its like a rite of passage! People really hate me! Rather than the casual hatred they reserved for me in the past. I suppose I am somewhat annoyed at them on the other user's behalf, because, well, I'm an adult and used to such people on the internet, but they're a potentially vulnerable minority minor who now has their picture posted for the world to see in conjunction with their user name and some other personal information which could potentially lead to identification in real life (as opposed to the Internet, though it becomes more and more real every day, I suppose). I apologize for the implication; I just noticed it off-handedly while browsing user talk pages of people who were involved, in case the folk in question were users who had been on the page. Some people list their real life names on their Wikipedia profiles, or link to where they work or whatever. I'm glad to hear you weren't involved, North; thanks for your input, and I'm sorry I came off as accusatory. I have noticed you have been more civil recently, and I appreciate that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On this whole bit, since I am one of the individuals who was supposedly 'doxxed' in this article. It's not all that surprising that people--instead of wishing to conflate or actually dissent with actual arguments, have to refer to finding all the personal information about it. It's a bit weird of an obsession, honestly. I am a real person, you can talk to me, I'm not some robot being inputted some commands by some 'higher up' person, so why wouldn't they fight with an actual idea, a post on my talk page, 'Why did you do X' or 'Y' or 'Z' on this page, and get my real thoughts on it. Instead, they have to use bully tactics, doxxing me and posting information about me. That said, it's obviously more safe for me to not comment about the validity of the information posted, for my safety of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action can be taken here. Wikipedia cannot regulate offwiki attacks, per WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. KonveyorBelt 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can certainly block them here if they aren't already blocked, but unless someone is going to propose a specific on-wiki action, we should close this thread. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I propose that we block the ones who aren't already blocked, and then close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was all the action I could really expect/hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the logic of people who do stuff like this. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. People write My Little Pony fiction? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lots of them. FIMFiction has north of a billion (yes, with a b) words of pony fanfiction on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A link to some explanation of what the hell you all mean by "doxxing" would be helpful for those unfamiliar with this neologism. See Doxing. Otherwise we might assume it was related to "becoming a Doxy:" Floozy, prostitute, mistress. Edison (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't be such a luddite, Edison, with your old-fashioned "dictionary" full of dead, stupid words. Besides, you're wrong: a "doxy" is clearly a more economical version of User:Roxy the dog, with some metathesis or sumpin' thrown in for good measure. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't a doxy a little winged creature that Mrs. Weasley was cleaning out of Sirius' house? Btw, @Tryptofish:, you reverted my attempt to wrap this up nicely, so care to explain what you hope to accomplish by keeping this open? Tarc (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I trust that is no longer a serious question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Why isn't it a serious question? What administrative action are you seeking here? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, it's obvious to me. Take a look at my 23:26 comment. If you wanted to wrap it up, I wonder why you have continued to comment afterwards, and in any case, you were more than a wee bit "involved". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I resemble that remark. -Doxy the rog™ (resonate) 03:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• One of the editors involved in the GamerGate article dispute, Tarc, apparently commented this doxxing article in an edit summary when reverting one of the editors allegedly doxxed: "rv: Good for you to get together some editors who apparently squeezed a non-existent thing out of non-existent sources. It doesn't make t any more real, and it looks like outside eyes are finally getting in on this." I can't interpret that other than an endorsement or approval of the doxxing. Are these kind of shots at the editors mentioned in the article acceptable? --Pudeo' 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure he's just talking about other editors looking at the article; people often refer to getting "other eyes" on stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that Tarc deliberately said (On Wikipediocracy, with the same name) I had fun on Wikipediocracy for awhile pretending to be a black conservative. Can’t really say why or when it started, it just kind of came about during some discussion or other, that it’d be fun to be something else and argue as if that was important. So I rolled with it. “As a black man…” can be quite an argument-buster if wielded correctly.

We can smell our own; Tutelary is complexly, Grade-A full of shit.

As for the rest of the rabble at the Zoe Quinn and related articles, it’s a continuation of the original harassment she endured; the overlap of white, single 18-35 yr olds who are both gamers and Wikipedians is sizable. Since Tarc is a Wikipedia editor, can anything be done about this comment? Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that wasn't someone who used Tarc's name to get him into trouble on Wikipedia? If we rely on Wikipediocracy comments to block Wikipedia users then Reddit comments are grounds for blocking as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone made a point about this by imposing as me on Wikipediocracy and commenting about my blocks, and even calling Drmies a 'nutjob' and such and complaining about an apparent 'feminist dominance' on here. This is growing to be quick harassment, only thing that's missing is the harassing phone calls. Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with the anonymous comment section of a blog; anyone can be anyone, identity is not provable. Perhaps this will be one of those proverbial "teachable moments", and going forward you will be less dismissive of the harassment endured by Quinn, Sarkeesian, et al... Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I call BS. Every intentional violation of BLP is an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Ask around about what Qworty was doing: it was harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence suggests, TD, that you were outed because you attracted attention by behaving badly in public and by leaving a trail which made it easy to tie your behavior, good or bad, into a single identity with a real-world name. That's your fault, and in the real world, pointing over at Wikipediocracy and bellowing "they outed me!" is either a sign that you don't really care that they did that, or an act of colossal stupidity. Either way, the revenge you seek here is a childishness which should be disregarded in favor of a consideration of your sins at the articles in question, where you apparently are pursuing some sort of vendetta. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously blaming him for getting doxed? Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, I am. People who don't act like that don't motivate others to find out why they are acting that way, and those who are so promiscuous with their identity do not find such curiosity so easily satisfied. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting moral quandary, isn't it? On the one hand, WP:OUTING is strongly forbidden by site policy, and it causes people significant distress. Some "outings" appear to have served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy contributors have also successfully identified several cases of serious abuse of Wikipedia, where repellent behavior would have continued indefinitely if not for Wikipediocracy's "outing" (the cases I have in mind are those of Qworty (talk · contribs) and Little green rosetta (talk · contribs), although the latter seems to be active again now with an alternate account). We actually owe Wikipediocracy a debt of gratitude for calling attention to those cases, because these "outings" served a constructive purpose and likely reduced the real-life harm these individuals had caused. So... like most real-life ethical questions, it's not as black-and-white as one would like to believe. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who got doxxed for "behaving badly" by having opinions about BLPs, you can fuck right off with that. The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a response to me (based on the indenting, I'm guessing it's not), but in any case I'd put your "outing" firmly in the category of "served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer." I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. I was torn between just indenting for threading or pinging, but I figured it was less justifiable to "ping" someone and tell them to fuck off than it would be to just say it. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your comments that it isn't always black and white, that is true but in a really unpelasant way. To the person doing the doxxing, it's often completely black and white. Back in the day BLP apostasy was exactly that in the eyes of folks at WR and other places. BLPs were a struggle for the heart of the project and represented a real potential damage to humans based on anonymous work. We can look at them and say that this manichean view was unfounded, but they don't feel that way. The folks at Wikipediocracy are likewise concerned over sexism and harassment getting "justified" in the encyclopedia. Their concern "looks" better to us (after all, the gamer gate stuff is disgusting, but that's a story for another time), so we might be more inclined to view the outing as a necessary journalistic evil. But I don't think we need to dig too far into the piece to see that characterization as strained. The run down on TD from that article is basically "look at this fucking loser", which is par for the course with outing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that nothing besides a lot of talk is going to come of this, but "The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar." I couldn't put it any better than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that none of you are meant to be speechifying in relation to BLPs, either in articles or talkpages, then chilling of such speech would seem to be a good thing and in accordance with this site's principles. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is that-a-way. Doxxing people is not the way to correct BLP problems. In fact, the spirit of WP:BLP is that living persons should be treated with respect, and even Wikipedia editors are living persons. meta:Privacy is another of this site's principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs no one should be engaging in any form of agenda pushing. The talk page of Quinn is an object lesson in agenda pushing, attempts to get inappropriate sources accepted, character assassination, and wearisome arguing. Such speech has, according to the rules, no place here. If no one here will get the house in order and freeze it out don't complain when outside forces do the job for you all. John lilburne (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I was outed for being an admin and having the "wrong" opinion on wikipedia BLP policy and expressing that opinion in RfCs and on project talk pages. Not discussing subjects or whatever else. My point above was about the entirely bullshit notion that getting doxxed by some random person with an axe to grind is karmic punishment for "bad" behavior. If it is, it is only so accidentally. The main function is to make the outed person look small and feel vulnerable. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act. It sounds like your situation was done to you out of vengefulness and spite, which isn't cool at all, and I sympathize if you were doing something good here. There are other situations, e.g. Qworty, where the revelation of an editor's identity was a good thing, as it unmasked some rather nefarious deeds. The right to privacy here isn't quite the same as a right to anonymity. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

>Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act.

It kind of is. If you have a specific criticism on someone, make that criticism. But doxxing is dumping a huge amount of info for the purposes of humiliation or intimidation. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it kind of isn't. Per my example above, Qworty was rightly shamed and driven from the project. That was about a textbook example of "good doxxing" as one can find. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is my contention that anyone editing BLP content ought not to be anonymous, that at the very least they should have there contact details held on file by the WMF I'm hardly going to be sympathetic about the doxxing of an admin. Sometimes it might be karmic punishment, sometimes revenge, sometimes simply for the LOLZ, it makes no difference. People put controversial things online under their own name all the time without any ill consequences. You deal with any harassment as it happens and the WMF should protect those that are targeted, but having the RL identity of a WP administrator or participant in BLPs isn't harrassment. You are relying on security by obscurity, that is really the wrong way of doing it. Al most all of you can be doxxed by a determined set of people. John lilburne (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mangoe:: The real concern with it is A) it is against the rules, B) chilling effects, and C) that they doxxed someone else who, according to them, was underaged and (possibly) transgendered. As I noted, I don't actually care that they doxxed me in the abstract, but if they were Wikipedia users who were engaging in conversation with me on the article (they weren't) and they wrote an outside hit piece on me, that would obviously be an issue, no? Especially if they were willing to do it against people who, you know, did care. The allegations in the article were false in any event; indeed, it was noted that several of the revdels were done in error, because they were, in fact, sourced and thus probably weren't necessary. A couple of them were probably necessary, but they were not done maliciously, and we discussed it on the talk page. The rest of their accusations were... what, exactly? That I was fat and jealous of Zoe Quinn, despite not even working on video game development? Given that the discussions can be seen over on the talk pages for Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, you should really look there to see whether they're, well, just plain old wrong. As they are. They're angry more or less because their POV is that it is all sexist misogyny; they are fanatics. The reality is that the reliable sources paint a much more complicated picture, with claims of misogyny being only one side of the story - the other side being that it is about something else. Actually, it is really about five or six different stories at this point, because the reality is that more or less Zoe Quinn was the ignition point for a lot of pre-existing conflicts in the gaming community, regarding corruption, nepotism, misogyny, the so-called "social justice warriors", insulting gamers, general toxicity of the community, and several other things. It is kind of stupid. But, well, I edit stuff about current events sometimes. It just so happens that this is a particularly dumb one which ended up becoming huge thanks to early attempts at censorship causing the Streisand Effect. At this point, it is being noted by the Taiwanese press as being worrisome because they're afraid that if people don't make nice by the holiday season, it might negatively affect console sales because people will see the nastiness and choose not to buy consoles (whose components are sourced in Taiwan), and instead buy tablets (which are mostly made in China). All this, over a dumb fight on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipediocracy blog piece that gave rise to this ANI thread. I'm no fan of insults to women's dignity, and I think that a lot of what is in the piece does a positive service (as indeed many of the blog pieces there do, in my opinion, because anything as big as Wikipedia can do with some skeptical watching). However, I think a useful thought experiment is to read the piece while mentally deleting all of the actual naming of editors. Go ahead, say someone is such-and-such years old, and they previously claimed to be such-and-such a gender, and so forth – but just leave out the personally identifying information. In terms of investigative journalism, the beneficial effect would have been exactly the same. But the addition of actually identifying private individuals (I wonder if someone could sue Wikipediocracy for defamation?) just makes it look like 4chan. Maybe the people at Wikipediocracy think that they are big impressive defenders of integrity who put Wikipedia's house in order, but to me the naming just makes them look like a couple of teenage bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole conversation almost makes me glad I didn't know better than to use my real name when registered 8 years ago, instead of User:MsSmartyPants or something appropriate. Of course it also makes me wonder what to do when such information is revealed and an editor is being disruptive or POV pushing to the max. I guess nothing, except some how or other let them know that you know? Hmmmmm... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo?

Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp on...you have it wrong. "outside eyes are finally getting in on this" referred to other Wikipedians who had never been a part of older discussions at 2014 Isla Vista killings, not anyone off-site. It has nothing to do with "doxxing", and doesn't even have a connection to the Gamergate stuff we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Titanium Dragon already corrected me on that. And heh, don't be so confused if "unknown" editors comment here - that's the reason why issues are posted to ANI in the first place. --Pudeo' 14:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A question

If such an issue reveals that a Wikipedia user, through looking at their contributions to an external site, has a conflict of interest or other viewpoint that makes them incompatible with editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that sufficient reason to take action here? I'm not entirely sure if this has occurred before, but I'm sure it probably has. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

you're not sure but you're sure? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Typing at the same time as being harassed by daughter#1 to help with her Maths homework. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to ping/link and dredge up old drama, but yea, a year or so ago, Arbcom banned a user for edits made to Encyclopedia Dramatica regarding another Wikipedian. BTW, file an ANI on your kid for harassment, they'll send her to bed without supper. (in case there'a any confusion, yes, that is a joke) Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, a user was indef blocked for canvassing on the men's rights site antimisandry.com and for using WP:Socks. The SPI was inconclusive but the off-wiki canvassing was too obvious to ignore. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Much as this sort of thing makes me uncomfortable, if the allegations that certain editors are pursuing an agenda against a BLP subject are true (I haven't evaluated the allegations beyond skimming the WO blog post), then I would say we most certainly should take action here. Most of us are here to build a neutral reference work. We get very hot under the collar about "paid editing" or "paid advocacy" but the corporate spammers are usually quite easy to spot and block. It seems to me that we should get much hotter under the collar about subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality, especially when it is directed at subjects who are real people whose lives and personal and professional reputations could be affected by a slanted Wikipedia article. Or do we have to wait for another Seigenthaler incident and a knee-jerk reaction to adverse publicity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While that sounds wonderful, if we really go after all the subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality in addition to the more obvious examples then there will be few editors left to contribute to this site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a start to restrict BLP editing to editors who have demonstrated that they can edit biographies responsibly. (This could be a separate user right.) As it is, Wikipedia is throwing BLPs to the vultures to pick and fight over. Andreas JN466 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we take a binding vote on this right now? Also, could WP administrators please start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy? In my eight years here I don't think I've ever seen ad admin step up and openly enforce that policy. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, could that BLP user right be proposed somewhere? We could extend it to all BLPs (though it would stop mistakes from being fixed, including by the subject), or use it as a new layer of protection for any BLP deemed problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Found your proposal on the mailing list, March 2011. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You can get in trouble for your behavior off-site, and I think that's absolutely okay. And if you admit to being paid or whatever to edit articles, or otherwise engaging in behavior against the rules, using off-site posting as evidence is perfectly acceptable. That being said, we should not be barring people from articles simply because they have some sort of point of view; editors are allowed to have points of view. You have points of view, I have points of view, we all have points of view. That's fine. What is a problem is when it affects Wikipedia. The reality is that the people most likely to edit articles are people who are most interested in them, which is going to inevitably and invariably mean that they have a point of view on them. The problem comes when they're unable to act as responsible editors of Wikipedia. As long as they are WP:CIVIL, maintain a WP:NPOV in the articles (remember, editors can have points of view, but articles cannot), and otherwise behave within the rules, there's no reason to ban them. In any case, it would benefit people for making false aliases for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia to make it impossible to trace back their opinions and thus result in such bans, which is highly undesirable - having traceability is both useful and worthwhile. Frankly, if you conduct yourself poorly on Wikipedia and you have an obvious point of view, we can deal with it easily enough - and indeed, more easily than if we institute such a thing.

It also would encourage people to write attack pieces like this if they were "rewarded" by getting revenge on people they didn't like, which would be extremely bad. You don't want to encourage negative behavior.

The fact that Tarc commented on that article approvingly, for instance, should not be grounds for banning him from editing those articles - but repeatedly calling people misogynists on the talk page and elsewhere would warrant action, because at that point, he'd be breaking actual rules (namely, against civility on Wikipedia). I don't care if he is pro-social justice, and neither should anyone else; the problem comes when it results in edit wars, incivility, excessive POV pushing, ect. which are all actions on Wikipedia.

We have rules against outing people and suchlike for a reason, and we definitely should not encourage people to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When editors actively push an agenda that could reasonably be construed as misogynistic, in tone or intent, said editors do not get to hide behind civility shields, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's agenda, WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars and those who violate it are violating policy, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What if an editor admits to hacking into others computers? I'd be wary opening links posted by an editor like that, I think it puts other Wikipedia editors at risk --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, if that were true, the likes of Eric Corbett would've been sitebanned 5+ years ago. The civility pillar is given lip service, at most. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

I'm asking for help with Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. While there is some sniping back and forth, I think we can get around that. What I can't abide is being called a troll. I have asked him to take his trolling accusations to my user talk page, and he's not done so -- he's just continued on the article talk page.

I am not asking for any sanctions against Wdford. I'm only asking for administrator intervention, to prevent the situation from getting worse. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC? and while you are correct that people should not call each other trolls, nevertheless it would be accurate to describe your contributions there as indistinguishable from trolling. It's way-over-the-top for me to complain about that single section—the problem is the overall hammering of the issue with no discernible attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion. Fundamentally you are correct that "The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus", but you need to say that in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you just called me a troll. Nice. Here's a suggestion: Instead of calling me a troll, try telling me exactly what I'm doing that's "troll-like" (since I can't read your mind.)

You say no discernable attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion? You want me to say things in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion? Great. Here are some links to discussions I've started: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Feel free to review these, and tell me where I've *not* attempted to engage in reaching a conclusion, or said things in a way that doesn't further discussion?

Oh, and are you going to address the issue I actually came for? Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who came in late, the article in question has been subjected to a long-winded struggle over (a) what exactly the subject of the article is, and (b) whether various high profile people in the field (e.g. Bart Ehrman) can be disregarded when they state that the majority opinion is that there was a real Jesus, whatever else could be said about him. FoR's participation in this has been frustrating to a lot of people, and it times (in my opinion) has employed a style of arguing which could be interpreted as deliberately obstructive. Wdford's outbursts are a measure of his frustration at this; he of course should stop, but the FoR and the various detractors of the previous state of the article need to cut to the chase and not bury the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this incident is a fine example of how ANI is screwed up. I came here with a simple, distinct and clear cut problem, looking for help to work it out. The two admins who have responded so far have done more to complicate the issue than to clarify it. (Here's a video of a group of WP Admins discussing an ANI incident: [39])

This ANI issue is very simple. All you need do to resolve it is say this simple statement to Wdford: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." If that's too much, you can just point Wdford to WP:ASPERSIONS, where it says just that. Do that simple thing, and the incident is closed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI no admins have responded, just myself and Mangoe. Reacting to the most recent inappropriate comment on a talk page is rarely useful—some consideration of the underlying issue is required, and that's what my first comment addressed. Please do not use article talk pages to frustrate other editors with very civil but unhelpful commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'd come here looking for administrator help, and you decided to pop in and call me a troll? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, as well as on the article talk page, is that you are engaging in a battle rather than engaging with the underlying issues. Use of very civil language does not change that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What underlying issues are you speaking of (here and on the article talk page)? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See my first comment including "you need to say that in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion". I have tried to dip into the talk page a couple of times to see what the fuss is about, but it's too hard to work out (or I've missed the place where someone has stated the issue without editorial commentary). For example, I have no idea what it is that you want from that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll note, FoR, that when you open an ANI thread, there is nothing that says anyone must stick to the original request only. Your behavior becomes subject to scrutiny and review just as much as those you are reporting; there's a reason WP:BOOMERANG exists. (Indeed, it's virtually a rule of thumb that the more an ANI poster tries to say 'stay on topic, why are you paying attention to me', the more likely it is that there's a reason they don't want their behavior scrutinized). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not a service desk where you come to get other users warned/blocked/banned; it's a place where incidents are looked into and people try to sort them out, inasmuch as admin tools can help to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Noticeboards#Administration says that ANI is "for reporting incidents requiring immediate attention by administrators."

GoldenRing, I have looked on WP:List of administrators, and you are apparently not an administrator. Nor are Johnuniq, or Mangoe. Not to be impolite, but since I made it very clear that I was looking for administrator help, why are you involving yourself? You have no knowledge of the Historicity of Jesus page (including it's long existing problems.) You have no authority or responsibility to deal with the issue I've reported. And your comment here was neither particularly enlightening, nor did it help bring this incident any closer to a resolution.

Bushranger: I came here to report an incident and get help from an administrator. Thankfully, you are actually an administrator.

If you want to examine my conduct, feel free. I've made 51 edits to the article, and 191 posts on the talk page. The archives containing my talk page posts comprise 138,000 words - which happens to be the same number of words as in the New Testament. If you'd like, I'll post a notice on the talk pages of a dozen or so other users who might have complaints about me, and invite them here. I'd actually like to hear what they have to say. But when we get all done with that, possibly we can get back to the reason I am here:

• Here's the incident link: [40]. Just look for the word “troll.”
• Here's my complaint: I asked Wdford to take his trolling accusations to my talk page. He called my request “more trolling.” I've had previous problems with him, including false narratives, policy misuse, and incivility, but am only addressing this last incident here.
• Wdford is a very experienced editor, who is well aware of WP policies and guidelines. He is always careful to stop short of blockable or sanctionable behaviour.
• Wdford does not respond well to polite warnings or reminders of WP policies or guidelines unless they come from someone he respects. e.g., an administrator.
• The action I am requesting is a reminder to Wdford, from an administrator, that he should not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence... and if accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Just as WP:ASPERSIONS says.
• Finally, if you want to examine the question of whether I was actually trolling or not, I'd suggest asking Wdford, as he's the one that accused me of it (whatever he meant.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fine, but do you agree that if you participate in a discussion that you will engage with the issues raised in a manner that has a hope of furthering the discussion? For example, at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC, your first comment is "What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know." and that kind of comment serves only to derail discussion and ensure that everyone is on edge and ready to argue over anything except the text in the article. Wdford then suggested "...you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated...". Your reply was an in-your-face and unhelpful mini-rant. After that, Wdford responds "This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll." What Wdford said was perfectly correct. Collaboration requires more than avoiding naughty words. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq - You're asking "do you agree that if you participate in a discussion that you will engage with the issues raised in a manner that has a hope of furthering the discussion?" That's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question, and I'm not going to dignify it with an answer. My contributions stand on their own.

I'm not going to create a wall of text here, just to answer your accusations. If any administrators want me to provide a detailed response to what you've presented, I will. But otherwise, either raise actual violations of WP:Policy, along with real evidence, or please drop it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri

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

---

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked for sockpuppeteering and one of his other accounts had also been blocked for edit warring. Now he's using a new account User:Lebanesetruth to make the same edits, by removing sourced content from an article and adding hagiographic material. He should be blocked indefinitely to avoid disrupting further.

Callsfortruth (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked once for sockpuppeteering, then he came up with User:Lebanesetruth which was blocked. Yet User:Talal.talal1 was not blocked again for his repeated violations. Now, User:Philanthropist1001 is making the same edits on the same article. I wish some admin other than User:Mr. Stradivarius could involve himself in this case, because Mr. Stradivarius' edits have been very dubious since he began involving himself in this case. Callsfortruth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing User:Mr. Stradivarius of doing? And you mean Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just coming here to make a post of my own when I saw this section. Let me give some background. The Nabih Berri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was protected on 25 August due to edit warring, and I have been watching the article since 30 August when I answered a protected edit request left on the talk page. I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talal.talal1 had not been processed, so I blocked some of the accounts involved, and I also removed unsourced/poorly sourced material from the "Wikileaks diplomatic cables" and "Corruption" sections to try to bring them in line with WP:BLP. There is some discussion about my edits at Talk:Nabih Berri#WikiLeaks and the corruption section. The protection expired today, and the edit war broke out again. Rather than fully protecting the article, I semi-protected it indefinitely and blocked User:Lebanesetruth, as the account looked suspiciously like a sleeper sockpuppet of Talal.talal1. I didn't block Talal.talal1 again though, as their previous sockpuppetry block expired yesterday, before Lebanesetruth's most recent edits. I chose to make the protection indefinite because there have been BLP problems with the article going back to 2008 - for those with access, there are more details in the OTRS ticket at otrs:2008092910055062. After reflecting on my actions at the article today, I think it would have probably been better to bring the matter up here sooner rather than going ahead with the blocks and protections, as it has become a little messy. I'd appreciate it if people could look into my actions here, particularly:

1. Whether the indefinite block of Lebanesetruth was justified.
2. If Lebanesetruth's block was justified, whether Talal.talal1 should be blocked too.
3. What should be done about the page protection. And,
4. Whether my admin actions violated WP:INVOLVED, or whether they were consistent with WP:BLPREMOVE.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Materialscientist has answered my questions one and two by processing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebanesetruth and indefinitely blocking User:Talal.talal1 and User:Philanthropist 1001. (@Materialscientist: thanks for looking into this.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is an established target of a well-paid Beirut-based PR firm (not to mention party members), so it would be better if a number/committee of admins tried to mediate and establish consensus as to what the content of the article should be, rather than someone who, from the start, has been suspiciously removing copious amounts of sourced material and replacing them with unreferenced, poorly-written hagiography. Callsfortruth (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that this morning Painting101 (talk · contribs) arrives, gets autoconfirmed in less than 2 hours and edits this article. Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs) also doing the same edits is a WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted before, the sockpuppeteer User:Talal.talal1 has returned as User:Painting101 to vandalize the article Nabih Berri once again by removing large amounts of sourced material, moments after being indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I suggest that the article be fully protected, and that any such edits be reverted, as this has been established to be the effort of a PR agency meaning to "clean up" the article before parliamentary elections later this year. Callsfortruth (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Vandalism at a Turkish Topic

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

---

Hello,

I see a page on Turkish Wikipedia its about Gospel of Barnabas but fully islamic sided and not trust sourced. Writer believe its lost bible of allah and its original bible, all article insulting christians. He resourced from not academical book and a Turkish news paper. Then i translated from English Gospel of Barnabas wikipedia topic and i added with university resources. Administrator Kibele returned sided topic again. After that i reported to Turkish admins they banned me. They are muslim and they are creating not sourced islamic views Turkish topics. Please help! --Bilnur (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that there is nothing administrators on English Wikipedia can do to address issues on other language Wikis.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP and WP:DUCK sock of blocked editor at Zoroaster

Resolved

 – Sock master and puppets all blocked, page semi-protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday for breaking 3RR. This morning Zostrianos007 (talk · contribs) arrives to restore Sabazius01's deleted edit. That's reverted and along comes 107.219.7.8 (talk · contribs) to restore it again. I'm involved but could someone please block the sock and IP and also do something about the puppetmaster, who doesn't seem interested in discussion. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming annoying. He just used another IP to revert [41] . Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Dealt with by Yunshui and I. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I hadn't noticed was Sabazius01's unblock request said "Futile attempts to block my sociohistorical relevant contributions are fueled by a Zionist who makes claims to be neutral. Moreover, this individual and his following should be aware that I will not allow such bias to have authority over the page in mention.Sabazius01 (talk) 10:20 am, Today (UTC+1)" Is it my imagination or is "Zionist" a code word for Jew? Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" term has been abused a lot, people often use this term where it is not needed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" is a codeword for Jew. It basically means pro-Israeli. Its use permits the person using it to appear not to be attacking a religion or people, only a foreign policy, and therefore not be seen as a bigot. To put this in Wikipedia context, it appears that the edit warrior is saying that he is here to right great wrongs, and so 3RR, the rule against sockpuppetry, and other rules should not apply. Maybe he should start a blog, where those rules won't apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you Robert, you put that very well. If no one indefinitely blocks him now I'm sure he will make sure it happens when he edits again. I'm obviously involved. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User worth a look

Abdurrahman Muslim (talk · contribs) has made a number of rather contentious edits, might be worth admins keeping an eye on. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• User now notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour such as (by implication) calling many editors "heathens, sinners and the fallen" in a "cesspool of filth", demanding that the women of Brighton and Hove be described as immoral in an article, and saying that certain people did the work of the devil in an article, suggest a lack of understanding that must be remedied, if possible... BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is right. Hangs out on talk pages to lecture people about his view of proper morality. Dougweller's given him the proper warning and if he doesn't heed it he should be indeffed unceremoniously. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You all fell for that trolling? I have no doubt that this was an impersonator making fun of Islam--and of some of us. Then again, "In this world of heathens, sinners and the fallen it is inspiring to find the occasional beacon of light in an otherwise benighted cesspool of filth"--that must be nice to hear, right Sjö? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I always like to give editors the benefit of the doubt. Or enough rope to hang themselves with. In any case, good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Being bullied and Ninja Tactics

Greetings , i try to abide by wikipedia rules to the maximum , and i believe i do so 100 % . So i woud like to report that 2 experienced users are bullying me ( Alexikoua and DR.K ) and are in fact not abiding by the wiki rules by applying ninja tactics.

I am refering to this > 3RR warning

I have not reverted anything more than twice . And his 3RR is coming because i am restoring a removal of multi sourced content of another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history , a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:REMOVAL .

Given their experience , one would assume that they would be the first one to have a civil and pleasant collaboration with other editors . So i am forced to report this because i do not want to be reported or something .

Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Are you sure about your revert count? I just looked at the history of Albania, and I count at least four reverts by you this afternoon (diffs: [42] [43] [44] [45]). —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually now they are 3 . But as you can see his 3RR warning when i had only 2 reverts . Please do see the matter thoroughly , 2 users are removing in collaboration multi sourced content because of WPidontlikeit . The other revert was adding a source , and a citation needed tag , irrelevant to the revert that i am talking about . Greetings , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjirokastra15 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: I'm not seeing anything to convince me that you or they are editing in bad faith. Thus, your edits do not fall under any of the exceptions to WP:3RR, and you did commit three reverts before the warning message was left. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the report at 3RRN regarding this user. He keeps inserting unsourced OR at Albania and does not respond in a substantive manner at the talkpage, arguing with personal attacks but without providing any proof that the sources support the OR he is edit-warring about. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 very easy way to prove that DR.K is lying , is to find a single word where i am insulting in the slightest form any of the involved parties . You will however find more than 2 sentences by Dr.K that he is implying that i do not have the required IQ for checking sources .... while i just asked that the sources to be put where the citation needed tags are needed . It is all there ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear more about these ninja tactics. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So Fred removing multi sourced ( 5 sources ) sentence is not reverting in bad faith ? I am not objecting your judgement , i am just trying to make sure that you have seen their revert .

They have removed this : Large parts of Albanians, similarly fear irredentist claims on northern Epirus following Albanians changing their nationality to Greek due to monetary and other benefits.

Regards ,Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps Gamaliel . If i am mistaken however , i apologize . I just ask that the sourced content to remain , because no one has removed any sourced sentence that they have written no matter how ridiculous some of their claims sometimes might be .

Alexikoua Revert n1 Alexikoua revert n2 Dr.K supporting alexikouas revert Dr.K issuing a 3RR warning when i had made only 2 reverts and it had nothing to do with him up until that moment

This was my case , i hope i did not use too much of your time . Thank you , and regards Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although this sentence and the sources have been splattered at ANI by Gjirokastra15, it may yet serve some useful purpose if other editors can verify that none of the sources support the sentence. Apparently Gjirokastra15 cannot understand this simple fact and is edit-warring to keep the sentence at the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is this: every editor agreed to edit according to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. Every single one. One of the best essays regarding that is WP:BRD which says, be bold, if it's reverted, then discuss. That's how to get consensus. Nobody gets to keep reverting for ANY reason (except for minor exceptions, none of which count here). Articles change; some sources are found to be non-reliable, and other situations occur that could result in what appears to be sourced-edits to be removed. That's where the discuss on the talkpage until you gain consensus happens. Nobody is entitled to 2 reverts...you can be blocked for edit-warring at 2. the panda ₯’ 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly now . I will be more cautious towards these kind of matters . Any decision here , will be totally respected by me and no further edit will be made regarding that article . I apologize for my inexperienced approach albeit i felt a bit bullied ( maybe my mistake ) . As i said any ruling will be more than respected by me , be that even a blocking of my account ( which i hope not lol ) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting new editors

CONFIQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently blocked a new account because of the involvement of the account in an edit war. The details can be seen on the user's talk page (link). I wish to end my involvement in the incident, so I would like other administrators to look at the incident and decide whether CONFIQ should be admonished for "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there was no intention nor invitation to influence anything. The question on he:wiki was more about consulting of political policy in wikipedia and link was given as example. I might made a mistake by asking that question in he:wikipedia and not in english but only reason for that is because he:wiki is more organized and easier to understand. This is not my official statement about this issue, if needed I'll collaborate more --CONFIQ (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

SLBedit edit warring - block necessary?

User:SLBedit is vandalising and trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page, It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. He claims that most of my edits were useless which isn't the case because edits are clear improvements based on other higher-rated football club pages, the Benfica page needed alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page.

He has previous edits warning from other incidents so I'm not the only one with an issue with him. What can be done, can someone help please?

I have stopped undoing his edits to decrease the tension. He has been reverting edits of other people also. Look at his history, and his talk page. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He delete a warning that I put on this page so make himself look better because he already has a few others, I have just put a second warning on this page. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 213.133.205.35 is vandalising and trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page and it's not the first time. It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. Most of his edits are not useful as it removes information, changes the whole layout. The Benfica article needs alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page, more than IP 213.133.205.35. IP 213.133.205.35 has been doing this with other IP addresses. What can be done, can someone help please?

IP 213.133.205.35 has been reverting all my edits, as well other IP addresses that troll the page from time to time. Look at his IP history and his contributions. SLBedit (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at how many times the page has been locked because of IP vandals like him! SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I think the goal of most IPs that edit the article is to lock it. SLBedit (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who started the reverting of edits not me, and I am not a troll or IP vandal. Also if someone where to look at your talk page they would see other complains from different users. Anyways, lets edit this, its pointless, we both are trying to make positive contribution to the page, we just seem to have a disarrangement to how to do it. I will make an account so I don't use my IP which seems to make me look like im trolling though I'm not. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica

S.L. Benfica has been locked 9 times. Most of the blocks resulted in IP vandalism or edit warring. Those IPs were reported, some requests were accepted, others declined. The problem is that the article continues to be a target of vandals and trolls, mostly IPs. What can be done? SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also a horrific target for block-evading sockpuppets (especially those of User:Fixed4u) and those with conflict of interest the panda ₯’ 08:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This dispute was also reported at WP:AN3. Due to my impression that this is an IP-hopping edit war I've semiprotected S. L. Benfica and warned User:SLBedit for edit warring per a complaint there. The most recent IP editor has offered to create an account. That sounds like a good idea. I have no opinion on who is more likely to be right about the underlying dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy, coverup...and frustration that editors keep deleting it

Hi there. User talk:Scotthoughauthor seems to be using Wikipedia to promote a personal theory about what that editor feels is a wrongful death/conspiracy/cover up...you know. The editor has been adding this theory to the Kirkland Lake article [46], and defending it to the point of edit waring [47]. The editor's frustration with Wikipedia is the same as their frustration with the mainstream media; that they are not paying any attention this obvious cover-up. Please have a look at their contributions. This seems like destructive editing, and I'm waiting for some innocent people to be named. Thanks for looking into this editor's conduct. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Although it appears that they're not as interested in improving the encyclopedia as in pursuing a personal crusade, I've left a warning about BLP, which they've clearly violated by posting accusations of complicity in a death. I suspect a block is in their future, though it looks like they might have departed for more fruitful places to post exposés. I've redacted some of the obvious BLP violations, but much of what they've posted at the Teahouse has hundreds of intervening edits and isn't easily removed. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Need semi protection removed on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

• Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can see no valid reason to lock out IP editors on: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Thanks. 64.21.211.131 (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:RFUP and asked David Levy about the protection? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The protection was from The Anome [48], it just got pulled in when David Levy moved the page (it's had a few moves recently). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I got no idea about all the crazy process stuff. I just edit here and there and wanted to fix some stuff but el-lock-e-rooni. 64.21.211.131 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected twice since mid-August for excessive vandalism. You could wait until 12 September for the semiprotection to expire, or you could use {{edit semiprotected}} on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian, again

Evidently sparked by some YouTube video, disruptive editors are trying to remove[49][50][51] an academic journal as a source from the Anita Sarkeesian article. See also this comment. Semi-protection keeps anons and new accounts from disrupting the article, but JJAB91 is evidently a confirmed account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is time to impose discretionary sanctions of some kind. The comment in the last diff above is "Hi! Just wanted to say, I hope it's well worth your time keeping criticism off Anita's page, because it's coming whether you like it or not. It is out there, it's not being given attention, and we will not give up until it does. What's the point of what you're doing? Are you going to keep this up forever? Who's paying you?". It is not reasonable to ask a couple of volunteers to cope unassisted with the massive misuse of Wikipedia that many want. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How about putting flagged revisions on that article? Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good idea - endorsed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Two questions. (1) Who is Carpenter, and why do we care about his perspective? If he warrants an appearance by name and a quote, we ought to explain why he's relevant; nuclear physicists and historians of Late Antiquity are also scholars, but we wouldn't pay attention to their comments on Sarkeesian. (2) Why do you say that it's sparked by a YouTube video? I've never heard of this woman before, so maybe it's an obvious answer to someone familiar with her. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll answer 2 for you: She is a noted pro-feminist in video game circles who has a series "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" (ETA: The YouTube video series in question) that points out some of her opinions with how games unfairly treat women (She and her series are notable per WP:N, as many game journalists and developers respect her observations). She is very outspoken in this and her opinions, as such , this series has drawn ire from the "broad" class of gamers to the point that she has been given death threats for speaking her opinion. She is also currently now a side of the GamerGate situation for similar reasons. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Understood; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Actually, when the OP says a video "sparked" the edits: a Youtube video specifically called out a part of the article for removal (and it was subsequently removed in the diffs from the OP); that's the central point of the discussion at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Batting_against_.2Aexpunged.2A.27s_most_recent_video -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I support flagged revisions on Antia's article, just to cut down edit warring. I'd also suggest the same at Zoe Quinn and, once it's unprotected and assuming it is kept from its present AFD, GamerGate. All three of these are articles that, because their topics involve opinions from sites like reddit and 4chan, are going to be hot topics for at least a few weeks. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see how flagged revisions would help—it will keep ephemeral nonsense off the pages, but the problem is that there are a significant number of active editors who will argue forever that GamerGate must be kept to give the world a lovingly documented list of allegations against two BLP individuals. There needs to be some discretionary sanctions (like WP:MRMPS) so normal procedures are not disrupted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        I think discretionary sanctions are (already) available, under the auspices of WP:NEWBLPBAN, if there are admins willing to make judicious use of them. -sche (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        • Correct, and as a starting point I've placed the BLP/DS notices on this article, as well as Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest and GamerGate. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

          • Dreadstar had been active in taking on the disruption, but it seems they're on a break right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is now being hit as well. I'd support flagged revisions at both articles - it won't solve all the problems, but it will help us out on some of the minor ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that there is a push by outside groups to "fix" WP's coverage of the various articles above, so anything that will help in the near future with BLP and other types of disruption would be appreciated even if we have to use 1RR prevention on these. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Or just lock them all entirely on WP:THEWRONGVERSION (making sure they're BLP compliant, of course) until this particular teapot's tempest stops whistling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is a reasonable step, though in the specific cases of some articles, I would even go beyond BLP and remove things that are leading to this offsite push to change the articles due to percieved bias; specifically removing some statements (even those sourced) of opinion on the matters.--MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations after final warning

InfoDataMonger appears to persist in violating our copyright policy after a final warning. Dade William Moeller was listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2014-08-26; after finding copyright infringement there I looked at other contributions by InfoDataMonger, and immediately found problems at Eleanor J. MacDonald. The user's talk page already has numerous warnings from Voceditenore; User talk:InfoDataMonger#Copyright problems identifies a number of problem articles, and is followed by a final warning on 28 June 2014. I request that this editor's editing privileges be suspended until this is fully clarified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is very disappointing. InfoDataMonger is contributing articles on valuable topics here, but his continued copyright violation must be stopped. I attempted to work with this editor back in June and explained in some detail how to avoid his hitherto extensive copyvio and plagiarism. I accepted his explanation that editing WP was a steep learning curve (true!) and assumed he would take my advice and warnings on board. At the time, I asked him to go back over his remaining articles and remove any copyvio (I had already repaired 9 of them). Not only does he appear not to have done so, he has gone on to create yet more problematic articles. I was away all of August and had stopped following his contributions. Unless he voluntarily agrees to stop creating new articles or adding substantially to existing ones, at least until the CCI is complete, an indefinite block may be the only answer. I know from personal experience how incredibly time-consuming it is to find copyvio and repair it. We cannot allow him to continue consuming the time of multiple editors like this, not to mention causing potential legal problems for WP. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Recycling to note that I have blocked this editor indefinitely. MER-C 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry on Weekly Shōnen Jump

After the article on the manga magazine Weekly Shōnen Jump came off semi-protection, the socks of Cow cleaner 5000‎ have return to adding information from fake sources about the magazine is a terrorist organization and was banned from multiple countries. I've reopened an SPI case, but one of the sockpuppets renominated the article for deletion again (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekly Shōnen Jump (2nd nomination)). Requesting immediate action on the AfD and expediting the SPI case. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AFD, I'll let a checkuser handle the SPI. --Jayron32 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Amharic language / Til Eulenspiegel

• Amharic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)
• Beetstra (talk · contribs)

(Links above added by --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

I have yesterday, after examining a list of external links on Amharic language removed 7 of them as inappropriate per our external links guideline. I will be upfront, if I get proper rebuttal why the removal is wrong, then I am very willing to consider reinsertion (of all, or some). That edit was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel without policy based commentary, but with the reason that removal should be discussed. I re-reverted as I still believe these links were inappropriate, and was promptly re-reverted by Til Eulenspiegel. The links were then removed by another party (user:Yngvadottir), and a discussion was started on the talkpage (I maybe should have done that myself, but I did not feel the burden is on me to defend policy/guideline based removal, the insertion of the links should be defended, per WP:EL), re-reverted by Til Eulenspiegel and removed again by User:Ronz. Some of the links were re-added again by User:Pete unseth, but also re-removed as inappropriate. In the meantime, I did start a more general discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Learning_a_language, as I feel that these links are inappropriate on more pages (in fact, I have removed links since on other places as well).

The responses on the talkpage by User:Til Eulenspiegel have been plainly hostile, aiming more at me than at content, policy and/or guideline arguments (in fact, I have not seen any policy or guideline based reason for inclusion from him), so I am bringing the whole situation for review:

• "I was going to say someone does not seem too familiar with the Amharic language since anyone who is knows that a distinction is scarcely drawn between "Amharic literature" and "Christian literature" -- but nothing like that view from the armchair on another continent when you are crusading against the fact of what people believe"
• "It sounds like you have a special hostility to linking the Amharic language Bible here or making it available, which just makes me sad for you." - I removed 7 links, only one relating to the bible and one relating to Christianity. Where does this come from.
• "... I oppose your ill-informed reasoning to delete them, and suggest you find something else to do."
• "... This is the centerpiece of Amharic, if you dont like that fact that is your problem, that is your problem."
• "... Beetsra insists on showing of his literacy skills by continuing to write "bible" for "Bible" ...
• "... demonstrate your contempt ... " & "... your hatred for Christianity ..."

I'd like to have a review of my actions, and of the actions of User:Til Eulenspiegel in response to them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to raise a complaint against User:Beetstra here myself. It is beyond the point of absurd to have to explain to someone how a medical dictionary in English and another language is useful to researchers of the language, or how hearing a book read out loud in the language is useful to students of the language, as well as language courses. This user is single-handedly going willy nilly into a lot of languages he does not know or care about, and is enforcing his own interpretations by deleting such useful links, to the point of creating edit wars, and that should not go over too well.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Beetstra is HERE to goad other users, he then carefully cherry picks their responses to report them here and cause more disturbance Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Beetstra is in the right policy-wise; this first arose in connection with World Mentoring Academy, which was being spammed to a number of pages on languages; see this discussion at WikiProject Spam, which I linked when I opened the talk page section. The larger context is that we have a policy against including a list of language-learning resources, as we do against any other type of directory. There is surely an article on Amharic literature where some of these links would find a better home? That said, I did not participate further in the discussion because I trusted, perhaps naively, that editors would come to a consensus through reasoned discussion on whether to reinsert any of the links, rather than returning to having anything in there that includes Amharic, which appears to have become the de facto criterion at many of our articles on languages. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would write a policy against including language learning resources (even medical bilingual dictionaries for lesser known languages or harder to find vocabulary for) on language articles which are obviously of the greatest use for learners and researchers of a language? This seems misguided to put it mildly, and I have never seen that enforced on language articles before (since virtually all of them already include such links). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and cannot be. We cannot be responsible for vetting language-learning resources, making sure they are not scams, so we should not imply endorsement by listing them. We also cannot hope to provide an adequately complete list. Plus there will be accessibility/worldwide coverage problems. And finally of course the promotional aspect (regardless of whether it's for-profit or not). Our policy on external links is precisely to avoid directories for all these reasons. Particular links should be discussed on the merits: for less studied languages and where we don't have appropriate articles on the literary heritage, there may be a better case for inclusion, as has been suggested for the Amharic Bible, but it still seems better to me to put such things in articles on the literature itself, even if such articles have to be started to do so. The fact that many language articles evidently have violated policy in this respect is not an argument for ignoring the policy; External links sections are notoriously prone to filling up with excess stuff. When this arose with a particular MOOC provider, it shone a light on the problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I asked "who" would write such a "policy" - clearly it wasn't done with the wide consultation of any language editors, but by someone "behind he scenes" and I'm specifically asking "who" and "how" this became a "policy" to frustrate linguistic study and research on wikipedia. Even ancient extinct languages and languages that have never been spoken have learning resources (not pay of course - we're talking about audio samples of books read in the language to show researchers what it sound like, medical dictionaries and the like.) You will never be able to selectively enforce this shortsighted and senseless, bogus "policy" picking Amharic to start out with. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Beestra on removing the links. It was too much, too excessive. Yes, Wikipedia should be able to demonstrate a language, but it should not be used to advertise language schools. Further , Til Eulenspiegel should be blocked or TBanned due to his incivility, battleground mentatility and general making a nuisance of himself. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I speak, read, write and teach fluent Amharic and what we see here are people with zero knowledge about the language whatsoever and don't care either, throwing their weight around with nonsensical "rules" and threatening one of those who knows something. Once again - and what makes this all really harebrained - is that nobody is arguing for "language schools" or any pay services. We are explicitly talking about a medical dictionary and an audio sample of a prominent book read in Amharic. Whatever your personal issues toward the topic really are here, blocking interested researchers' access to these materials appears purely philistine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat of Amhari wikipedia I am on the wmf African languages list where we have been engaged in quite a lot of discussion on the need to improve translation of medical articles in African languages with the Ebola crisis. Such resources are invaluable to translators who are looking for this information, but somebody puts rules and lulz and ausing disruption ahead of common sense. I am currently drafting a letter to the wmf list to advise them of the block-threatening and backwards attitude problem toward African languages I have encountered numerous times with certain editors on ENGLISH wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternately, you could consider working to influence the policy(s) that you find constricting. Tiderolls 17:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Still haven't found out an answer to who would write such a "policy" and by what process that didn't involve language article editors? And what is it now suddenly being enforced highly selectively to remove resources that are only useful to further research into certain languages ? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for all observing this thread, but your questions presuppose facts and conditions to which I take exception. Tiderolls 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no denying that language resources that assist scholars trying to find further information such as audio recordings, specialist dictionaries etc. have always been welcome on language articles until now, now we see for the first time they are being forcefully stripped from Amharic in a very ugly fashion, and I wish to know why, and demand to know WHO authored such "policy" and by what process. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given Til Eulenspiegel's history, he should know better regarding the relevant policies/guidelines regarding external links, but most importantly certainly does know that edit-warring and such disruptive interactions with others will only lead to another block. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited that article in over 24 hours, I am now preparing to advise the wmf African languages project list of the atmosphere here Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone misbehaving in a school in Orlando is Wiki Vandalizer.

I have something to say. Someone from Freedom High School in Orlando, Florida is misbehaving on Wikipedia and putting posts that are related to ISIS, a terrorist group in Syria. This is Azalea Middle School from St. Petersburg, Florida and they have been vandalizing articles like WXXL, the local radio station in Orlando. I believe he is not good, and has gotten into trouble in the school as he put up this message on his talk page info box:

"I get it <censored> like a bad back. <censored> talking she the queen, when she looking like a lab rat I'm Angelina, you Jennifer Come on <censored>, you see where Brad at Ice my wrists and I <censored> on <censored> You can <censored> if you take this <censored> You don't like them <censored>, give my <censored>. Yeah they know what this is, giving this the business Cause I pull up and I'm stuntin' but I ain't a stuntman Yes I'm rockin' Jordans but I ain't a jumpman. <censored> play the back cause they know I'm the front man Put me on the dollar cause I'm who they trust in Ayo SB, what's the <censored> good? We ship platinum, them <censored> are shipping wood. Them <censored> hoes but my kitchen good I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish A <censored> would. - 168.184.14.9.

Note to this this is not from us, this is from the person that seems to misbehave. He has vandalized some pages with the ISIS leader, but we are going for USA :)!! We agree with 50.9.114.198 and he is right that he is a vandalizer. He should be stopped. Thanks, 168.213.7.78 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. 70.27.98.190 from Toronto, Ontario, Canada has vandalized WZJZ and hasn't replied to 50.9.114.198 as of right now.

Thank you. I've blocked the IP address for six months. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, 70.27.98.190, despite only editing 1 page, he vandalized WZJZ, and 50.9.114.198, well he is innocent and dosen't vandalize at all and he is peaceful ;). Nyttend, you should talk to this 70.27.98.190 person that is from Canada. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.7.78 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we usually warn people four times using the templates here before we block them, unless it's someone blatantly here to cause trouble. Used to be, if an IP caused enough trouble and had been blocked numerous times we'd take them to WP:ABUSE and notify the organization responsible for the IP address (be it a school, an employer, an internet service provider, etc), but that project has been dormant for quite some time. Hope that helps. What you're doing is very much appreciated, and as I said on your user page, I hope you will create an account and keep up the good work. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To the original IP; this is minor and very silly school IP vandalism, and posting the lyrics to Nicki Minaj's "Stupid H**" or making a claim that they lead the group isn't related to ISIS (though putting their real name in is either proxy bullying or at worst, very, very stupid vandalism). I'll remove the lyrics as a copyright violation, but in the grand scheme of things, this is downright innocent compared to vandalism we see any day, and a simple request to WP:ANI should be used to request action on IP vandalism. As for the Toronto IP, that was months ago; we're not going to do anything about a piece of drive-by vandalism from that long ago. Just say 'this is vandalism' next time and don't make aspersions that they're terrorist recruiters, please. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)